Why not have a Main a Mini £5 and a MINIMINI at £3 and let the players choose on the night - and perhaps the jackpot could be won for winning any two of the three - just a thought
Still 50:50, but I do think you have made a quick decision to half implement the change. Most of the comments state good reasons for keeping the lower buy in, and although the votes are level that is hardly a mandate for change. I don't think reviewing after one week is going to prove anything either way, and even if the numbers are maintained on the higher buy-in days it does not take into account the long term disaffection that the change could cause. I do not think many people will be disaffected by maintaining the current buy in structure whereas the opposite is true if yoiu do put them up. One thing that does need changing imo is that the mini shd mirror the main - at the moment the Friday ME is a rebuy and the mini not (I realise this was originally down to Maxally indifference to rebuys but time to change methinks). The opposite is now true of Saturday, where the main is no longer a rebuy, but the mini still is. Posted by SoLack
I think Sky are like my local Council, ask for peoples opinion on a change they they have already decided to impliment anyway. They didn't even wait 24 hours before making the changes.
Spot on flying dragon I don't mind playing the minis (especially if my bank roll has taken a hammering lol) my wife like many players who is not a strong player but like's to play means the minis offer a great opportunity to play poker at a reasonable level in fact we play together in this to see who can last the longestst (she normally wins) poker is not just for the more serious player but also the casual ones that's why we play sky poker as at the moment sky give us this.
My input is not exactly unbiased, for obvious reasons, but....
We all have the option of saying nothing, of course, but it's the nature of things that we comment if we do NOT like, & don't comment if we do, because the latter is the default, the "normal".
So, just for the sake of debate, & because, the older I get, the more these things intrigue & fascinate me, here are two facts about this thread as of now.
Negative Posts (as in "no thanks, we do not like"), approx 20.
Positive Posts ("we like the idea of bigger buy-in") 2.
A few Posts don't count - those by Sky Poker, or Dave, for example.
So, give or take a few % points, 90% AGAINST bigger buy-ins. Pretty conclusive, you'd suggest.
Now look at the voting.
Currently, 27 voted for £3.30, & 33 voted for £5.50!
How do you explain that? And if you were the Business, how would you interpret that?
I have been lucky enough in the last month or so that i can now afford the higher £5.50 buyin and i did enjoy the UKOPS series. That said in my opinion the mini should be for everybody and i think that £3.30 gives more people the chance to play. I think it should be kept at £3.30 and boosted for special events such as the recent UKOPS.
EDIT: i also don't believe the guarentee effects many peoples descion to play as asfar as i am aware which ever guarentee has been set on the mini it regularly surpasses it. But in the intrest of those that it does effect if sky crunched the numbers do they think it would be possible to offer a £1500 guarentee on the mini at the £3.30 BI as it seems to be breaking this anyway more often than not.
Good morning. The thread , & feedback, is a bit lop-sided! My input is not exactly unbiased, for obvious reasons, but.... We all have the option of saying nothing, of course, but it's the nature of things that we comment if we do NOT like, & don't comment if we do, because the latter is the default, the "normal". So, just for the sake of debate, & because, the older I get, the more these things intrigue & fascinate me, here are two facts about this thread as of now. Negative Posts (as in "no thanks, we do not like"), approx 20. Positive Posts ("we like the idea of bigger buy-in") 2. A few Posts don't count - those by Sky Poker, or Dave, for example. So, give or take a few % points, 90% AGAINST bigger buy-ins. Pretty conclusive, you'd suggest. Now look at the voting. Currently, 27 voted for £3.30, & 33 voted for £5.50! How do you explain that? And if you were the Business, how would you interpret that? Interesting, 'innit?! Posted by Tikay10
Taking the first part, some people are worried about expressing a view which is contrary to that taken by a few of the long standing posters. While their shyness is understandable I feel it's misplaced. As I have stated from the outset I am against the change, however if someone expresses a contrary opinion and gets unfair treatment from another poster, reg or otherwise, I would defend that person's right to that opinion regardless if I agreed with it. Some people get shy and worried about people's opinion of them in spots like this. Not me though, double denim is still cool and Jammy Dodgers are the worst biscuits I have had the misfortune to purchase.
