SMALLER FIELDS AND /ORMORE PRIZE MONEY OTHERWISE JUST A WASTE OF TIME!LIMIT TO FIRST COME FURST SERVED AND WHY NO AFTERNOON FREEEROLLL ANYMORE??? that was the comment regarding above Posted by EDKENT123
I could tell you where you can do freerolls allday long....but i wpnt as sky might corked me! On 1 site, i have built up $46:50... big deal you might say ....but better than the miserable £0:14 on this stingy site! Been on both site about the same time! Afternoon freerolls, ya asking to much lol..I mean my god...thats like oliver twist, saying ...Sir ...i want some more! ...
You were stating about the amount of prize, you wanted a bigger prize pool or limit the players to achieve a bigger cash out, im simple asking about having different prizes compeltely insted of the £250/500.
Completely different statements
On the subject of your thread, you have to remember the sky provide freerolls as a added extra, go to some of the other sites and on some of there freerolls ive seen 30000+ taking part in a freeroll..
Sky ave prob around the 1000 mark, so doing the maths i would say that you have a better chance of cashing out on sky....
thats your opinion i guess, take your small talk elsewhere, if you have nothing constructive to say dont say anything! Posted by EDKENT123
In fairness you did have a pop on his thread because he wanted to change the freerolls so there is def a bit of pot - kettle and black about this thread.
He wanted higher payouts or less runners (which is an opinion expressed by tons of people on here as they don't play the freerolls as they are just a shove fest).
He never said he wanted sky to spend more money, just make the freerolls more competitive by limiting the field, or more worthwhile by increasing the prize fund available per freeroll (which could be done by having fewer freerolls for a better prize fund).
You also want a change to the payment structure so they are almost identical requests other than you want worthwhile tourneys and he wants worthwhile money.
I'd be happy with either but to have a go at someone on one thread about asking for freeroll changes and then starting your own thread to alter them is a bit nonsensical
In Response to Re: FREEROLL CHANGES : In fairness you did have a pop on his thread because he wanted to change the freerolls so there is def a bit of pot - kettle and black about this thread. He wanted higher payouts or less runners (which is an opinion expressed by tons of people on here as they don't play the freerolls as they are just a shove fest). He never said he wanted sky to spend more money, just make the freerolls more competitive by limiting the field, or more worthwhile by increasing the prize fund available per freeroll (which could be done by having fewer freerolls for a better prize fund). You also want a change to the payment structure so they are almost identical requests other than you want worthwhile tourneys and he wants worthwhile money. I'd be happy with either but to have a go at someone on one thread about asking for freeroll changes and then starting your own thread to alter them is a bit nonsensical Posted by ACESOVER8s
Im just asking every one's opinion of having different prizes, could have a few freerolls running through out the day then..... his statement was either a bigger prize which as a result means sky puts in a bigger pot (spends more money) or limits the field, why should the field have a limit. there is already a max of 2000 (normally i think)
Im not asking for a bigger or smaller pot, just the chance to pick what type of prize i would like to take part in,
What would you rather play for "top 200 get paid" or top 10 get entry in to say the open, you would then have a difference in the amount of players taking part in the different freerolls, as not everyone would want to take part in the "open" freeroll as im sure alot of the better/bigger players would enter to try and save the buy-in fee....
To make this easier, the subjects are the same but in different context's, he wants bigger prize fund or limit the field.... i was asking about freerolls with a different prize, does that help you both
I would really like this idea, Great idea EDKENT123, isnt the average 1st prize around the £20 mark ? now thats a seat into a primo i like the sound of that, perhaps someone should set up one of those voting things on the forum.
Hi guys, im afraid i have had to delete a few posts on this thread as they break our house rules and we do not tolerate personal attacks or abusive behavior to other forum members.
Im just asking every one's opinion of having different prizes, could have a few freerolls running through out the day then..... his statement was either a bigger prize which as a result means sky puts in a bigger pot (spends more money) or limits the field, why should the field have a limit. there is already a max of 2000 (normally i think) Im not asking for a bigger or smaller pot, just the chance to pick what type of prize i would like to take part in, What would you rather play for "top 200 get paid" or top 10 get entry in to say the open, you would then have a difference in the amount of players taking part in the different freerolls, as not everyone would want to take part in the "open" freeroll as im sure alot of the better/bigger players would enter to try and save the buy-in fee.... Posted by EDKENT123
Highlighted Point:- No, it doesn't mean spending more money, as previously explained there is a way to do that on the same marketing spend as now. ( i'm not saying thats the right thing to do, just that it's possible). your putting words into his mouth now that he never said
In reply to the rest, i agree. I like your idea and i beleive i said so when the thread was first put up (haven't gone back to the start of this thread but i seem to remember comenting). I'm not saying you shouldn't request this as i think it would be great. What i am saying is it's hypocrytical to suggest it after adversly commenting on somebody else's thread along a VERY similar line, and then try and defend it when that person takes offence at it by pointing out minor difs between the 2 ideas.
Your kinda both on the same side of the fence on this one so it's one of those situations where you should just put your hands up and say "sorry for that, i've thought about it and do want a change to the freerolls"
i dont like the pay out structures in the freerolls i belive sky should pay out less places hence giving a bigger pay out to say top 20-30. to be honest what good is 16p or 25p. just athought.
Christ ive started a war lol, we agree to disagree, im certainly not saying sorry. Im not saying im right im not saying im wrong.
