Mr. Scouse_red, I assume that you would not have a problem with the bigger bankrolled players playing in the satellites if they weren't any good. 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. Posted by BorinLoner
firstly can I thank you for your very in depth replies to this thread, debate is what this forum was intended for.
secondly to the highlighted part in the post, this never came into my reasoning for making the OP and Dunmidoshs' reply hit it pretty much bang on "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"
this was the only point I was trying to get across
swings & roundabouts fwiw I completely agree with borinloner. They beat you, they decide what they do with the money, why should it bother you? Why would you care whether they're playing the event or not? Really makes no sense. Although I DO think Sky should give tournament tickets instead of direct entry/cash equivalent, but this doesn't mean the players who take the cash are doing anything remotely wrong. While I completely understand people's arguments, they hold no real strength and aren't justified. Posted by percival09
Is it not thieving?
What about the players who buy in direct or satellite into main events, then win the tournament advertised? By taking out the satellite entry prize, have greedy players not taken out someone elses money?
I understand that some players will never reach a level where they take down tournament., So they go for the easier/cowards option. But I don't think its right! satellites IMO should be for players who want to play poker at the highest level against the best players! The prize money from all satellites should go towards the tournament advertised, not siphoned off mid way.
I agree tournament tokens would be a good idea, so long as the full value can be redeemed against a tournament. Unlike previous tokens ahich were used on the next entered tournament irrespective of tariff
How is paying money to win a seat/take the money thieving or the cowards way? If you've bought in direct and then win a satellite, you are effectively just satelliting in and haven't robbed anyone. Totally inappropriate language. Even if you're entering and winning multiple satellites having bought in direct, it's not robbery, you've paid money to enter,same as everyone else.
I play alot of these with zero intention of playing the following tournament should I cash.
The main reason is there are very few (if any) alternatives.
Sats mainly run between 4pm-8pm before the main tournaments kick off. Have a look at the MTT lobby during these times, and you'll see why I and many others take the satellite option.
There's a £11 and £33 BH, which run for about 3.5 hours start to finish. Min cash often gives a loss, and at best a +ve ROI which is inferior to that of a single dym.
Alternatively you can play a £9.60 buy in sat, capped at 25 runners, with 2 spots gtd £110, which is over within an hour.
Or a £4.80 one with £55 gtd for 1st and 2nd.
Or even a 1 in 5 sat to the main event, offering a gtd 500% ROI for an hours play should you cash.
Fix the MTT lobby, and this satellite 'problem' will go a long way to fixing itself.
The thing is that satellites are not "...designed to gain access to major tournaments in the most cost effective way." At present they are designed to EITHER provide a route for qualification to a larger tournament OR the cash equivalent.
You might prefer that the only payout available was for the tournament ticket but that's not how things are. If the winner wants the money that is the player's right, as things are. If you want to lobby Sky Poker to change their system, go ahead. Don't blame the players for simply playing the game, winning and then taking the prize offered to them.
Also, the term "thieving" as Mohican says, is totally inappropriate. As I, DOHHHHHHH and many others have done this before, you are effectively calling us thieves. I'm not particularly concerned by this (I call myself BorinLoner, after all) but I'm sure others would be quite upset about it. The money from a satellite is placed on the table and the best 1/5 or 1/10 of the field wins. What they then wish to do is their decision and they're provided with two legitimate options.
The satellites may be advertised as being qualifiers for a greater tournament but that money isn't in the prize pool of that greater tournament until the tournament starts. If you register for a tournament with 100 runners, and someone changes their mind and withdraws before that tournament starts, they're not taking anything from you. It's just the same as not playing a tournament you've satellited into. Yes, there's less money in the prizepool but theres also one fewer player to beat.
The players in sats for the money are a canny bunch. Let's say it's a Primo sat; £55 in cash is worth more than £50 of tournament equity to most people.
The trouble with sats is that you get raked twice; your entry fee and your prize. If you try to qualify via a quarter-final you're going to be raked 3 times (if you get there).
Satellites are great for the site; they generate twice as much rake per seat filled (or more). Apart from offering the opportunity of taking a shot I'm not convinced the sats benefit the players too much, particularly the shove-fests with 3-minutes levels.
