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.

Mini.

HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 31,518
Is a rebuy/re-entry a better option than falling prize pools?

You wouldnt have to increase the guarantees from where they are now.

For instance the reason The Avenger beat the guarantee on Thursday by £1200, was through 20% of the players re-entering.

Could you apply the same argument to the 3pm BH.
«1

Comments

  • hoban01hoban01 Member Posts: 80
    **** **** i dont fancy you by the way but i think this is the 4th post this morning i have commented on and again i agree with you all the bigger tourneys get a rebuy but the smaller ones dont i think all tourneys should have 1 rebuy it will help the prize pool
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 31,518
    For example last night there were 429 runners.
    350 rebuys.
    I would accept that this number would be much lower if was a re-entry tourney, as last night was a rebuy.
    But it seems that a very large percentage of last nights players were prepared to spend a bit more money.
    A re-entry is always optional, and nobody is forced into it.
  • SwogSwog Member Posts: 482
    Yep, 1 rebuy but no addons.
  • loosecamelloosecamel Member Posts: 152
    +1
    Never understood why they don’t have a re entry for the mini but do for the main
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 31,518

    +1
    Never understood why they don’t have a re entry for the mini but do for the main

    There were 210 add ons on Friday.

    So if you could match that figure on Saturday with almost 500 runners.

    If one re-entry was allowed you would add over a grand to the prize pool.

    Although it wouldnt have affected me at all.
  • Allan23Allan23 Member Posts: 863
    I’m usually against rebuys in low stakes tournies but I think a single rebuy option in the Mini would do it a world of good
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 31,518
    Allan23 said:

    I’m usually against rebuys in low stakes tournies but I think a single rebuy option in the Mini would do it a world of good


    I think you are right.

    The mini is advertised as a small stakes version of the main.

    One re-entry makes a huge difference to the prize pools in the main.

    It seems odd that a re-entry is allowed in the main, but not in the mini.

    I dont really like spending the money on a re-entry, but it is handy if you have a very early accident.

    Just out of interest, why are you against them in small stakes tourneys?

  • Allan23Allan23 Member Posts: 863
    A combination of losing players burning through bankrolls quicker, and “regs” having a bigger edge on the field as they can afford to fire as many bullets as they want as they know each team they press the button they’re making money long term (if they’re beating the games).

    I’ve been in the position of “fish” when looking at lobbies for higher stakes games, say in ukops. Anything rebuy/add on I would be immediately turned off by, just see it so much more difficult to cash. I presume lower stakes “fish” would be in similar positions if everything on the schedule was a rebuy/add on

  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 31,518
    Allan23 said:

    A combination of losing players burning through bankrolls quicker, and “regs” having a bigger edge on the field as they can afford to fire as many bullets as they want as they know each team they press the button they’re making money long term (if they’re beating the games).

    I’ve been in the position of “fish” when looking at lobbies for higher stakes games, say in ukops. Anything rebuy/add on I would be immediately turned off by, just see it so much more difficult to cash. I presume lower stakes “fish” would be in similar positions if everything on the schedule was a rebuy/add on

    Ok, I understand.

    Do you think that in the case of the Mini, it could be a low stakes players highlight of the day, and one re-entry may be preferable to the disappointment of an early exit, and the option of playing another tourney with a much smaller guarantee?
  • MattBatesMattBates Member Posts: 4,118
    HAYSIE said:

    Allan23 said:

    A combination of losing players burning through bankrolls quicker, and “regs” having a bigger edge on the field as they can afford to fire as many bullets as they want as they know each team they press the button they’re making money long term (if they’re beating the games).

    I’ve been in the position of “fish” when looking at lobbies for higher stakes games, say in ukops. Anything rebuy/add on I would be immediately turned off by, just see it so much more difficult to cash. I presume lower stakes “fish” would be in similar positions if everything on the schedule was a rebuy/add on

    Ok, I understand.

    Do you think that in the case of the Mini, it could be a low stakes players highlight of the day, and one re-entry may be preferable to the disappointment of an early exit, and the option of playing another tourney with a much smaller guarantee?
    I think a highlight might be knocking one of the well known sky players only to feel bad when they see them re-enter.

  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 31,518
    MattBates said:



    HAYSIE said:

    Allan23 said:

    A combination of losing players burning through bankrolls quicker, and “regs” having a bigger edge on the field as they can afford to fire as many bullets as they want as they know each team they press the button they’re making money long term (if they’re beating the games).

    I’ve been in the position of “fish” when looking at lobbies for higher stakes games, say in ukops. Anything rebuy/add on I would be immediately turned off by, just see it so much more difficult to cash. I presume lower stakes “fish” would be in similar positions if everything on the schedule was a rebuy/add on

    Ok, I understand.

