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.
SATS GRRRRR..........
scouse_red
Member Posts: 5,968
I know I'll prob get shot down for this but WTH...........
as a very small BR player who very rarely has a chance to make ME's or big tourneys, it's great that Sky have so many Sats into these.
however and this is where I'll get shot down, as I know it's everyone's right to play these, but the number of higher BR regs, who buy in direct then use the sat route to try and get there money back, is slightly off putting and I'm wondering whether it's just all worth playing them anymore. 
TBH I expect to get two very distinct groups of replies here, but over to you..........
Comments
Personally the more people that play the better imo, I'd rather be in a 1in5 with 50 players, than a 1in5 with 10 players.
Would be better if Tournament Tokens were issued rather than cashback!
Satellites should be a means to enter a tournament not cashback!
If no cash was returned just alternative dates offered?, would it be better?
Essentially, you're saying you only like it when bad players are allowed to play against you in these satellites. That's perfectly understandable and I wholeheartedly support that sentiment... but... that's not the game, really.
I believe Chris is implying that satellites are designed to gain access to major tournaments in the most cost effective way.
If you enter them solely with the intention of taking the cash out of a tournament, at the expense of others qualifying. It defeats the object of promoting satellites. surely you enter to get a shot at the big money and the prestige of playing in the designated tournament.
Otherwise why not just call them GTD 5 times your entry tournaments and not advertise the tournament they're intended for?
It's not often I disagree with your comments but on this one I think you might reconsider.
Bigger bankrolled players shouldn't be forced to buy in direct just cos they can afford it when they're good enough to get in for half the price.
Although on the other side of the coin, that person who bought in might have made it from 14 players to 15 players and might be the reason I get a seat for coming 3rd rather than some money... swings and roundabouts.
But I think/hope that most people who do register in advance are intending to play the event and so in them cases it wuoldnt make any difference.
However, when people play these satellites they put their money on the line, just like everyone else, and the prize they're looking at is generally 5x or 10x their buy-in. Whether they use their winnings to buy-in to the tournament or not is their business. Once they've won, it's their money. I accept that most people play because they want to get into the tournament but that doesn't mean that all of the players must have the same motive.
Frankly, once I've lost I don't care what the winners do with the money. Neither should anyone else. You've played a satellite and someone beat you. If you beat them then you would have the right to play that tournament, or not, as you so choose. Your opponents have the same choice when they beat you. As long as that option is made available to all by the site, it's up to every individual how they want to use it.
Again, I think it comes down to how good your opponents are: If they're playing for the money but aren't good enough at the game to show a profit, then you don't care - They're just adding to the prizepool and making it easier for you to win. Their intentions don't matter one jot to you when they lose. It's only when they win that you "get the hump" about those intentions.
I don't see any unpleasant difference between registering first then playing a satellite, and losing a satellite first then registering later... The only difference I can see between these two options is that registering first gives you the option to withdraw if you're unable to play the tournament. This would seem to be only sensible, particularly with tournaments for which you can qualify weeks in advance. Can you really be absolutely certain that you'll be able to commit six hours or more to a Super-Roller in two or three weeks time?
That aside, I've played a few satellites before without intending to play the event. I've done so because I've known that many of the players haven't been as good as me. The prize for all of us was the same, we all just had to decide for ourselves how to use it. If the player who bubbled had told me how upset he was that I'd taken the money, I'd have told him that he should have beaten me. Having beaten him, it's my decision what I want to do with that money. I've earned that win through years of deep study of the game, and I've taken enough licks over those years to be able to decide for myself how I want to spend my winnings.
If Sky or any other poker site wants to prevent people from taking the cash from satellites, then that's their business decision to make. As long as they offer the option, it's up to any player to make their own decision.
As I've said, you really shouldn't care what other players intend to do. You should only be concerned with what you do. If you win, you play the tournament. If you lose, you don't play the tournament. Your opponents have no influence over that.
One thing I'd disagree with is that as long as the satellites provide the option to take the cash, players are entitled to do so. Those players aren't taking that money "at the expense of others qualifying", they've beaten those players at the table. They've not taken away the right of those players to qualify with anything other than their own poker ability.