SMALLER FIELDS AND /ORMORE PRIZE MONEY OTHERWISE JUST A WASTE OF TIME!LIMIT TO FIRST COME FURST SERVED AND WHY NO AFTERNOON FREEEROLLL ANYMORE??? (original thread)
my response
look at the name "FREEROLL", sky doesnt have to give them to us, they are not a right.....
im not knocking the guy, at all, his statement just seems a moan (and before you start on that one yes i do moan aswell)
im just suggesting away to make the freerolls maybe alittle better, and perhaps change them from a "all-in bloodfest" to actual poker.
Some players might take them more seriously that way
and I agree, i'd love to play for bigger tourny seats as i can't keep my interest in the normal freerolls due to thousands or runners and low prizes. I like both ideas and ANYTHING i can do to get rid of these poker points is a blessing.
If the put a nice £1000 or £1500 freeroll on and charge 1500 poker points to enter it then you would get less runners and more money per tourny held. and again with your idea you would get 45 seats in the open for a £500 freeroll. However i still think your off a little on the limiting side of the argument because unless you push up the point buy in then you get 2000 people chasing 45 seats (not really a good thing as skill can not neutralise the variance in field that big of a shove fest)
im all for increasing the buy in for the freerolls, and to be honest i would never get the points to enter a 1000 points game (think i average a few 100 points per month as i play lower stake dym). but a very good point.
It would def split the field up..
sky could then run various game through out the day, which in turn would decrease the amount of points held by account holders. thus i presume limiting the amount they pay back on "cash back day" (dont quote me on that as im not 100% sure how that bit works).
In a nut shell im just suggesting a few ways to change the prizes on the games, like you say "a ton of people say the same"
Sky could also end up with more players in the big games in the long run, as some of the players who "won" entry might decide to pay next time
Comments
BUT THEN IM A FREEROLLER ANY...SO WHY SHOULD SKY POKER DO ME A FAVOUR !
Thats why sky is offshore, they can get away with the "trade descriptions act" Free sky, means FREE does it not!
You were stating about the amount of prize, you wanted a bigger prize pool or limit the players to achieve a bigger cash out, im simple asking about having different prizes compeltely insted of the £250/500.
Completely different statements
On the subject of your thread, you have to remember the sky provide freerolls as a added extra, go to some of the other sites and on some of there freerolls ive seen 30000+ taking part in a freeroll..
Sky ave prob around the 1000 mark, so doing the maths i would say that you have a better chance of cashing out on sky....
He wanted higher payouts or less runners (which is an opinion expressed by tons of people on here as they don't play the freerolls as they are just a shove fest).
He never said he wanted sky to spend more money, just make the freerolls more competitive by limiting the field, or more worthwhile by increasing the prize fund available per freeroll (which could be done by having fewer freerolls for a better prize fund).
You also want a change to the payment structure so they are almost identical requests other than you want worthwhile tourneys and he wants worthwhile money.
I'd be happy with either but to have a go at someone on one thread about asking for freeroll changes and then starting your own thread to alter them is a bit nonsensical
Im just asking every one's opinion of having different prizes, could have a few freerolls running through out the day then..... his statement was either a bigger prize which as a result means sky puts in a bigger pot (spends more money) or limits the field, why should the field have a limit. there is already a max of 2000 (normally i think)
Im not asking for a bigger or smaller pot, just the chance to pick what type of prize i would like to take part in,
What would you rather play for "top 200 get paid" or top 10 get entry in to say the open, you would then have a difference in the amount of players taking part in the different freerolls, as not everyone would want to take part in the "open" freeroll as im sure alot of the better/bigger players would enter to try and save the buy-in fee....
Thanks for understanding
Rich
In reply to the rest, i agree. I like your idea and i beleive i said so when the thread was first put up (haven't gone back to the start of this thread but i seem to remember comenting). I'm not saying you shouldn't request this as i think it would be great. What i am saying is it's hypocrytical to suggest it after adversly commenting on somebody else's thread along a VERY similar line, and then try and defend it when that person takes offence at it by pointing out minor difs between the 2 ideas.
Your kinda both on the same side of the fence on this one so it's one of those situations where you should just put your hands up and say "sorry for that, i've thought about it and do want a change to the freerolls"
Christ ive started a war lol, we agree to disagree, im certainly not saying sorry. Im not saying im right im not saying im wrong.
SMALLER FIELDS AND /ORMORE PRIZE MONEY OTHERWISE JUST A WASTE OF TIME!LIMIT TO FIRST COME FURST SERVED AND WHY NO AFTERNOON FREEEROLLL ANYMORE??? (original thread)
my response
look at the name "FREEROLL", sky doesnt have to give them to us, they are not a right.....
im not knocking the guy, at all, his statement just seems a moan (and before you start on that one yes i do moan aswell)
im just suggesting away to make the freerolls maybe alittle better, and perhaps change them from a "all-in bloodfest" to actual poker.
Some players might take them more seriously that way
If the put a nice £1000 or £1500 freeroll on and charge 1500 poker points to enter it then you would get less runners and more money per tourny held. and again with your idea you would get 45 seats in the open for a £500 freeroll. However i still think your off a little on the limiting side of the argument because unless you push up the point buy in then you get 2000 people chasing 45 seats (not really a good thing as skill can not neutralise the variance in field that big of a shove fest)
It would def split the field up..
sky could then run various game through out the day, which in turn would decrease the amount of points held by account holders. thus i presume limiting the amount they pay back on "cash back day" (dont quote me on that as im not 100% sure how that bit works).
In a nut shell im just suggesting a few ways to change the prizes on the games, like you say "a ton of people say the same"
Sky could also end up with more players in the big games in the long run, as some of the players who "won" entry might decide to pay next time