In Response to Re: SATS GRRRRR.......... : 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 Posted by cleansweep
Ok I get what your saying but with the SPTs a lot of the players who go will try the sats but if they dont qaulify will buy in anyway so another equation could be. SPT semi £24 1 in 5 qaulify. 100 runners so 20 win seats. 40 of those runners will either buy in or have qaulified already so there is an extra 8 seats due to those people. Now lets say 5 of those qaulify this means that there is an extra 3 seats that go through that wouldnt have and now bump up the prize pool of the SPT by £300+ Your equation is based on these people qualifying everytime which surely is not right.
So I was playing in one of the first UKOPS £12 sat that ran, they had massive value and due to this sadly stopped running after a few days. For those that don't know 2nd-6th got a Main Event Buy in and 1st got a high roller entry.
We're on the final table and one of the players tells everyone he's a student, doesn't have much of a bankroll and the £110 would mean a huge amount to him. He started asking how he could get the buy in value and not play the tournament. Someone told him to buy in first, get credited and then dereg. What went unspoken was if he could afford to buy in for the High Roller, and if not clearly he may have no intention of winning the FT as he wouldn't be able to get the cash value out. Questions for all:
1) Was I wrong to play this sat? I would say no
2) Many in this thread have come down like a ton of bricks on the larger bankrolled players playing sats for cash with no intention. Now you have a micro player doing it to whom a hundred quid is a lot of money. Are you going to crash down on him too? And if not, what's the difference between a micro BR and a large BR player doing it, they have, in the view of some people in the thread, 'deprived a player of a seat.' Can you distinguish the two without being a hypocrite? My answer to the last part is no you cannot.
So I was playing in one of the first UKOPS £12 sat that ran, they had massive value and due to this sadly stopped running after a few days. For those that don't know 2nd-6th got a Main Event Buy in and 1st got a high roller entry. We're on the final table and one of the players tells everyone he's a student, doesn't have much of a bankroll and the £110 would mean a huge amount to him. He started asking how he could get the buy in value and not play the tournament. Someone told him to buy in first, get credited and then dereg. What went unspoken was if he could afford to buy in for the High Roller, and if not clearly he may have no intention of winning the FT as he wouldn't be able to get the cash value out. Questions for all: 1) Was I wrong to play this sat? I would say no 2) Many in this thread have come down like a ton of bricks on the larger bankrolled players playing sats for cash with no intention. Now you have a micro player doing it to whom a hundred quid is a lot of money. Are you going to crash down on him too? And if not, what's the difference between a micro BR and a large BR player doing it, they have, in the view of some people in the thread, 'deprived a player of a seat.' Can you distinguish the two without being a hypocrite? My answer to the last part is no you cannot. Posted by TommyD
Satellites are advertised on live shows every week Tikay posts threads advertising potential overlays for main events. To encourage participation I may enter three or four satellites to make a main event, believing that no matter how many attempts I make to qualify, the money i've invested will be included in the prize fund. From the comments on this thread, I now know, this is not the case. Others are not entering in good faith to take part in the tournament. What incentive do I have to take part if prizemoney is siphoned off?
You can't enter the lottery and when your first two numbers come out say stop! Ill take £6.67 instead! In my opinion If you enter a satellite for an advertised tournament. All the proceeds from the satellite should go into the prizefund irrespective of whether its won by a high or low bankrolled player What's the point of calling it a satellite and naming the event? If in a lot of instances the money goes elsewhere?
Prize money in a satellite is just that, prize money in a satellite. It is not the same as the prizepool for the main event and if someone takes that money they are not siphoning anything from the main event prize pool. The main event prize pool is whatever it is after the end of the registration period. That is when it is decided, not before.
If you believed that this money would be automatically entered into the prize pool of the main event you were mistaken. That is not the fault of anyone else and nor should you get angry about it. You may think that the value of the tournament has been reduced but so has the strength of the field. Less money for you to win but fewer players for you to beat.
So at a £110 SPT: £100 less in the prize pool. One fewer player in the field. This is obvious and neither advantages nor disadvantages you in any way (Unless the tournament fails to meet it's guarantee in which case you are clearly being advantaged).
Being angry about this is just as ridiculous as being angry about someone withdrawing their buy-in at the last minute. It's not any of your concern why they've done it. It doesn't take anything away from you.