Now the second part. I don't think you can give equal weight to the votes as you can the post. Yes I know this argument leads to support for my point of view so feel free everyone to pick it apart. The point is a person who takes the time to post will clearly show if they have considered the question in a balanced way. Not all posts should have equal weight either of course, it's up to 'those who should' to weigh up all of the feedback. Now with the click button voting you don't always know if everyone has even read the question fully or has just seen, for instance, 'bigger buy ins, I like bigger buy ins, I'll click yes.' Obviously a decent amount of weight should go to the button votes but the smaller the sample size and the closer the vote, in my opinion the more 'those who should' should consider stronger the views expressed in the thread.
In Response to Re: Feedback please - Mini Mains : Taking the first part, some people are worried about expressing a view which is contrary to that taken by a few of the long standing posters. While their shyness is understandable I feel it's misplaced. As I have stated from the outset I am against the change, however if someone expresses a contrary opinion and gets unfair treatment from another poster, reg or otherwise, I would defend that person's right to that opinion regardless if I agreed with it. Some people get shy and worried about people's opinion of them in spots like this. Not me though, double denim is still cool and Jammy Dodgers are the worst biscuits I have had the misfortune to purchase. Now the second part. I don't think you can give equal weight to the votes as you can the post. Yes I know this argument leads to support for my point of view so feel free everyone to pick it apart. The point is a person who takes the time to post will clearly show if they have considered the question in a balanced way. Not all posts should have equal weight either of course, it's up to 'those who should' to weigh up all of the feedback. Now with the click button voting you don't always know if everyone has even read the question fully or has just seen, for instance, 'bigger buy ins, I like bigger buy ins, I'll click yes.' Obviously a decent amount of weight should go to the button votes but the smaller the sample size and the closer the vote, in my opinion the more 'those who should' should consider stronger the views expressed in the thread. Posted by TommyD
Tommy has clearly suffered a blow to the head, and as such his opinion should be considered invalid til such a time as he can see sense again
Good morning. The thread , & feedback, is a bit lop-sided! My input is not exactly unbiased, for obvious reasons, but.... We all have the option of saying nothing, of course, but it's the nature of things that we comment if we do NOT like, & don't comment if we do, because the latter is the default, the "normal". So, just for the sake of debate, & because, the older I get, the more these things intrigue & fascinate me, here are two facts about this thread as of now. Negative Posts (as in "no thanks, we do not like"), approx 20. Positive Posts ("we like the idea of bigger buy-in") 2. A few Posts don't count - those by Sky Poker, or Dave, for example. So, give or take a few % points, 90% AGAINST bigger buy-ins. Pretty conclusive, you'd suggest. Now look at the voting. Currently, 27 voted for £3.30, & 33 voted for £5.50! How do you explain that? And if you were the Business, how would you interpret that? Interesting, 'innit?! Posted by Tikay10
It is a challenge when voters dont explain their reasoning, maxally mentioned it in an earlier post. I have my own views as to why that is but will keep to them myself for a change lol
In Response to Re: Feedback please - Mini Mains : Taking the first part, some people are worried about expressing a view which is contrary to that taken by a few of the long standing posters. While their shyness is understandable I feel it's misplaced. As I have stated from the outset I am against the change, however if someone expresses a contrary opinion and gets unfair treatment from another poster, reg or otherwise, I would defend that person's right to that opinion regardless if I agreed with it. Some people get shy and worried about people's opinion of them in spots like this. Not me though, double denim is still cool and Jammy Dodgers are the worst biscuits I have had the misfortune to purchase. Now the second part. I don't think you can give equal weight to the votes as you can the post. Yes I know this argument leads to support for my point of view so feel free everyone to pick it apart. The point is a person who takes the time to post will clearly show if they have considered the question in a balanced way. Not all posts should have equal weight either of course, it's up to 'those who should' to weigh up all of the feedback. Now with the click button voting you don't always know if everyone has even read the question fully or has just seen, for instance, 'bigger buy ins, I like bigger buy ins, I'll click yes.' Obviously a decent amount of weight should go to the button votes but the smaller the sample size and the closer the vote, in my opinion the more 'those who should' should consider stronger the views expressed in the thread. Posted by TommyD
Hi Tommy,
I never suggested you, or anyone else, was wrong or right Tommy, I just pointed out what, in my personal opinion, was an imbalance, an oddity, which no one else had commented upon, & I had wanted - I live in hope of so many things! - would give better balance to the thread.
