Please re evaluate satellite format!!

pr1nnyraid

Hello,

This is just a quick note to sky, I think their satellite structure needs looking at, particularly for the SPT GF..

1 in 10 is okay when there are enough runners in a satellite and therefore more play before the bubble..

eg 400 runners, top 40 win a seat.

HOWEVER these satellites never get more than 30 ish runners so it's 3 seats from 30. Even though it is effectively the same format (10% win a seat), it is actually alot harder to qualify in smaller fields.
 
1 in 5 or even 1 in 7 would suit the smaller field sizes that sky seem to get. It would be good to see something done.

Lambert180

I agree and I've already suggested something on one of the other threads... The buy-in is £300 + rake

So I think it would be far far better to have something along the lines of

£60 (+rake) Semi - 1in5 get a seat
£12 (+rake) Quarter - 1in5 get into Semi
£2.40 (+rake) - 1in5 get into Quarters.   (ditch the frenzies)

This suits alot more people, I think the bigger BR player's would happily play the Semi with a 1in5 into a £330 buy-in.

It encourages more people to play the quarters, because as it is, I and many others are reluctant to play too many £8 quarters when we know that it is gonna be ridiculously hard to get through the 1in10 Semi.

Suits all bankrolls, you can get in for £2.40 and with it being 1in5 at each stage, it's not that unbelievable it could be done for £2.40. I also think it would increase the number of people satelliting (because so many people are put off by the 1in10s), there were so many seats left for direct buy-in at Blackpool because there were simply not enough people willing to play a £24 game for 1in10, and I assume the GF is gonna want even more runners.

pr1nnyraid

Yep, would be better for players.

Even if sky were just to run a £66+6, 1 in 5 weekly, on a sunday with feeders on the sat & sunday into it that would be an improvement. It's daunting to players investing £33+3 with a 90% chance of busting with no seat.

BorinLoner

In Response to Re: Please re evaluate satellite format!!:

I agree and I've already suggested something on one of the other threads... The buy-in is £300 + rake So I think it would be far far better to have something along the lines of

£60 (+rake) Semi - 1in5 get a seat (This would need to be £66 + rake to make it 1/5 for £330. (Presumably £72))
£12 (+rake) Quarter - 1in5 get into Semi (£13.20 + rake. (14.50))
£2.40 (+rake) - 1in5 get into Quarters. (£2.90 + rake. (£3.30 maybe))  (ditch the frenzies)

Posted by Lambert180

I've had my say on this sort of thing before and knew as soon as I saw the format that people would complain about these sats. Just a note to say that on those occasions that there are 400 runnrs for 40 seats, the format would be no easier than a 30 runner, 3 seat satellite. The general difference is that in a field of 400 runners, there are many more poor players than in a field of 30 runners who've all paid or satellited into a £72 game.

I think the bottom line is that, whatever the structure of the satellites, it's going to be tough to qualify cheaply for a £330 tournament. If you've only got a fiver to try, it won't be any easier to play through several 1/5 sats than it would be to play through fewer 1/10 sats. It's a bit of an illusion on that front.

I actually support the 1/10 format here, mainly because £72 is alot of money. I doubt I'll be trying to qualify anyway but if I did, I would prefer the current set-up. My two pennies.

Lambert180

I do respect alot of what you say Borin, and I do see where you're coming from but you've pointed out the exact reason why it's harder.

Maybe you could argue I'm just looking for a free ride, bt in a 200 runner tourney, with 20 seats, you are gonna get alot more bad players and I would (personally) fancy my chances of getting a seat in that alot more than 20 runners with 2 seats.

Also the idea that getting through 2x 1in5 sats is the same as getting through 1x 1in10 is a bit flawed. If it was like the survivor for instance, were 1in2 get a seat, I'd fancy myself to be able to get a seat a VERY high percentage of the time, and I think my results would be alot better than 3times as good as if it was 1in6.

As the OP suggested, they don't even necessarily need to change ll the sats to this structure, maybe just run the ones they've already got up but just once a week do a 1in5 Semi with feeders into it.

BorinLoner

I do quite like the idea of a weekly 1/5 semi, though. In addition to the daily 1/10's.