I personally don't have a problem with any player, regardless of their bankroll, trying to satellite into a tournament. But I do think its wrong that players use these games as a way of making cash and therefore depriving people of a cheap seat into a game.
I believe that Sky should issue tournament tickets rather having a cash alternative but until they do, players will continue to use satellites as a cash cow.
It would be interesting to see Skys reaction if someone managed to satellite in the Vegas promoting twice. Would they be happy to give that person £10k for their second win?
the best answer is for sky to run sats in the sit and go area of the lobby so they can run when they are full the higher rolled players are not taking seats away in effect because there are only 5 or so per night and it is very rare for a player to catch 2 or 3 seats per night
In Response to Re: SATS GRRRRR.......... : This isn't my point Paul I've no prob with them sattelliting in but to already be in and then take seats is imo wrong I'd have no prob if they played and didn't make it through, then bought in, surely you can see the difference Posted by scouse_red
The players in sats for the money are a canny bunch. Let's say it's a Primo sat; £55 in cash is worth more than £50 of tournament equity to most people. The trouble with sats is that you get raked twice; your entry fee and your prize. If you try to qualify via a quarter-final you're going to be raked 3 times (if you get there). Satellites are great for the site; they generate twice as much rake per seat filled (or more). Apart from offering the opportunity of taking a shot I'm not convinced the sats benefit the players too much, particularly the shove-fests with 3-minutes levels. Posted by GaryQQQ
hen i saw this post first thing, i thought that it was a brave point that you were making and you may get heat for it. However after reading what, may i say, has been a well conducted and amicable debate then i can now say that for me as a low stakes player looking to improve who sees even the reduced £100 buy in to a live T as expensive putting travel and board on top, my opinion has altered because of an excellent idea i've seen here.
At first, i thought yes, you can't stop people playing and taking the cash etc. However, its true that the idea is to provide a cheap way for a person unable to fund the buy in to have a chance at smething which is ordinarily out of their range. Regs now seem to play them as a T to further enrich their BR. That wasn't their initial aim SKY was it? So lets introduce the Tournament voucher to be traded in only by the person winning a place at a later date within say 2 seasons.
So you win a seat you use the seat...that should be the reason to play in a satellite....NOT to be use as another form of T. After all there is enough choice, although some would argue against that, i'm sure, there is a legitimate reason why they exist. Thanks Chris for starting this thread..........If REGS are continually playing the game then let them find T's to further their roll and allow low stakers the chance to gain entry to a T normally out of reach. Swings and roundabouts are involved i'm sure but thats my opinion and i'm glad to say that i'm man enough to have changed it. Cheers Chris/scouse red
PS By the way, Chris, as a Blue, i'm straining my neck looking down the league at you at the moment! Ha!
Just to emphasise the point, nobody is depriving anybody of anything by winning a satellite and not taking the seat.
If you're the player that wants the seat, if you win you will get it. If you lose, you will not. The only thing that deprives you of that seat is your own inability to win. Whatever those winning players choose to do with their winnings, the only thing they have done to "deprive" you of a seat is beat you at the table.
If you're not good enough or lucky enough to win, then you don't deserve to take anything out of the game. What you're effectively saying is, regardless of the rules of the game, you should be able to dictate how the winners spend their money. You have no right to do this. Once the game is over, the money belongs to the winner and it's for them to do with it what they will.
We all know the rules when we start to play. Regardless of what we might want the rules to be, we accept them as they are. If you don't like the rules, then don't play the game. Don't complain about the rules after you've lost.
Just to emphasise the point, nobody is depriving anybody of anything by winning a satellite and not taking the seat. If you're the player that wants the seat, if you win you will get it. If you lose, you will not. The only thing that deprives you of that seat is your own inability to win. Whatever those winning players choose to do with their winnings, the only thing they have done to "deprive" you of a seat is beat you at the table. If you're not good enough or lucky enough to win, then you don't deserve to take anything out of the game. What you're effectively saying is, regardless of the rules of the game, you should be able to dictate how the winners spend their money. You have no right to do this. Once the game is over, the money belongs to the winner and it's for them to do with it what they will. We all know the rules when we start to play. Regardless of what we might want the rules to be, we accept them as they are. If you don't like the rules, then don't play the game. Don't complain about the rules after you've lost. Posted by BorinLoner
I can understand peoples frustrations sometimes. I played the very last Semi-Final for SPT Grand Final one year and 4 players went through, I bubbled in 5th, however, the guy who finished in 3rd or 4th place had already qualified via a satellite, so his soul intention was to pick up the cash equivalent of £220 rather than the SPT Entry, Not a bad return for a £24.