    Do you think that in the case of the Mini, it could be a low stakes players highlight of the day, and one re-entry may be preferable to the disappointment of an early exit, and the option of playing another tourney with a much smaller guarantee?
    I think a highlight might be knocking one of the well known sky players only to feel bad when they see them re-enter.

    MattBates said:



    HAYSIE said:

    Allan23 said:

    A combination of losing players burning through bankrolls quicker, and “regs” having a bigger edge on the field as they can afford to fire as many bullets as they want as they know each team they press the button they’re making money long term (if they’re beating the games)

    I’ve been in the position of “fish” when looking at lobbies for higher stakes games, say in ukops. Anything rebuy/add on I would be immediately turned off by, just see it so much more difficult to cash. I presume lower stakes “fish” would be in similar positions if everything on the schedule was a rebuy/add on

    Ok, I understand.

    Do you think that in the case of the Mini, it could be a low stakes players highlight of the day, and one re-entry may be preferable to the disappointment of an early exit, and the option of playing another tourney with a much smaller guarantee?
    I think a highlight might be knocking one of the well known sky players only to feel bad when they see them re-enter. </blockquote

    This comment could be true when referring to the main every day.

    So why have re-entries at all, ever?

    If re-entries are unfair then poker sites shouldnt do them.

    I used the example of the main on Thursday.
    The guaranties have just been reduced, which usually makes players a bit glum.
    Thursdays guarantee was exceeded by £1200, due to 40 re-entries.
    Wouldnt most players prefer to play for £7,200, rather than £6,000, whoever they are.


    As far as the mini is concerned.
    Fridays got 429 runners that spent on average close to £12 per head.
    This resulted in a really good prize pool.
    There were almost 70 more runners last night, and half the prize pool.

    I understand the argument you are making, it has been put forward before on another thread.
    This argument makes logical sense, but is it true?
    If someone went through the main event stats, would they find that the majority of players that cash in the main each day have re-entered?
    If not your argument wouldnt stand up.

    If I have a really good player or two on my table, it doesnt really matter to me if they have re-entered or not, they are there anyway.

    If there were no re-entries full stop, many of the guarantees would be reduced further.
    As many tourneys now rely on re-entries to cover the guarantees.
    Nevertheless if they are really unfair Sky shouldnt do them.

    My argument is merely that they boost prize pools, and give all players an option of a second bite, if they so wish.

    If you knock out a good player that re-enters, you should see it as a positive thing, and be determined to knock him out again.
  • Jac35Jac35 Member Posts: 6,471
    I think it’s a fine line
    I agree with you in theory but i also see the other side.
    For players who have smaller bankrolls and for example one table the mini, it may seem unfair.

    I don’t really understand your comment about good players on your table being a positive. If i knock Matt Bates out then i want him gone and be replaced by a lesser player. If he can re enter then he might well get all his chips back from me and then knock me out
  • DuesenbergDuesenberg Member Posts: 1,740
    Haysie, is Sky the site where you play most of your tournaments? If so, may I ask why?

    You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about the prize pools of individual tournaments being as big as possible. If that's correct, Sky seems like an odd choice for you to give so much of your action to. Stars and Party offer humongous prize pools with re-entries galore and would surely be right up your street?

    Almost all of the tournaments I play are on Sky. The main reason is because they offer something very different to the kind of places mentioned above. Smaller fields and no rebuy options appeal to me far more than bigger total prize pools. If Sky try to mimic the approach of those other sites then one of their biggest USP's disappears. At that point, what reason would someone like me have to stick around?
  • NOSTRINOSTRI Member Posts: 1,459
    MattBates said:



    HAYSIE said:

    Allan23 said:

    A combination of losing players burning through bankrolls quicker, and “regs” having a bigger edge on the field as they can afford to fire as many bullets as they want as they know each team they press the button they’re making money long term (if they’re beating the games).

    I’ve been in the position of “fish” when looking at lobbies for higher stakes games, say in ukops. Anything rebuy/add on I would be immediately turned off by, just see it so much more difficult to cash. I presume lower stakes “fish” would be in similar positions if everything on the schedule was a rebuy/add on

    Ok, I understand.

    Do you think that in the case of the Mini, it could be a low stakes players highlight of the day, and one re-entry may be preferable to the disappointment of an early exit, and the option of playing another tourney with a much smaller guarantee?
    I think a highlight might be knocking one of the well known sky players only to feel bad when they see them re-enter.

    A highlight for me would be knocking you out twice.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 31,518
    Jac35 said:

    I think it’s a fine line
    I agree with you in theory but i also see the other side.
    For players who have smaller bankrolls and for example one table the mini, it may seem unfair.

    I don’t really understand your comment about good players on your table being a positive. If i knock Matt Bates out then i want him gone and be replaced by a lesser player. If he can re enter then he might well get all his chips back from me and then knock me out

    Jac35 said:

    I think it’s a fine line
    I agree with you in theory but i also see the other side.
    For players who have smaller bankrolls and for example one table the mini, it may seem unfair.