BorinLoner

In Response to Re: Please re evaluate satellite format!!:

I do respect alot of what you say Borin, and I do see where you're coming from but you've pointed out the exact reason why it's harder. Maybe you could argue I'm just looking for a free ride, bt in a 200 runner tourney, with 20 seats, you are gonna get alot more bad players and I would (personally) fancy my chances of getting a seat in that alot more than 20 runners with 2 seats. Also the idea that getting through 2x 1in5 sats is the same as getting through 1x 1in10 is a bit flawed. If it was like the survivor for instance, were 1in2 get a seat, I'd fancy myself to be able to get a seat a VERY high percentage of the time, and I think my results would be alot better than 3times as good as if it was 1in6. As the OP suggested, they don't even necessarily need to change ll the sats to this structure, maybe just run the ones they've already got up but just once a week do a 1in5 Semi with feeders into it.
Posted by Lambert180

Going by the numbers it's exactly the same chance. I do think it's more of a psychological thing that makes us feel as though it would be easier if they were all 1/5, to be honest. Even with the 1/5's, you'd expect all the poorer micro buy-in players to be rooted out before the semi, leaving only the good micros and the bigger buy-in players.

Yes, I think that weekly 1/5 idea is something to consider, though I have no idea how practical that would be for sky.

pr1nnyraid

In Response to Re: Please re evaluate satellite format!!:

In Response to Re: Please re evaluate satellite format!! :  Just a note to say that on those occasions that there are 400 runnrs for 40 seats, the format would be no easier than a 30 runner, 3 seat satellite. The general difference is that in a field of 400 runners, there are many more poor players than in a field of 30 runners who've all paid or satellited into a £72 game. I think the bottom line is that, whatever the structure of the satellites, it's going to be tough to qualify cheaply for a £330 tournament. If you've only got a fiver to try, it won't be any easier to play through several 1/5 sats than it would be to play through fewer 1/10 sats. It's a bit of an illusion on that front. I actually support the 1/10 format here, mainly because £72 is alot of money. I doubt I'll be trying to qualify anyway but if I did, I would prefer the current set-up. My two pennies.
Posted by BorinLoner

I was writing from the perspective of having an edge over the field.. a player with an edge would be better suited to bigger field sattelites as there is more play in the earlier levels.. But you are right in an even field there is no dif..
It's all about variance imo, I'm not trying to qualify "cheaply", i'm trying to limit variance, there is less variance in a 1 in 5 satellite when you have an edge than a 1 in 10. If they let you buy in direct i wouldnt be making this point.   

BorinLoner

In Response to Re: Please re evaluate satellite format!!:

In Response to Re: Please re evaluate satellite format!! : I was writing from the perspective of having an edge over the field.. a player with an edge would be better suited to bigger field sattelites as there is more play in the earlier levels.. But you are right in an even field there is no dif.. It's all about variance imo, I'm not trying to qualify "cheaply", i'm trying to limit variance, there is less variance in a 1 in 5 satellite when you have an edge than a 1 in 10. If they let you buy in direct i wouldnt be making this point.   
Posted by pr1nnyraid

Yeah, if you could afford to buy straight into two or three £72 buy-ins that would be better for you. You'd almost certainly save a few quid on the buy-in...

I wouldn't really want to do that. If I was trying to sat into this I'd probably say that I'd want to do it for 10% of the buy-in, so would be looking to get in from the bottom. From that perspective the format makes no difference.

MAXALLY

In Response to Re: Please re evaluate satellite format!!:

In Response to Re: Please re evaluate satellite format!! : Going by the numbers it's exactly the same chance. I do think it's more of a psychological thing that makes us feel as though it would be easier if they were all 1/5, to be honest. Even with the 1/5's, you'd expect all the poorer micro buy-in players to be rooted out before the semi, leaving only the good micros and the bigger buy-in players. Yes, I think that weekly 1/5 idea is something to consider, though I have no idea how practical that would be for sky.
Posted by BorinLoner

Been reading this thread with interest. I will just have to pick you up on this point though. I feel strongly about the notion that all the better players are those with a bigger BR. I disagree with this totally and you can have 'poor' players at higher levels who are losing more % wise than some players at micro levels who just are recreational players but who are still in profit.

I read somewhere the other day which confirmed my beliefs. A player who constantly made the top 150 in the League 'stars' was like minus 15k or something like that! 

FWIW, I agree that it would be advantageous for everyone to have a better tier system to allow players of all BR sizes to attempt to obtain a seat to the Grand Final.