You briefly alluded - in not so many words - to peer pressure. As a Teacher, I'm sure you understand what a powerful force that it. We certainly cannot deny it exists.
I have been lucky enough in the last month or so that i can now afford the higher £5.50 buyin and i did enjoy the UKOPS series. That said in my opinion the mini should be for everybody and i think that £3.30 gives more people the chance to play. I think it should be kept at £3.30 and boosted for special events such as the recent UKOPS. EDIT: i also don't believe the guarentee effects many peoples descion to play as asfar as i am aware which ever guarentee has been set on the mini it regularly surpasses it. But in the intrest of those that it does effect if sky crunched the numbers do they think it would be possible to offer a £1500 guarentee on the mini at the £3.30 BI as it seems to be breaking this anyway more often than not. Posted by jams88
Hi Jams,
I have no idea if they will try that or not, but have you not answered your own question, via the first sentence of the part I highlighted??
In Response to Re: Feedback please - Mini Mains : Hi Jams, I have no idea if they will try that or not, but have you not answered your own question, via the first sentence of the part I highlighted?? Posted by Tikay10
I was trying to get at and worded badly that most people who play the mini do so for the enjoyment of a cheap mtt of a large field size and the chance to play against some of the big boys of poker who will be in it for the jackpot oppurtunity. This majority would continue to play the mini if there was no guarentee at all as i dont believe it bothers many of us who play.
Having said that i appriciate you get some traffic from people who proboably browse around sites to look for a tournamtnet with a prizepool that they want to play in. So for these people that it may effect i thought i would but my 2pence worth in
In Response to Re: Feedback please - Mini Mains : Hi Tommy, I never suggested you, or anyone else, was wrong or right Tommy, I just pointed out what, in my personal opinion, was an imbalance, an oddity, which no one else had commented upon, & I had wanted - I live in hope of so many things! - would give better balance to the thread. You briefly alluded - in not so many words - to peer pressure. As a Teacher, I'm sure you understand what a powerful force that it. We certainly cannot deny it exists. Posted by Tikay10
I know you didn't Mr K, I was just expressing my take on how I would take the feedback if I was the one who was up top. It's a massively tricky balancing act with as I see it no cast iron right or wrong way to do it, all I say is opinion and in no way consider it the only possible correct one.
Yes peer pressure is huge for threads like this. So many times on forums people either back down, revert opinions or decide to not post because of the opinions expressed by other members of their peer group. It's not the fault of the regs posting, that's just the way things have been since cavemen were deciding on using rocks or sticks to bash dinosaurs (the last comment may not be historically accurate).
In Response to Re: Feedback please - Mini Mains : I was trying to get at and worded badly that most people who play the mini do so for the enjoyment of a cheap mtt of a large field size and the chance to play against some of the big boys of poker who will be in it for the jackpot oppurtunity. This majority would continue to play the mini if there was no guarentee at all as i dont believe it bothers many of us who play. Having said that i appriciate you get some traffic from people who proboably browse around sites to look for a tournamtnet with a prizepool that they want to play in. So for these people that it may effect i thought i would but my 2pence worth in Posted by jams88
My thoughts exactly and i think would be the same for all low stakes players
I find it extraordinary that after a measly 32 votes and even less comments Sky decided to change things albeit on a trial basis. I played 4 UKOPS mini events that had an average field of 481. The £5-50 buy in was above my usual limit but 4 games aren't going to affect my BR. The £3-30 "normal" mini I sometimes play has a field of about 300 (correct me if I'm wrong this is a guesstimate). So with roughly 10% of the players voting after just 4 hours you change things. In my opinion this change was totally premeditated. I will be interested to see what Sky do after the trial but my moneys on the £5-50 being across the board giving us lower buy in players even less game options. And like others have said it is for the challenge and the chance of a bigger cash than I usually make.