I agree with you that players are quite entitled to take advantage of the rules that are in place, but that doesn't mean the rules are always right. Personally I put my money in and take my chances regardless of who else has entered, but it can be a little frustrating to some knowing players are only in it for the cash equivalent having already qualified or bought in direct.
I can't help wondering about something though...................................... If we buy in directly to a main event and then de-register, we automatically get our money back, however, if we satellite into a main event and de-register, we don't automatically get the cash equivalent? because the prize on offer was a seat into the main event.
So the question is.....why should the cash equivalent be paid if you have already qualified for the main when the prize on offer in the Tournament Description is a seat into a main?
Example of Tournament Description. 1 in 5 win a seat into the £6,000 Open Semi Final at 6pm tonight
If a cash equivalent is on offer then maybe it should be stated in the description.
Also, if a cash equivalent is given in a satellite instead of a seat (Usually because we have already qualified or bought in direct) then surely we should automatically be given the cash equivalent if we de-register after satelliting into a main event?
These are just my observasions since the subject has been raised. But as I said before, I pay my money and take my chances regardless of the field or their intentions and if "Negranu"happens to be on my table trying to pick up the cash equivalent he can stick it right up his jacksy
Just to emphasise the point, nobody is depriving anybody of anything by winning a satellite and not taking the seat. If you're the player that wants the seat, if you win you will get it. If you lose, you will not. The only thing that deprives you of that seat is your own inability to win. Whatever those winning players choose to do with their winnings, the only thing they have done to "deprive" you of a seat is beat you at the table. If you're not good enough or lucky enough to win, then you don't deserve to take anything out of the game. What you're effectively saying is, regardless of the rules of the game, you should be able to dictate how the winners spend their money. You have no right to do this. Once the game is over, the money belongs to the winner and it's for them to do with it what they will. We all know the rules when we start to play. Regardless of what we might want the rules to be, we accept them as they are. If you don't like the rules, then don't play the game. Don't complain about the rules after you've lost. Posted by BorinLoner
Just to emphasise the point, nobody is depriving anybody of anything by winning a satellite and not taking the seat. If you're the player that wants the seat, if you win you will get it. If you lose, you will not. The only thing that deprives you of that seat is your own inability to win. Whatever those winning players choose to do with their winnings, the only thing they have done to "deprive" you of a seat is beat you at the table. If you're not good enough or lucky enough to win, then you don't deserve to take anything out of the game. What you're effectively saying is, regardless of the rules of the game, you should be able to dictate how the winners spend their money. You have no right to do this. Once the game is over, the money belongs to the winner and it's for them to do with it what they will. We all know the rules when we start to play. Regardless of what we might want the rules to be, we accept them as they are. If you don't like the rules, then don't play the game. Don't complain about the rules after you've lost. Posted by BorinLoner
At least 5 players have contributed to a tournament prize pool. If the money is siphoned off before the tournament starts The tournament prize fund is reduced The winner and those who cash have been deprived of their intended prize What don't you get? its not rocket science! or is it?
i am not sure where i stand on this one - but i know for certain that after playing on sky poker for about 4 years now the satellites have been the only way i have achieved my dream of playing in my local (luton) SPT. i was determined and got in there really early and thankfully the poker gods were with me - but i do like the idea that we should all be in with an equalish chance of qualification - rather than it being a closed shop for high rollers
In Response to Re: SATS GRRRRR.......... : At least 5 players have contributed to a tournament prize pool. If the money is siphoned off before the tournament starts The tournament prize fund is reduced The winner and those who cash have been deprived of their intended prize What don't you get? its not rocket science! or is it? Posted by cleansweep
I dont get what you just said. What money is siphoned off which tourney? If 5 people had already payed to go into the main and also registered for a satallite but didnt qaulify then there would be an extra seat in the satallite for the others.