    I don’t really understand your comment about good players on your table being a positive. If i knock Matt Bates out then i want him gone and be replaced by a lesser player. If he can re enter then he might well get all his chips back from me and then knock me out

    I agree there are always at least two sides to any debate.

    The point I was addressing that Matt made was that your glass is either half empty, or half full.
    A glass half full person may think that if they have knocked a good player out once they could do it again.
    After knocking Matt out he could be replaced by an equally good player, or you could get moved to a table that is full of good players.
    When you move tables you dont know who has re-entered and who hasnt, but you have to play against them anyway.

    I appreciate the argument that allowing good players to re-enter may give lesser players less chance, but I am unsure if this is borne out by the facts.

    There were players arguing against re-entries in the main, but that seems to have died down.

    I just wondered if there was a logical reason for not allowing re-entries in the mini.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 31,518

    Haysie, is Sky the site where you play most of your tournaments? If so, may I ask why?

    You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about the prize pools of individual tournaments being as big as possible. If that's correct, Sky seems like an odd choice for you to give so much of your action to. Stars and Party offer humongous prize pools with re-entries galore and would surely be right up your street?

    Almost all of the tournaments I play are on Sky. The main reason is because they offer something very different to the kind of places mentioned above. Smaller fields and no rebuy options appeal to me far more than bigger total prize pools. If Sky try to mimic the approach of those other sites then one of their biggest USP's disappears. At that
    point, what reason would someone like me have to stick around?


    forum
    /ˈfɔːrəm/
    noun

    1.
    a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged:
    "we hope these pages act as a forum for debate"
    synonyms
    meeting, assembly, gathering, conference, seminar, ... more




    I enjoy playing on Sky.

    I havent a clue, nor do I really wish to know, why you have chosen to play on Sky.

    I do not have a bee in my bonnet about anything.

    I was merely expressing my views on a couple of issues.

    That is what people do on forums.

    With the greatest of respect I am not in need of any advice from you as to where I play poker, but thanks anyway.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 31,518
    Jac35 said:

    I think it’s a fine line
    I agree with you in theory but i also see the other side.
    For players who have smaller bankrolls and for example one table the mini, it may seem unfair.

    I don’t really understand your comment about good players on your table being a positive. If i knock Matt Bates out then i want him gone and be replaced by a lesser player. If he can re enter then he might well get all his chips back from me and then knock me out


    At the risk of being accused of goingonandonandonandon.

    I think we are all guilty of making assumptions that we just accept are true.

    Assuming that all small stakes players dont have a decent bankroll, is patently not true.

    The thought that all new players cant afford a re-entry is debatable.

    The theory that that a re-entry facility favours the better players seems logical.

    Although the very nature of being a better player would seem to point towards them needing a re-entry on fewer occasions than a less competent player.

    I would think that if you monitored re-entries in any particular tourney they would cover a full range of players with differing abilities.

    I was merely putting forward that a re-entry may be a good option for the Mini, not every tournament.

    Particularly in the light of the recent guarantee reductions.

    I understand your concerns about those that just play the Mini, but with all due respect they will be able to continue to play until they bust out as usual.

    For those that bust out early, and wish to play another tourney, the next option for a fiver this evening would be a £200 freezeout at 9pm.

    Those lasting a bit longer could hang on for a £100 freezeout at 10.05pm or a £500BH at 10.15.

    Surely many players would prefer a second bite at the Mini.

    I know that a comparison to the main is not a good one because of the difference in buy ins.

    Nevertheless if you look at last nights main.

    There were 179 runners, and 41 re-entries.

    The re-entries made the difference in covering the guarantee or not.

    If all the re-entries were from good players taking advantage of their increased skill levels, then this completely failed, as only 18 got paid.

    It would be interesting to see how many of the re-entries cash on average.

    So in summary I dont have a bee in my bonnet about guarantees as was previously suggested, no wish to turn the Mini into a £1m guaranteed tourney, or turn Sky Poker into Stars.

    However I do believe that I would be speaking for the majority if I said that I would prefer the guarantees to be maintained, rather than see them dropping.

    Although I do appreciate that this is difficult at certain times of the year.

    I am merely saying that subsequent to the re-entry being introduced to the main, the guarantees have held up really well, and that it might be an idea to introduce this facility to the Mini.
  • Asho28Asho28 Member Posts: 763
    edited September 2020
    I've always wondered why the minis don't have rebuys, as it would certainly make the prize pools for these tourneys more sustainable. I don't see what harm would be caused by 1 rebuy if you bust early, especially as you only start with 2000 chips in the majority of the minis (I also dislike that you get less chips/big blinds to start off with in the minis than the mains [excluding Sat and Tues] but that's probably an argument for another day).