In all fairness I suspect the very nature of this forum will skew the results. The fact that people take the time to read and post on a poker forum suggests a certain level of seriousness in the way they approach playing poker. For alot of these people, proper bankroll management is an important part of the game and one that lower bankrolled players are constantly reminded of. It's a fact that by increasing the buyins to the minis that some of these regular and loyal players will be priced out if they wish to continue strict bankroll management so it's understandable that they are voicing their concerns. There is certainly an element of Sky preaching one thing and encouraging people to practice another here.
However from a business point of view, an awful lot of players in the minis are not 'serious' poker players, many of them will be 'net depositors'. They are recreational players who come on of an evening to play a game of poker and have no concern whatsoever over bankroll management, they may be quite happy to lose £5.50 every night of the week for the chance to escape from every day life etc..... I suspect to alot of these player a lift from £3.30 to £5.50 is going to be negligable, another £2.20 is nothing in the grand scheme of things and if the guarantees go up and the payouts go up, that will be alot more appealing to these recreational player (who make up the majority of the field). It's a balancing act!
I think the real issue underlying all this is that there seems to be a trend towards losing the smaller tournaments in favour of bigger buyins on Sky, which for the reasons above I can fully understand. However, to make that sustainable over time there needs to be new big bankroll players coming through. These will not generally come from the rectreational players, they will come from the pool of players that are taking the game seriously, the ones that are studying the game, posting on the forum and practicing good bankroll management, ie. the player who are posting on here and voicing their concerns.
I have no issue with the buyin for the minis going up to £5.50 as it's actually a level that suits me personally better. However if this does happen Sky has to be aware of the effect it has on the lower bankrolled players and should really do something to ensure these players are also catered for because at the moment all they see is more and more of 'their' tournaments being taken away in favour of bigger buyins which to me seems very shortsighted by Sky.
In Response to Re: Feedback please - Mini Mains : Apologies I didnt want to come across as being ignorant of the smaller BR players im certainly not, I remember the days when I was playing £2.20 mtts. But I still think for an extra £2.20 or what not a doubling of the prize money is worth it. If you can afford 3.30 then surely you can afford £5.50 right? Posted by Wacko90
If you are managing your Bank Roll "properly" it means you need a 66% greater roll to regularly play £5.50s rather than £3.30s.
Also, "If you can afford 3.30 then surely you can afford £5.50 right? " why not if you can afford 5.50 then you can afford £8, then £11, then .....
Why not have a Main a Mini £5 and a MINIMINI at £3 and let the players choose on the night - and perhaps the jackpot could be won for winning any two of the three - just a thought Posted by Jeffter
Comments
Spot on flying dragon I don't mind playing the minis (especially if my bank roll has taken a hammering lol) my wife like many players who is not a strong player but like's to play means the minis offer a great opportunity to play poker at a reasonable level in fact we play together in this to see who can last the longestst (she normally wins) poker is not just for the more serious player but also the casual ones that's why we play sky poker as at the moment sky give us this.
Good morning.
The thread , & feedback, is a bit lop-sided!
My input is not exactly unbiased, for obvious reasons, but....
We all have the option of saying nothing, of course, but it's the nature of things that we comment if we do NOT like, & don't comment if we do, because the latter is the default, the "normal".
So, just for the sake of debate, & because, the older I get, the more these things intrigue & fascinate me, here are two facts about this thread as of now.
Negative Posts (as in "no thanks, we do not like"), approx 20.
Positive Posts ("we like the idea of bigger buy-in") 2.
A few Posts don't count - those by Sky Poker, or Dave, for example.
So, give or take a few % points, 90% AGAINST bigger buy-ins. Pretty conclusive, you'd suggest.
Now look at the voting.
Currently, 27 voted for £3.30, & 33 voted for £5.50!
How do you explain that? And if you were the Business, how would you interpret that?
Interesting, 'innit?!