In Response to Re: SATS GRRRRR.......... : I dont get what you just said. What money is siphoned off which tourney? If 5 people had already payed to go into the main and also registered for a satallite but didnt qaulify then there would be an extra seat in the satallite for the others. Posted by jonjo75
SPT Semi = £24-00 1 in 5 qualify = £120 into SPT prizepool for 1 seat
Player who has already qualified through £5.20 satellite enters more satellites and wins taking £110 cash instead of a tournament seat
therefore taking £110 out of the SPT prizefund before the tournament commences
I have no problem with people doing what they want with their money. To stop people from playing sats just because they are deemed to have a big bankroll is very wrong.
Also just because people play bigger BIs/are known for playing big cash games actually doesn't mean they have a big BR. We are just assuming they are because we might use a decent BRM strat and assume that they are doing the same. This is often not the case.
I remember that a friend of mine told me about when he was playing multiple sats into the 5k Thursday Roller. Now usually these sats run quite close together, I don't know exactly but probably 4/5 all starting 15 mins apart. He won his seat during the first sat and then was running deep in 2 more. Some players made a comment in the chat that he was being 'greedy' by playing on in these sats and trying to win the extra seats and that he should just leavve and blind away. Was a pretty funny comment.
Another thing that people forget is that in order for the liquidity in these sats to be sustainable then you need to have a system in place that allows people to take the cash, otherwise people wouldn't bother registering for mutliple ones.
I used to play the sats for the main events and the 110s a lot on here, but recently the time that I play poker has changed so I'm not usually online during the times the sats run. They are incredible value and all players should be supporting them as they are a great way for growing the site. To try and put people off from playing them just because their BR may be big enough to BI direct is IMO very very wrong.
if a player decides to buy in then enters a satellite and wins and gets his entry back then fair play to them, nothing has been taken out of the tournament they have just managed to get in a cheaper way. i think if that same player then continued to enter satellites for the same event then thats a little wrong in my opinion but alot of players here are here to make money so they entitled to do it however they want, no matter how much it annoys anyone else.
Comments
What about the players who buy in direct or satellite into main events, then win the tournament advertised?
By taking out the satellite entry prize, have greedy players not taken out someone elses money?
I understand that some players will never reach a level where they take down tournament., So they go for the easier/cowards option.
But I don't think its right! satellites IMO should be for players who want to play poker at the highest level against the best players! The prize money from all satellites should go towards the tournament advertised, not siphoned off mid way.
I agree tournament tokens would be a good idea, so long as the full value can be redeemed against a tournament. Unlike previous tokens ahich were used on the next entered tournament irrespective of tariff
You might prefer that the only payout available was for the tournament ticket but that's not how things are. If the winner wants the money that is the player's right, as things are. If you want to lobby Sky Poker to change their system, go ahead. Don't blame the players for simply playing the game, winning and then taking the prize offered to them.
Also, the term "thieving" as Mohican says, is totally inappropriate. As I, DOHHHHHHH and many others have done this before, you are effectively calling us thieves. I'm not particularly concerned by this (I call myself BorinLoner, after all) but I'm sure others would be quite upset about it. The money from a satellite is placed on the table and the best 1/5 or 1/10 of the field wins. What they then wish to do is their decision and they're provided with two legitimate options.
The satellites may be advertised as being qualifiers for a greater tournament but that money isn't in the prize pool of that greater tournament until the tournament starts. If you register for a tournament with 100 runners, and someone changes their mind and withdraws before that tournament starts, they're not taking anything from you. It's just the same as not playing a tournament you've satellited into. Yes, there's less money in the prizepool but theres also one fewer player to beat.
The trouble with sats is that you get raked twice; your entry fee and your prize. If you try to qualify via a quarter-final you're going to be raked 3 times (if you get there).