I don't really care for the direction this thread has taken with some of the anger and insulting language that's been used. Up until now I haven't even addressed the issue of "Bigger Bankroll" players being responsible for this. As Tommy and Scotty have said, this is totally irrelevant. There is nothing unethical being done either way, it's merely that you feel that you are seeing better players playing multiple satellites and winning them. This is not something that you can get away from, though: good players win tournaments and as long as they have the right to enter these satellites, you do not have the right to tell them what to do.
Now, as some have said, whether they should be allowed to enter the satellites after buying in to the tournament is another issue. If you want Sky to change their satellite system then that's a matter for Sky. Insulting those winning players for having the temerity to win your money is not the way to go and it's not what you're actually upset about. If Sky changes to a ticketed system, satellite fields will shrink and tournament prize pools will also shrink (because as jonjo and Scotty have said, these players don't always win).
One last thing: Some seem to think that only big bankrolled players would ever do this. My account balance four weeks ago was £1.50. I won a satellite seat on a show competition but it was for UKOPS 4, which was a £55 rebuy. That meant I couldn't afford to compete on a level playing field without being willing to commit an extra £100 at least. That was not possible, so instead I deposited enough money to cover the entry free, won the satellite and took the £55 profit. That Saturday, because the standard of play in the previous satellite had been so poor, I played a £5 satellite to UKOPS 1. I won that satellite and then won the £110 from the semi. Playing a £110 tournament when I have so little money myself would have been a crazy gamble, so I didn't. The next day I played another £5 satellite, won that and failed in the semi. So in a few days I'd turned nothing into around £154. I hadn't done that by being devious, I'd done that by being good. Many of the players I was facing were inferior to me. Do those players have a right to tell me that I shouldn't take that money? No they don't. They lost fair and square, just as I did in the second Semi.
When people are given two legitimate options, suggesting that they deserve to be lambasted for choosing the one you don't like is daft. I earned that £154 by beating the field. Should I have passed up this opportunity to make some much needed money, simply because the weaker players in the field might have (mistakenly) perceived that I was doing something unethical?
None of that was anyones business but my own, quite frankly, but I don't mind sharing. Neither is the size of Scotty, Tommy or any other player's bankroll anyones business but their own. The only thing you have any control over or any right to discuss is your own situation. If a higher bankroll player beats you, it may well be because he's better than you. Once he's beaten you, you don't get to tell him what to do with that money. You certainly can't say to that player that he shouldn't be allowed to play against you because he can afford to play higher. It's not relevant that your opponent has more money in their roll.
If you want to get through more satellites, then the key is to improve your game. Don't take any interest in what others do with their money.
Prize money in a satellite is just that, prize money in a satellite. It is not the same as the prizepool for the main event and if someone takes that money they are not siphoning anything from the main event prize pool. The main event prize pool is whatever it is after the end of the registration period. That is when it is decided, not before. If you believed that this money would be automatically entered into the prize pool of the main event you were mistaken. That is not the fault of anyone else and nor should you get angry about it. You may think that the value of the tournament has been reduced but so has the strength of the field. Less money for you to win but fewer players for you to beat. So at a £110 SPT: £100 less in the prize pool. One fewer player in the field. This is obvious and neither advantages nor disadvantages you in any way (Unless the tournament fails to meet it's guarantee in which case you are clearly being advantaged). Being angry about this is just as ridiculous as being angry about someone withdrawing their buy-in at the last minute. It's not any of your concern why they've done it. It doesn't take anything away from you. I don't really care for the direction this thread has taken with some of the anger and insulting language that's been used. Up until now I haven't even addressed the issue of "Bigger Bankroll" players being responsible for this. As Tommy and Scotty have said, this is totally irrelevant. There is nothing unethical being done either way, it's merely that you feel that you are seeing better players playing multiple satellites and winning them. This is not something that you can get away from, though: good players win tournaments and as long as they have the right to enter these satellites, you do not have the right to tell them what to do. Now, as some have said, whether they should be allowed to enter the satellites after buying in to the tournament is another issue. If you want Sky to change their satellite system then that's a matter for Sky. Insulting those winning players for having the temerity to win your money is not the way to go and it's not what you're actually upset about. If Sky changes to a ticketed system, satellite fields will shrink and tournament prize pools will also shrink (because as jonjo and Scotty have said, these players don't always win). One last thing: Some seem to think that only big bankrolled players would ever do this. My account balance four weeks ago was £1.50. I won a satellite seat on a show competition but it was for UKOPS 4, which was a £55 rebuy. That meant I couldn't afford to compete on a level playing field without being willing to commit an extra £100 at least. That was not possible, so instead I deposited enough money to cover the entry free, won the satellite and took the £55 profit. That Saturday, because the standard of play in the previous satellite had been so poor, I played a £5 satellite to UKOPS 1. I won that satellite and then won the £110 from the semi. Playing a £110 tournament when I have so little money myself would have been a crazy gamble, so I didn't. The next day I played another £5 satellite, won that and failed in the