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.

Options

The death of the Sheriff

cpfc_2010cpfc_2010 Member Posts: 316
I feel as the Sheriff mtt is dying a slow death, with numbers dwindling.

This is not helped by the fact the payouts are now 5 ( on a good night) or 3, whereas it almost always used to pay 6 places.

When it had 6 places paid most regs used to automatically re enter if they busted, now if the lobby is showing 3 places paid the incentive to re enter is just not as strong.

When there are 3 places paid the min cash is often 4x the buy in, which is far greater than any other standard bh on sky.

I feel things could be improved if there was an option of 4 places paid and hopefully as autumn/winter approaches numbers will climb again.
«1

Comments

  • Options
    The_Don90The_Don90 Member Posts: 9,751
    Ive heard sheriff mentioned as one, but many others too.

    |Personally I struggle to find motovation to play mtts that pay less than final table, and for a lower stake player taking a shot at the sheriff or something would not be a thing while its paying as few places.

  • Options
    Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 160,573
    edited September 2021
    @cpfc_2010


    Yes, with the darker nights coming, numbers should pick up, but I'll certainly pass that up to James on Monday for his perusal & consideration.
  • Options
    cpfc_2010cpfc_2010 Member Posts: 316
    Tikay10 said:

    @cpfc_2010


    Yes, with the darker nights coming, numbers should pick up, but I'll certainly pass that up to James on Monday for his perusal & consideration.

    Cheers Tikay
  • Options
    kapowblamzkapowblamz Member Posts: 1,527
    It was Bob Marley.
  • Options
    Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 160,573
    edited September 2021

    It was Bob Marley.

    @kapowblamz

    Clapton, more likely.



    image
  • Options
    GlenelgGlenelg Member Posts: 6,550

    It was Bob Marley.

    Wot he said.......
  • Options
    Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 160,573

    @cpfc_2010

    I passed this up to James & he has now changed the payout template to pay 5 (FIVE) places providing it gets 21 or more Uniques.

    This is with immediate effect, as & from Monday 13th September.
  • Options
    cpfc_2010cpfc_2010 Member Posts: 316
    Tikay10 said:


    @cpfc_2010

    I passed this up to James & he has now changed the payout template to pay 5 (FIVE) places providing it gets 21 or more Uniques.

    This is with immediate effect, as & from Monday 13th September.

    Fantastic news Tikay, thanks very much.
  • Options
    NChanningNChanning Member Posts: 854
    Any chance of making it seven?
  • Options
    Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 160,573
    NChanning said:

    Any chance of making it seven?

    @NChanning


    Makes one wonder what tonight's result was.....




    lolufold 112819.75 £132.72 Head Prizes 6 £69.23

    littlepips 31672.50 £70.32 Head Prizes 3 £48.43

    RCord 25507.75 £103.12 Head Prizes 4 £59.37

    GFKIJKLL 0 4 £102 0

    loololollo 0 5 £93.50 0

    StayOrGo 0 6 £89.07 Head Prizes 4

    @NChanning 0 7 0
  • Options
    Allan23Allan23 Member Posts: 864
    edited September 2021
    Hi @Tikay10 wondering if this is a fix that can be applied throughout other tournies too? Playing a 29 man MTT with 3 paid and a min cash being 3.5x buy in in a bounty hunter is sometimes depressing.
  • Options
    Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 160,573
    Allan23 said:

    Hi @Tikay10 wondering if this is a fix that can be applied throughout other tournies too? Playing a 29 man MTT with 3 paid and a min cash being 3.5x buy in in a bounty hunter is sometimes depressing.

    @Allan23


    I really don't know personally, but yes, I'm happy to send it up to James.

    There will come a point when players - especially the better ones - say it's a bad thing to pay too many places, as it dilutes the money up top. There's no "right answer" really, is there? (Well I suppose more runners would help).

    Bounty Hunters confuse the issue too, with so much of the prize money coming from Head Prizes, so really the money goes much further down.