Satellites are great for the site; they generate twice as much rake per seat filled (or more). Apart from offering the opportunity of taking a shot I'm not convinced the sats benefit the players too much, particularly the shove-fests with 3-minutes levels.
the higher rolled players are not taking seats away in effect because there are only 5 or so per night and it is very rare for a player to catch 2 or 3 seats per night
In Response to Re: SATS GRRRRR..........:
3 minute level sats are not good value
In Response to Re: SATS GRRRRR..........:
hen i saw this post first thing, i thought that it was a brave point that you were making and you may get heat for it. However after reading what, may i say, has been a well conducted and amicable debate then i can now say that for me as a low stakes player looking to improve who sees even the reduced £100 buy in to a live T as expensive putting travel and board on top, my opinion has altered because of an excellent idea i've seen here.
At first, i thought yes, you can't stop people playing and taking the cash etc. However, its true that the idea is to provide a cheap way for a person unable to fund the buy in to have a chance at smething which is ordinarily out of their range. Regs now seem to play them as a T to further enrich their BR. That wasn't their initial aim SKY was it? So lets introduce the Tournament voucher to be traded in only by the person winning a place at a later date within say 2 seasons.
So you win a seat you use the seat...that should be the reason to play in a satellite....NOT to be use as another form of T. After all there is enough choice, although some would argue against that, i'm sure, there is a legitimate reason why they exist.
Thanks Chris for starting this thread..........If REGS are continually playing the game then let them find T's to further their roll and allow low stakers the chance to gain entry to a T normally out of reach. Swings and roundabouts are involved i'm sure but thats my opinion and i'm glad to say that i'm man enough to have changed it. Cheers Chris/scouse red
PS By the way, Chris, as a Blue, i'm straining my neck looking down the league at you at the moment! Ha!
If you're the player that wants the seat, if you win you will get it. If you lose, you will not. The only thing that deprives you of that seat is your own inability to win. Whatever those winning players choose to do with their winnings, the only thing they have done to "deprive" you of a seat is beat you at the table.
If you're not good enough or lucky enough to win, then you don't deserve to take anything out of the game. What you're effectively saying is, regardless of the rules of the game, you should be able to dictate how the winners spend their money. You have no right to do this. Once the game is over, the money belongs to the winner and it's for them to do with it what they will.
We all know the rules when we start to play. Regardless of what we might want the rules to be, we accept them as they are. If you don't like the rules, then don't play the game. Don't complain about the rules after you've lost.
I agree with you that players are quite entitled to take advantage of the rules that are in place, but that doesn't mean the rules are always right. Personally I put my money in and take my chances regardless of who else has entered, but it can be a little frustrating to some knowing players are only in it for the cash equivalent having already qualified or bought in direct.
I can't help wondering about something though......................................
If we buy in directly to a main event and then de-register, we automatically get our money back, however, if we satellite into a main event and de-register, we don't automatically get the cash equivalent? because the prize on offer was a seat into the main event.
So the question is.....why should the cash equivalent be paid if you have already qualified for the main when the prize on offer in the Tournament Description is a seat into a main?
Example of Tournament Description.
1 in 5 win a seat into the £6,000 Open Semi Final at 6pm tonight
If a cash equivalent is on offer then maybe it should be stated in the description.
Also, if a cash equivalent is given in a satellite instead of a seat (Usually because we have already qualified or bought in direct) then surely we should automatically be given the cash equivalent if we de-register after satelliting into a main event?
These are just my observasions since the subject has been raised. But as I said before, I pay my money and take my chances regardless of the field or their intentions and if "Negranu"happens to be on my table trying to pick up the cash equivalent he can stick it right up his jacksy
+1
This just about says it all.
If the money is siphoned off before the tournament starts
The tournament prize fund is reduced
The winner and those who cash have been deprived of their intended prize
What don't you get? its not rocket science! or is it?
I dont get what you just said.
What money is siphoned off which tourney?
If 5 people had already payed to go into the main and also registered for a satallite but didnt qaulify then there would be an extra seat in the satallite for the others.
Player who has already qualified through £5.20 satellite enters more satellites and wins taking £110 cash instead of a tournament seat
therefore taking £110 out of the SPT prizefund before the tournament commences
if a player decides to buy in then enters a satellite and wins and gets his entry back then fair play to them, nothing has been taken out of the tournament they have just managed to get in a cheaper way. i think if that same player then continued to enter satellites for the same event then thats a little wrong in my opinion but alot of players here are here to make money so they entitled to do it however they want, no matter how much it annoys anyone else.