Woogie8688

In Response to Re: Please re evaluate satellite format!!:

In Response to Re: Please re evaluate satellite format!! : Been reading this thread with interest. I will just have to pick you up on this point though. I feel strongly about the notion that all the better players are those with a bigger BR. I disagree with this totally and you can have 'poor' players at higher levels who are losing more % wise than some players at micro levels who just are recreational players but who are still in profit. I read somewhere the other day which confirmed my beliefs. A player who constantly made the top 150 in the League 'stars' was like minus 15k or something like that!  FWIW, I agree that it would be advantageous for everyone to have a better tier system to allow players of all BR sizes to attempt to obtain a seat to the Grand Final.
Posted by MAXALLY

+1 

A better tier system will induce more players to try and obtain a seat via satellites regardless of bankroll

oynutter

In Response to Re: Please re evaluate satellite format!!:

In Response to Re: Please re evaluate satellite format!! : Been reading this thread with interest. I will just have to pick you up on this point though. I feel strongly about the notion that all the better players are those with a bigger BR. I disagree with this totally and you can have 'poor' players at higher levels who are losing more % wise than some players at micro levels who just are recreational players but who are still in profit. I read somewhere the other day which confirmed my beliefs. A player who constantly made the top 150 in the League 'stars' was like minus 15k or something like that!  FWIW, I agree that it would be advantageous for everyone to have a better tier system to allow players of all BR sizes to attempt to obtain a seat to the Grand Final.
Posted by MAXALLY

Well said Max, and shame on sky poker for pressing thier "ignore Maxally" button!!

BorinLoner

I didn't say that the higher stakes players are automatically good. If they were, nobody at that level would make any money. The point is that all the weak micro-stakes players will be gone and the good ones would only be in there with bigger stakes players. It makes no assumption about the ability of those higher stakes players.

EvilPingu

How about a satellite like the one that Samantha25 qualified for the VLV Final through, where it's a really cheap buy-in and big field, first place gets a seat.

Have a buy-in which is affordable for everyone, 1st place gets an SPT seat, 2nd - 6th get a seat into the £36 satellite.

That's £510 worth of seats, so cap it at 100 runners and make it £5.10 + £0.50 to enter, and it guarantees someone a seat for a fiver

Thoughts?

Lambert180

In Response to Re: Please re evaluate satellite format!!:

How about a satellite like the one that Samantha25 qualified for the VLV Final through, where it's a really cheap buy-in and big field, first place gets a seat. Have a buy-in which is affordable for everyone, 1st place gets an SPT seat, 2nd - 6th get a seat into the £36 satellite. That's £510 worth of seats, so cap it at 100 runners and make it £5.10 + £0.50 to enter, and it guarantees someone a seat for a fiver Thoughts?
Posted by EvilPingu

+1

It's a great idea for all involved, including Sky.

pr1nnyraid

I'd welcome that

BorinLoner

For defending 1/10 I have all manner of people wanting to come back at me, then EvilPingu comes along and says "How about 1/100?" and everyone loves it!? :P

It's a good idea, though.

pr1nnyraid

In Response to Re: Please re evaluate satellite format!!:

For defending 1/10 I have all manner of people wanting to come back at me, then EvilPingu comes along and says "How about 1/100?" and everyone loves it!? :P It's a good idea, though.
Posted by BorinLoner

haha wp

TRIP5

HUGE 

+1 

for 1 in 5 sats!!!

This was also raised for SPT Blackpool.. far too many people were forced to buy in direct after loosing huge amounts of money trying to qualify via the 1:10 route.. 

xx

waller02

In Response to Re: Please re evaluate satellite format!!:

I agree and I've already suggested something on one of the other threads... The buy-in is £300 + rake So I think it would be far far better to have something along the lines of £60 (+rake) Semi - 1in5 get a seat £12 (+rake) Quarter - 1in5 get into Semi £2.40 (+rake) - 1in5 get into Quarters.   (ditch the frenzies) This suits alot more people, I think the bigger BR player's would happily play the Semi with a 1in5 into a £330 buy-in. It encourages more people to play the quarters, because as it is, I and many others are reluctant to play too many £8 quarters when we know that it is gonna be ridiculously hard to get through the 1in10 Semi. Suits all bankrolls, you can get in for £2.40 and with it being 1in5 at each stage, it's not that unbelievable it could be done for £2.40. I also think it would increase the number of people satelliting (because so many people are put off by the 1in10s), there were so many seats left for direct buy-in at Blackpool because there were simply not enough people willing to play a £24 game for 1in10, and I assume the GF is gonna want even more runners.
Posted by Lambert180

big +1

was quite dissapointed when i saw the satellite format

pr1nnyraid

FAO SKY

Any news on this? Even if just a courtesy reply to clarify that there is no chance of adjustment?