    Anyway, I'll pass your comments on.
  • Options
    Allan23Allan23 Member Posts: 864
    Tikay10 said:

    Allan23 said:

    Hi @Tikay10 wondering if this is a fix that can be applied throughout other tournies too? Playing a 29 man MTT with 3 paid and a min cash being 3.5x buy in in a bounty hunter is sometimes depressing.

    @Allan23


    I really don't know personally, but yes, I'm happy to send it up to James.

    There will come a point when players - especially the better ones - say it's a bad thing to pay too many places, as it dilutes the money up top. There's no "right answer" really, is there? (Well I suppose more runners would help).

    Bounty Hunters confuse the issue too, with so much of the prize money coming from Head Prizes, so really the money goes much further down.

    Anyway, I'll pass your comments on.
    Yes there definitely is a cut off line (having 5 paid for 20 entrants for example seems excessive). But 3 paid for 29 entrants seems low
  • Options
    DoooobsDoooobs Member Posts: 240
    Allan23 said:

    Tikay10 said:

    Allan23 said:

    Hi @Tikay10 wondering if this is a fix that can be applied throughout other tournies too? Playing a 29 man MTT with 3 paid and a min cash being 3.5x buy in in a bounty hunter is sometimes depressing.

    @Allan23


    I really don't know personally, but yes, I'm happy to send it up to James.

    There will come a point when players - especially the better ones - say it's a bad thing to pay too many places, as it dilutes the money up top. There's no "right answer" really, is there? (Well I suppose more runners would help).

    Bounty Hunters confuse the issue too, with so much of the prize money coming from Head Prizes, so really the money goes much further down.

    Anyway, I'll pass your comments on.
    Yes there definitely is a cut off line (having 5 paid for 20 entrants for example seems excessive). But 3 paid for 29 entrants seems low
    Yep, this 4 seems fine here for 29 entries, but did you pay 6?

    You now have an inconsistency with quickdraw which had 28 entries but only paid 3.

    Think 4 would be about right for both (somewhere between 12% and 15%). Assume Neil isn't really advocating for 7
  • Options
    EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 8,021
    Doooobs said:

    Allan23 said:

    Tikay10 said:

    Allan23 said:

    Hi @Tikay10 wondering if this is a fix that can be applied throughout other tournies too? Playing a 29 man MTT with 3 paid and a min cash being 3.5x buy in in a bounty hunter is sometimes depressing.

    @Allan23


    I really don't know personally, but yes, I'm happy to send it up to James.

    There will come a point when players - especially the better ones - say it's a bad thing to pay too many places, as it dilutes the money up top. There's no "right answer" really, is there? (Well I suppose more runners would help).

    Bounty Hunters confuse the issue too, with so much of the prize money coming from Head Prizes, so really the money goes much further down.

    Anyway, I'll pass your comments on.
    Yes there definitely is a cut off line (having 5 paid for 20 entrants for example seems excessive). But 3 paid for 29 entrants seems low
    Yep, this 4 seems fine here for 29 entries, but did you pay 6?

    You now have an inconsistency with quickdraw which had 28 entries but only paid 3.

    Think 4 would be about right for both (somewhere between 12% and 15%). Assume Neil isn't really advocating for 7
    Probably nearer 12% for Bounty Hunters and 15% for Freezeouts.

    Still seems odd that (unlike other sites) payouts based on unique entries (rather than total entries) for what Sky calls rebuy MTTs (re-entry elsewhere). So-if there were 20 entries, and 20 re-entries, Sky would pay 3 places-less than 10% of the entries.
  • Options
    Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 160,573

    James has now amended the payment template for Quickdraw to bring it in line with the updated Sheriff Template announced yesterday.
  • Options
    NChanningNChanning Member Posts: 854
    Doooobs said:

    Allan23 said:

    Tikay10 said:

    Allan23 said:

    Hi @Tikay10 wondering if this is a fix that can be applied throughout other tournies too? Playing a 29 man MTT with 3 paid and a min cash being 3.5x buy in in a bounty hunter is sometimes depressing.