semi. So in a few days I'd turned nothing into around £154. I hadn't done that by being devious, I'd done that by being good. Many of the players I was facing were inferior to me. Do those players have a right to tell me that I shouldn't take that money? No they don't. They lost fair and square, just as I did in the second Semi. When people are given two legitimate options, suggesting that they deserve to be lambasted for choosing the one you don't like is daft. I earned that £154 by beating the field. Should I have passed up this opportunity to make some much needed money, simply because the weaker players in the field might have (mistakenly) perceived that I was doing something unethical? None of that was anyones business but my own, quite frankly, but I don't mind sharing. Neither is the size of Scotty, Tommy or any other player's bankroll anyones business but their own. The only thing you have any control over or any right to discuss is your own situation. If a higher bankroll player beats you, it may well be because he's better than you. Once he's beaten you, you don't get to tell him what to do with that money. You certainly can't say to that player that he shouldn't be allowed to play against you because he can afford to play higher. It's not relevant that your opponent has more money in their roll. If you want to get through more satellites, then the key is to improve your game. Don't take any interest in what others do with their money. Posted by BorinLoner
Bankroll was never an issue in any of my posts, Neither was qualifying through Satellites to gain one entry into a tournament. And frustration would be a better word than anger. The money I invest, buys a dream, and a few hours enjoyable entertainment at the table.
Below is the info for tonights SPT satellite.
SPT Semi Final 1 player in 5 will win a seat to the £20,000 SPT Luton on the 8th December at the G-Casino, Luton. Late Reg will be open for 30 minutes.
There is no mention of cash alternatives, but it is clear the seats offered as prizes are for a £30,000 tournament and make up part of that prizefund.
If Sky are happy that Satellite winners can withdraw cash equivalents prior to the finish of the £30,000tournament. Under Trading Standards and Gaming legislation I believe it should be clearly stated and transparent.
So why is it omitted?
My opinion is that SKY run the tournaments to do exactly as it says on the can. To encourage participation in prestige tournaments.
I am hapy that you had a result! and applaud anyone who plays the game well! I just feel that if you win your way into a main event through a satellite. You should be restricted from making further attempts for the same tournament or Sky should create Satellites for tournament tokens that offer entry into similar tariff events
I don't have a problem with Sky changing their systems but as long as their systems are the way they are, you can't blame the players for taking one of the options made available to them. Calling them thieves is not on.
I imagine Sky don't advertise the cash equivalent option on the satellite lobby simply because they don't want players to do that. They want players to go into the main event. However they do allow players to take the cash equivalent and as long as they do, it's the right of any player to take up that option. The players are not doing anything underhanded and should not be accused of doing so.
I very much doubt that there's any statute that would dictate exactly how poker tournament winnings are used. You're wrong to say that "...it is clear the seats offered as prizes are for a tournament and make up part of that prizefund." They do not make up part of that main event prizepool. The main event prizepool is as described in the main event lobby, when the main event registration period ends. It is seperate from the satellite prizepool, even if one usually pays into the other.
The idea of a ticketed system is a sound one. I have no real preference between the two alternatives. It would solve the problem raised by PokerTrev about players not being able to de-register from the main if they satellited in. The situation of being unable to de-reg without losing your money is ridiculous. If the in-laws pop in or you need to give the dog a bath, you ought to be able to change your mind about playing a tournament without taking a hit to your wallet.
I don't have a problem with Sky changing their systems but as long as their systems are the way they are, you can't blame the players for taking one of the options made available to them. Calling them thieves is not on. I imagine Sky don't advertise the cash equivalent option on the satellite lobby simply because they don't want players to do that. They want players to go into the main event. However they do allow players to take the cash equivalent and as long as they do, it's the right of any player to take up that option. The players are not doing anything underhanded and should not be accused of doing so. I very much doubt that there's any statute that would dictate exactly how poker tournament winnings are used. You're wrong to say that "...it is clear the seats offered as prizes are for a tournament and make up part of that prizefund ." They do not make up part of that main event prizepool. The main event prizepool is as described in the main event lobby, when the main event registration period ends. It is seperate from the satellite prizepool, even if one usually pays into the other. The idea of a ticketed system is a sound one. I have no real preference between the two alternatives. It would solve the problem raised by PokerTrev about players not being able to de-register from the main if they satellited in. The situation of being unable to de-reg without losing your money is ridiculous. If the in-laws pop in or you need to give the dog a bath, you ought to be able to change your mind about playing a tournament without taking a hit to your wallet. Posted by BorinLoner
Cheers for the discussion Borin Loner. There's always two sides to a story. I Hope Sky Management take a positive from the comments. There are quite a number who believe Satellites to obtain a universal entry token woulld be a good idea. Maybe a weekly tournament could take place for £55 £110 & £220 tournament tokens where the winners (1/5) could decide how to use the token, be it cash, stt, sng or mtt. For myself I'd love to have a go and if I did cash I'd love to save them for SPT's UKOPS or Viva Las Vegas etc It always seems too much of a rush to qualify in a short period of time. Running them throughout the year could boost fields for the big events. Any thoughts?