If the winner chooses not to play the tournament, and that option is allowed by the site, then the players who've lost have no right to say that (s)he shouldn't. Those losing players have already lost that money and now it belongs to the winning player.
As for satellites being the most cost-effective way to get in to a tournament; they're only cost-effective if you win. If you lose and still pay the buy-in, they're obviously the opposite of cost-effective (Cost-ineffective??) as it ends up costing you more. So satellites are only cost-effective if you're good at the game.
I've got to say, though, that the idea of having "5x your money tournaments" might have legs. Satellite strategy requires wholly different thought processes and playing styles. So having some tournaments like that, without being linked to larger tournaments, could attract some attention. A bit like Multi-table DYM's, only QYM's (Quintuple Your Money). I'd play them.
Which is fantastic because their skill shone through.
But then they enter other satellites for the same tournament purely with the intention of taking the cash equivalent of entry.
Is that not immoral? entering a satellite which clearly states the prize as entry to a specific tournament. but having no need, intention or ability to hold two seats in the advertised tournament?
If Scotty 77 or Lolufold (I use their names only because they are rightly considered among the best players on the site, and their integrity is beyond question) decided to enter each months Viva Las Vegas, and you bubbled having gone through all the qualifying stages would you be happy if Scotty or Lolufold had already won places but took part solely to win the cash equivalent?
It's the spirit of using Satelllites purely for cash cows after qualification, where we differ in opinions.
That was the point I was trying to make. I just couldn't find the words to explain myself well enough.
As I stated in my first post. I respect and agree with 99% of what you contribute to the forum I just didn't think you'd understood this particular topic.
But agree a 5x - 10x tournament would be fun to try
Satellites are only -ev if you think they're pure gambling (or you think you're not very good, lol). In the long-term, given the standards in the fields I've faced in Sky satellites, I'd say that I'd expect to satellite through far more often than I would need to in order to break-even. I could say 30% or 40% of the time, but that would be picking an arbitrary number merely to illustrate my point. They're certainly not peppered with sharks, though it doesn't take too long to see which players are playing optimally and which are not.
The micro-sats may be higher variance but the players in them are also of a lower standard. So in the long-term you should expect a higher ROI in these than in the larger buy-in sats.... Unless the fees for the smaller buy-ins are substantially greater than the larger buy-ins, which I don't think they are... off the top of my head.
It's not immoral for a poker player to beat you. Once they've won, why do you care what they do? It doesn't make any difference to you.
Take it to the extreme and say you're playing against four other players, each of whom intend to take the cash. The only way they deny you the tournament entry is by beating you. Whether they take the seat or they take the cash, you've lost anyway. On the other hand, if they weren't allowed to take part you would not have the chance to play that satellite at all.
You each put your money on the table and the winning player takes that money. The sign above the door might say "Satellite to Tournament X", but if that guy walks out with the satellite winnings, what difference does it make to you? What right do you have to say how he should use his money? Once you've lost, the money isn't yours anymore. If you don't want the other guy to use your money in a particular way, then don't put it on the table in the first place.
If players are not entering to make up part of the field.
Surely they are reducing the prize fund and devaluing the tournament?
I'm sure if Sky tournaments were regularly failing to attract big fields and large numbers of satellite players were simply taking the money, the suits would probably alter their satellites to prevent cash payouts. However, most players do play satellites for the seat and I assume it's not a huge issue for the site.
Even if it were a problem, it would not be a problem of the players' making. Nor would they be wrong in taking an opportunity available to them. The site provides the opportunity and the players take advantage of that. The player doesn't care what's best for the site and the site doesn't care what's best for the player. The size of the tournament field is something for the poker site to worry about.
The original point was that these players who've already bought in to the tournament don't automatically reduce the field or prizepool of that tournament by playing more satellites. They only prevent other players qualifying if they beat them. If they don't win the satellites, then they've actually contributed more to the tournament - an extra 1/5 of a buy-in. They've paid 1/5 of someone elses entry fee.
So it all comes down to whether those players are good or not. If they're bad players, you're happy to have them as they increase your chances of qualifying and are boosting the prize pool. If they're good players, you're not so happy.