EDIT: i also don't believe the guarentee effects many peoples descion to play as asfar as i am aware which ever guarentee has been set on the mini it regularly surpasses it. But in the intrest of those that it does effect if sky crunched the numbers do they think it would be possible to offer a £1500 guarentee on the mini at the £3.30 BI as it seems to be breaking this anyway more often than not.
Now the second part. I don't think you can give equal weight to the votes as you can the post. Yes I know this argument leads to support for my point of view so feel free everyone to pick it apart. The point is a person who takes the time to post will clearly show if they have considered the question in a balanced way. Not all posts should have equal weight either of course, it's up to 'those who should' to weigh up all of the feedback. Now with the click button voting you don't always know if everyone has even read the question fully or has just seen, for instance, 'bigger buy ins, I like bigger buy ins, I'll click yes.' Obviously a decent amount of weight should go to the button votes but the smaller the sample size and the closer the vote, in my opinion the more 'those who should' should consider stronger the views expressed in the thread.
Hi Tommy,
I never suggested you, or anyone else, was wrong or right Tommy, I just pointed out what, in my personal opinion, was an imbalance, an oddity, which no one else had commented upon, & I had wanted - I live in hope of so many things! - would give better balance to the thread.
You briefly alluded - in not so many words - to peer pressure. As a Teacher, I'm sure you understand what a powerful force that it. We certainly cannot deny it exists.
I have no idea if they will try that or not, but have you not answered your own question, via the first sentence of the part I highlighted??
Having said that i appriciate you get some traffic from people who proboably browse around sites to look for a tournamtnet with a prizepool that they want to play in. So for these people that it may effect i thought i would but my 2pence worth in
Yes peer pressure is huge for threads like this. So many times on forums people either back down, revert opinions or decide to not post because of the opinions expressed by other members of their peer group. It's not the fault of the regs posting, that's just the way things have been since cavemen were deciding on using rocks or sticks to bash dinosaurs (the last comment may not be historically accurate).
I find it extraordinary that after a measly 32 votes and even less comments Sky decided to change things albeit on a trial basis. I played 4 UKOPS mini events that had an average field of 481. The £5-50 buy in was above my usual limit but 4 games aren't going to affect my BR. The £3-30 "normal" mini I sometimes play has a field of about 300 (correct me if I'm wrong this is a guesstimate). So with roughly 10% of the players voting after just 4 hours you change things. In my opinion this change was totally premeditated. I will be interested to see what Sky do after the trial but my moneys on the £5-50 being across the board giving us lower buy in players even less game options. And like others have said it is for the challenge and the chance of a bigger cash than I usually make.
However from a business point of view, an awful lot of players in the minis are not 'serious' poker players, many of them will be 'net depositors'. They are recreational players who come on of an evening to play a game of poker and have no concern whatsoever over bankroll management, they may be quite happy to lose £5.50 every night of the week for the chance to escape from every day life etc..... I suspect to alot of these player a lift from £3.30 to £5.50 is going to be negligable, another £2.20 is nothing in the grand scheme of things and if the guarantees go up and the payouts go up, that will be alot more appealing to these recreational player (who make up the majority of the field). It's a balancing act!
I think the real issue underlying all this is that there seems to be a trend towards losing the smaller tournaments in favour of bigger buyins on Sky, which for the reasons above I can fully understand. However, to make that sustainable over time there needs to be new big bankroll players coming through. These will not generally come from the rectreational players, they will come from the pool of players that are taking the game seriously, the ones that are studying the game, posting on the forum and practicing good bankroll management, ie. the player who are posting on here and voicing their concerns.
I have no issue with the buyin for the minis going up to £5.50 as it's actually a level that suits me personally better. However if this does happen Sky has to be aware of the effect it has on the lower bankrolled players and should really do something to ensure these players are also catered for because at the moment all they see is more and more of 'their' tournaments being taken away in favour of bigger buyins which to me seems very shortsighted by Sky.
If you are managing your Bank Roll "properly" it means you need a 66% greater roll to regularly play £5.50s rather than £3.30s.
Also, "If you can afford 3.30 then surely you can afford £5.50 right? " why not if you can afford 5.50 then you can afford £8, then £11, then .....
That would just split the liquidity.