The only issue with the idea above is that pretty muc everyone would have the same idea as you regarding SPTs and each SPT would probably sell out within days of being released. That's great for Sky and people who save up the tourney tokens, but you'll always get people moaning saying they didnt even get a chance to satellite in.
Comments
SPT semi £24 1 in 5 qaulify.
100 runners so 20 win seats.
40 of those runners will either buy in or have qaulified already so there is an extra 8 seats due to those people.
Now lets say 5 of those qaulify this means that there is an extra 3 seats that go through that wouldnt have and now bump up the prize pool of the SPT by £300+
Your equation is based on these people qualifying everytime which surely is not right.
We're on the final table and one of the players tells everyone he's a student, doesn't have much of a bankroll and the £110 would mean a huge amount to him. He started asking how he could get the buy in value and not play the tournament. Someone told him to buy in first, get credited and then dereg. What went unspoken was if he could afford to buy in for the High Roller, and if not clearly he may have no intention of winning the FT as he wouldn't be able to get the cash value out. Questions for all:
1) Was I wrong to play this sat? I would say no
2) Many in this thread have come down like a ton of bricks on the larger bankrolled players playing sats for cash with no intention. Now you have a micro player doing it to whom a hundred quid is a lot of money. Are you going to crash down on him too? And if not, what's the difference between a micro BR and a large BR player doing it, they have, in the view of some people in the thread, 'deprived a player of a seat.' Can you distinguish the two without being a hypocrite? My answer to the last part is no you cannot.
Tikay posts threads advertising potential overlays for main events. To encourage participation
I may enter three or four satellites to make a main event, believing that no matter how many attempts I make to qualify, the money i've invested will be included in the prize fund.
From the comments on this thread, I now know, this is not the case. Others are not entering in good faith to take part in the tournament. What incentive do I have to take part if prizemoney is siphoned off?
You can't enter the lottery and when your first two numbers come out say stop! Ill take £6.67 instead!
In my opinion If you enter a satellite for an advertised tournament. All the proceeds from the satellite should go into the prizefund irrespective of whether its won by a high or low bankrolled player
What's the point of calling it a satellite and naming the event? If in a lot of instances the money goes elsewhere?
Prize money in a satellite is just that, prize money in a satellite. It is not the same as the prizepool for the main event and if someone takes that money they are not siphoning anything from the main event prize pool. The main event prize pool is whatever it is after the end of the registration period. That is when it is decided, not before.
If you believed that this money would be automatically entered into the prize pool of the main event you were mistaken. That is not the fault of anyone else and nor should you get angry about it. You may think that the value of the tournament has been reduced but so has the strength of the field. Less money for you to win but fewer players for you to beat.
So at a £110 SPT: £100 less in the prize pool. One fewer player in the field. This is obvious and neither advantages nor disadvantages you in any way (Unless the tournament fails to meet it's guarantee in which case you are clearly being advantaged).
Being angry about this is just as ridiculous as being angry about someone withdrawing their buy-in at the last minute. It's not any of your concern why they've done it. It doesn't take anything away from you.
I don't really care for the direction this thread has taken with some of the anger and insulting language that's been used. Up until now I haven't even addressed the issue of "Bigger Bankroll" players being responsible for this. As Tommy and Scotty have said, this is totally irrelevant. There is nothing unethical being done either way, it's merely that you feel that you are seeing better players playing multiple satellites and winning them. This is not something that you can get away from, though: good players win tournaments and as long as they have the right to enter these satellites, you do not have the right to tell them what to do.