    @Allan23


    I really don't know personally, but yes, I'm happy to send it up to James.

    There will come a point when players - especially the better ones - say it's a bad thing to pay too many places, as it dilutes the money up top. There's no "right answer" really, is there? (Well I suppose more runners would help).

    Bounty Hunters confuse the issue too, with so much of the prize money coming from Head Prizes, so really the money goes much further down.

    Anyway, I'll pass your comments on.
    Yes there definitely is a cut off line (having 5 paid for 20 entrants for example seems excessive). But 3 paid for 29 entrants seems low
    Yep, this 4 seems fine here for 29 entries, but did you pay 6?

    You now have an inconsistency with quickdraw which had 28 entries but only paid 3.

    Think 4 would be about right for both (somewhere between 12% and 15%). Assume Neil isn't really advocating for 7
    You guys need me in it...should do what I want! (I was 7th yesterday and posted that immediately after).
  • Options
    rspca12rspca12 Member Posts: 618
    Tikay10 said:


    @cpfc_2010

    I passed this up to James & he has now changed the payout template to pay 5 (FIVE) places providing it gets 21 or more Uniques.

    This is with immediate effect, as & from Monday 13th September.

    Not sure i like the idea off 5 paid when 21 Uniques kinda grim that. Much prefer it at 3 myself. 515 i got for wining yesterday that not gd on former pay out would be 600/700 i think. I hate saying bad stuff about sky as we luck 2 still have it and i no guys behind the scenes work v hard James Sam TK etc.

    But it almost dead lookdown boom was gd and we did expect a slow down and summer downturn as well but the decrease is much bigger then other sites and northing fresh on sched.

    I still think sky can be a force that can rival Unibet/Grosvenor for uk market. If its wont to be. I just think needs to take a risk. And hope ukops will be coming soon and sched can a refub. @Tikay10 @Sky_SamT @Sky_James
  • Options
    Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 160,573

    @rspca12

    ;)


    Perfect example that it's hard to strike the right balance Chris. The best answer of course is more runners, then the problem goes away.

    Anyway, I'll pass it up to James as requested.

    UKOPS? I imagine it will be along around late October, as always, but once I hear for certain I'll let you know.

    Well done last night mate.
  • Options
    The_Don90The_Don90 Member Posts: 9,751
    rspca12 said:

    Tikay10 said:


    @cpfc_2010

    I passed this up to James & he has now changed the payout template to pay 5 (FIVE) places providing it gets 21 or more Uniques.

    This is with immediate effect, as & from Monday 13th September.

    Not sure i like the idea off 5 paid when 21 Uniques kinda grim that. Much prefer it at 3 myself. 515 i got for wining yesterday that not gd on former pay out would be 600/700 i think. I hate saying bad stuff about sky as we luck 2 still have it and i no guys behind the scenes work v hard James Sam TK etc.

    But it almost dead lookdown boom was gd and we did expect a slow down and summer downturn as well but the decrease is much bigger then other sites and northing fresh on sched.

    I still think sky can be a force that can rival Unibet/Grosvenor for uk market. If its wont to be. I just think needs to take a risk. And hope ukops will be coming soon and sched can a refub. @Tikay10 @Sky_SamT @Sky_James
    I get your comment from a regs point of view - ill strike a balance - and fwiw im playing devils advovate here and dont nessiseraliy disagree with you.

    You want more recs or Serious amatuers (like id include myself in that and tbh id be one of the weaker players in the sherrif) to play this more. Now you also want a good winrate when you win the thing. The balance being if that rec/serious amatuer is way more likely to play it with 5/6 paid. More likely to get money back at least more often with that payout structure.

    When we get our money back more likely to enter again.

    That strikes a balance with winning it coming down.
Sign In or Register to comment.