You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Why do big stacks always end up on the same table?
Slykllist
Member Posts: 2,888
I've noticed this happens quite alot, in the later stages of tournaments as players are moved tables / tables are broken, it always seems to happen that a large proportion of the bigger stacks end up on the same table rather than being evenly distributed amongst all the tables as you would expect.
Is it just me imgaining it / having selective memory or have others noticed this?
Is this likely to be connected to how the software selects the players to be moved when tables are broken?
Is it just me imgaining it / having selective memory or have others noticed this?
Is this likely to be connected to how the software selects the players to be moved when tables are broken?
Comments
Why would software be deliberately written to bring this about? I can't see it myself. Maybe those couple of occasions it's happened has been skewed in your mind towards the "its always happening " end of the probability spectrum....lol
Anyway mate, it's just more chips for you to accumulate. Cheers
I never suggested the software was deliberately written to bring this about, just asked if it could be related to how tables are broken which is a completely different thing.
This is in no way a Sky Poker is rigged type thread, that's not what I'm suggesting.
far as I'm concerned I've got to beat them all at some point so bring on the big stacks
In short, "no", or not that I am aware of.
Why would it?
Hi Sly
Never suggested you were. Just can't see how stack size would be a consideration when configuring tables...tat's all.
PS my virtual emoticon is showing a smiley face
It's a only an annoyance when you're shortstacked & grimly hanging on for a cash, on a table of shorty's who are folding a lot, then get stuck on a table with 4 or 5 bigstacks who just call you off and knock you out!!!
Never mind, these days I'm usually out by that stage anyway
rarther have bigs stacks on my table anyway = more chips to win
if you have a big stack you have to take another one at some point
yes, it happens up until it doesn't
I need to address several points in this thread. I'll start at the bottom - chronologically that is - & work up.
I'm afraid you assumed wrongly, as that would be perfectly improper.
It's the same as it is in Live Poker - chip stack size is NOT part of the Table Balancing criteria.
It often happens that the balancing does result in "lop-sided" Tables. There would be something amiss if it did not.
When I played that Vegas WSOP Event this year, with 12 left, I was on the "shorty" table. Not ONE player on my table had more than 17 x BB. (We were 6 handed). The other Table contained over 80% of the chips!
It just happens, but like bad beats, for some of us, they lodge in the memory more prominently than when we get lucky. The human mind is a peculiar thing.
Taking of which......I often see Posts bemoaning the fact that someone is drawn on a table of big Stacks, which puzzles me, just as complaning about "away" players always makes me go cross-eyed. Be assured, Billy Big Stack does NOT want to be on a table of shorties in a regular freezeout. But he just has to accept what happens. In a fast tournament, chances re he'll be moving again quite soon. It's just another challenge that poker sets us. It is not always a fair game.
Conventional poker wisdom is clear on this. Given the choice, (except, say, in Bounty Hunters in some cases) we SHOULD wish we were on the Table with the bigger stacks.
Stack size is not part of the table balancing criteria on any Oline Poker site anywhere, or not that I am aware of.
Hope that clears up any misunderstanding.
"making it fair" for the short stacks? Putting them, deliberately, on a table full of shorties would make it UNfair, not fair.
There is a forumala, but I don't know what it is, & to be honest, I have never thought to question it. Logic suggests it would make no sense so to do, & "messing" with the formula to show favour to either big or small stacks is just plain wrong. To what end would they do that? Why would the Site wish deliberately to favour OR penalise any player?
Luck plays a HUGE part in poker. We suck out, we get outdraws, we get a good player to our left (ugh) or to our right (happy days), we win races, or lose them, we get Tables with mountainous stacks, we get a table full of bowls. It is just how poker is, & is intended to be.
I'll try & find out what that forumala is, & let you know if I do, but the chances are, it will be all binary & gobbledegooky nonsense to me, so I doubt I'll be able to explain it coherently.
I hope that helps explain it. A bit.
How's Sunny Bridlington?
Relative to their starting stack, yes, relative to each other, no. They are presumably ranged either side of "average".
Relative to average, there wil be, roughly, & subject to normal deviation, as many above average as below average.
In last night's Sky Sports BH, for example, Billy Big Stack began the final with more chips than the other 5 players put together, so the average was skewed. He was "hitting cards", & one Gent wrote in & noted that there had been 5 outdraws in 6 hands, all, it would seem in his favour. He finished third, as Mrs Variance decided to pay a visit.
No, I never saw it as a "complaint" by either you or Simon, more as an "observation", but I thought it was worth trying to explain, albeit inadequately, simply because several Posts on the thread suggested players THOUGHT that it was done deliberately, to make it more or less "fair".
You are Dutch? Well I never......
If I find myself with other big stacks I look at it as a positive. For example yesterday in a £5.75 BH just after the bubble had gone my pocket 88 clashed with QJ on an 8JQ flop, obviously all the chips went in. In situations like that I'd much prefer my opponent to have me covered rather than the reverse, that way I'm great shape for a full double-up rather than win smaller boost to my stack. eg if I have 25K chips I want the QJ guy to have 25K+, I dont want him to have say 5K.
If you're the 5K short-stack at the table in that spot it makes no difference how big the others are, anything over 5K is effectively the same as that's the most you can win off anybody.
A couple of the weeks ago in the Sat night Mini BH I was 5th/125 at one point, yet only 3rd/5 at my table. It seemed highly unlikely at the time, but it didn't affect my chances at all, I went on the finish as runner-up.