Now, as some have said, whether they should be allowed to enter the satellites after buying in to the tournament is another issue. If you want Sky to change their satellite system then that's a matter for Sky. Insulting those winning players for having the temerity to win your money is not the way to go and it's not what you're actually upset about. If Sky changes to a ticketed system, satellite fields will shrink and tournament prize pools will also shrink (because as jonjo and Scotty have said, these players don't always win).
One last thing: Some seem to think that only big bankrolled players would ever do this. My account balance four weeks ago was £1.50. I won a satellite seat on a show competition but it was for UKOPS 4, which was a £55 rebuy. That meant I couldn't afford to compete on a level playing field without being willing to commit an extra £100 at least. That was not possible, so instead I deposited enough money to cover the entry free, won the satellite and took the £55 profit. That Saturday, because the standard of play in the previous satellite had been so poor, I played a £5 satellite to UKOPS 1. I won that satellite and then won the £110 from the semi. Playing a £110 tournament when I have so little money myself would have been a crazy gamble, so I didn't. The next day I played another £5 satellite, won that and failed in the semi. So in a few days I'd turned nothing into around £154. I hadn't done that by being devious, I'd done that by being good. Many of the players I was facing were inferior to me. Do those players have a right to tell me that I shouldn't take that money? No they don't. They lost fair and square, just as I did in the second Semi.
When people are given two legitimate options, suggesting that they deserve to be lambasted for choosing the one you don't like is daft. I earned that £154 by beating the field. Should I have passed up this opportunity to make some much needed money, simply because the weaker players in the field might have (mistakenly) perceived that I was doing something unethical?
None of that was anyones business but my own, quite frankly, but I don't mind sharing. Neither is the size of Scotty, Tommy or any other player's bankroll anyones business but their own. The only thing you have any control over or any right to discuss is your own situation. If a higher bankroll player beats you, it may well be because he's better than you. Once he's beaten you, you don't get to tell him what to do with that money. You certainly can't say to that player that he shouldn't be allowed to play against you because he can afford to play higher. It's not relevant that your opponent has more money in their roll.
If you want to get through more satellites, then the key is to improve your game. Don't take any interest in what others do with their money.
And frustration would be a better word than anger. The money I invest, buys a dream, and a few hours enjoyable entertainment at the table.
Below is the info for tonights SPT satellite.
SPT Semi Final 1 player in 5 will win a seat to the £20,000 SPT Luton on the 8th December at the G-Casino, Luton. Late Reg will be open for 30 minutes.
There is no mention of cash alternatives, but it is clear the seats offered as prizes are for a £30,000 tournament and make up part of that prizefund.
If Sky are happy that Satellite winners can withdraw cash equivalents prior to the finish of the £30,000tournament.
Under Trading Standards and Gaming legislation I believe it should be clearly stated and transparent.
So why is it omitted?
My opinion is that SKY run the tournaments to do exactly as it says on the can. To encourage participation in prestige tournaments.
I am hapy that you had a result! and applaud anyone who plays the game well!
I just feel that if you win your way into a main event through a satellite. You should be restricted from making further attempts for the same tournament or Sky should create Satellites for tournament tokens that offer entry into similar tariff events
I imagine Sky don't advertise the cash equivalent option on the satellite lobby simply because they don't want players to do that. They want players to go into the main event. However they do allow players to take the cash equivalent and as long as they do, it's the right of any player to take up that option. The players are not doing anything underhanded and should not be accused of doing so.
I very much doubt that there's any statute that would dictate exactly how poker tournament winnings are used. You're wrong to say that "...it is clear the seats offered as prizes are for a tournament and make up part of that prizefund." They do not make up part of that main event prizepool. The main event prizepool is as described in the main event lobby, when the main event registration period ends. It is seperate from the satellite prizepool, even if one usually pays into the other.
The idea of a ticketed system is a sound one. I have no real preference between the two alternatives. It would solve the problem raised by PokerTrev about players not being able to de-register from the main if they satellited in. The situation of being unable to de-reg without losing your money is ridiculous. If the in-laws pop in or you need to give the dog a bath, you ought to be able to change your mind about playing a tournament without taking a hit to your wallet.
There's always two sides to a story.
I Hope Sky Management take a positive from the comments.
There are quite a number who believe Satellites to obtain a universal entry token woulld be a good idea.
Maybe a weekly tournament could take place for £55 £110 & £220 tournament tokens where the winners (1/5) could decide how to use the token, be it cash, stt, sng or mtt.
For myself I'd love to have a go and if I did cash I'd love to save them for SPT's UKOPS or Viva Las Vegas etc
It always seems too much of a rush to qualify in a short period of time.
Running them throughout the year could boost fields for the big events. Any thoughts?