    With regards to falling prize pools, I've only been with Sky for a relatively short period of time so may not be best to judge, but it seems that every time a tourney has a run of missed guarantees there is a knee-jerk approach and the guarantee gets dropped. I don't mind the guarantees being dropped and appreciate that site volume is lower at this time of year, but there never seems to be any thought for the other reasons as to why tourneys are missing guarantee and what could be done to improve the number of people entering.
    As I've said on a couple of topics/threads recently, I think the tourney schedule needs an overhaul. Whether that's feasible or not with everything going on right now, I don't know, but I think a new weekly schedule with a greater variety of tourneys could help boost numbers. Mon, Wed & Thurs are the same tourney, as are Tues & Sat. Personally, that's too repetitive and would dissuade me from entering them repeatedly. Why can't we have a different format for the mini & main for every weekday?
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 31,518
    Asho28 said:

    I've always wondered why the minis don't have rebuys, as it would certainly make the prize pools for these tourneys more sustainable. I don't see what harm would be caused by 1 rebuy if you bust early, especially as you only start with 2000 chips in the majority of the minis (I also dislike that you get less chips/big blinds to start off with in the minis than the mains [excluding Sat and Tues] but that's probably an argument for another day).

    With regards to falling prize pools, I've only been with Sky for a relatively short period of time so may not be best to judge, but it seems that every time a tourney has a run of missed guarantees there is a knee-jerk approach and the guarantee gets dropped. I don't mind the guarantees being dropped and appreciate that site volume is lower at this time of year, but there never seems to be any thought for the other reasons as to why tourneys are missing guarantee and what could be done to improve the number of people entering.
    As I've said on a couple of topics/threads recently, I think the tourney schedule needs an overhaul. Whether that's feasible or not with everything going on right now, I don't know, but I think a new weekly schedule with a greater variety of tourneys could help boost numbers. Mon, Wed & Thurs are the same tourney, as are Tues & Sat. Personally, that's too repetitive and would dissuade me from entering them repeatedly. Why can't we have a different format for the mini & main for every weekday?


    I started this thread primarily to encourage debate about allowing one re-entry in the Mini.

    However I did start a thread discussing starting stacks some time ago, only to be deluged with posts from other players telling me how stupid I was, because starting stacks dont matter, as everyone starts with the same number of chips.

    Although I realise that the starting stack affects the finishing time of the tourney, and in some cases starting with a bigger stack may run a tourney for too long.

    I would prefer to see a 3,000 starting stack in the mini, and the same in the Sunday Major semi sats.

    Maybe a 3,000 starting stack, and a 6,000 chip add on, in the Friday rebuy would encourage more players to enter, as they may be prepared to enter and just buy the addon, spending just a little more than the usual entry fee, but are not prepared to spend the £62 in respect of the entry, rebuy, and add on, as this is just about double the usual buy in, and sats can only cover the cost of the entry fee.

    I do think there are a couple of anomalies.
    For instance there are three £100 buy in tourneys each week.
    I think two have a 5,000 starting stack, and one has 10,000.
    The starting times are 7.30, 8.00, and 9pm.
    Tuesday is the latest start, despite Wednesday being a work day.
    Sunday has the biggest starting stack and probably finishes the latest, despite Monday being a work day.
    Friday starts at the earliest time despite Saturday not being a work day for most people, and probably allowing less time to run sats to qualify.


    I mentioned the 3pm BH in another thread.
    This tourney was introduced when the player numbers increased, and had a £1,000 guarantee.
    It ran for a couple of months and regularly got more than the 50 runners required to cover the guarantee.
    As the numbers fell the tourney was discontinued.
    Now if Sky had just reduced the guarantee the tourney would have continued with the same format.
    This was a 3,000 starting stack and a re-entry, which would have made reaching the lower guarantee more likely.
    Instead they brought back the tournament that was in place prior to the increase in numbers.
    This meant a 2,000 starting stack, and no re-entries.
    It is now regularly struggling to get the 7 runners required to start.
    Yesterday it got 16 runners, so the future must be in doubt.
    Of course it may have struggled anyway, whatever the format.
    Although I cant understand the think behind bringing back the old tourney, rather than just reducing the guarantee on the new one.

    There have been many debates about the variety of tournaments, but there seems to be a struggle with popularity of tourneys that arent Bounty Hunters, with the exception of the Sunday Major.

    Despite the above I am happy playing on Sky, and appreciate that Sky have never been afraid of debate, or encouraging feedback.

    What do I know about anything anyway?
  • AKAscottyAKAscotty Member Posts: 81
    If you have a rebuy in the mini, i bet you can say goodbye to the Jackpot..... (not that would ever affect me, but we can but hope)
Sign In or Register to comment.