Several times I've played with only 4 runners for the 2 seats, though only once this Summer.
Post the lobby then.
I usually know the players and they recognize what good value 2 seats for 4 players is.
As is winning the lottery. It rarely if ever happens.
.......and NO I don't agree to increase the numbers from 3 to 4 is pointless, when 2 seats are on offer, especially when you do actually get 4, the sat. goes ahead, you end up with only 7 players and you have 2 seats (as happened in the 5.15pm sat. on Sunday) ......MUCH BETTER
That is one example. Yet many are cancelled. You have no proof that any of the players entered because of the extra seat, or whether they would have entered anyway, if there was a min three runners and only one seat guaranteed.
CBA trawling thru' my account to find it ........ and it's probably not possible since the change to My Account
As is winning the lottery. It rarely if ever happens.
Somebody wins BIG every week ..tho' not necessarily the JACKPOT
That is one example. Yet many are cancelled. You have no proof that any of the players entered because of the extra seat, or whether they would have entered anyway, if there was a min three runners and only one seat guaranteed.
I'll defo play more of these now ...... I must be able to 2-Table at least
CBA trawling thru' my account to find it ........ and it's probably not possible since the change to My Account
As is winning the lottery. It rarely if ever happens.
Somebody wins BIG every week ..tho' not necessarily the JACKPOT
That is one example. Yet many are cancelled. You have no proof that any of the players entered because of the extra seat, or whether they would have entered anyway, if there was a min three runners and only one seat guaranteed.
I'll defo play more of these now ...... I must be able to 2-Table at least
GOOD LUCK for the week
See you SUNDAY
On and on and on and on and on.......................................... Yet more irrelevant stuff. No proof.
.......and NO I don't agree to increase the numbers from 3 to 4 is pointless, when 2 seats are on offer, especially when you do actually get 4, the sat. goes ahead, you end up with only 7 players and you have 2 seats (as happened in the 5.15pm sat. on Sunday) ......MUCH BETTER
This may have been purely because there were 15 runners in the 5pm.
.........and after all this going on & on & on .....leave it as it is, 'coz the numbers will come back very soon, when the weather changes and the nights start 'drawing in'
.........and after all this going on & on & on .....leave it as it is, 'coz the numbers will come back very soon, when the weather changes and the nights start 'drawing in'
.........and after all this going on & on & on .....leave it as it is, 'coz the numbers will come back very soon, when the weather changes and the nights start 'drawing in'
Just to repeat myself because it hasnt sunk in. I was merely asking the question which was, If the addition of an extra guaranteed seat results in a number of cancellations, at a particular time during the day, doesnt this defeat the purpose of doing it? The facts that support this are, Every week there are cancellations, where 3 runners are registered.
Most people would probably accept that if there were less cancellations caused by a one seat guarantee, and three runners, that would be a good thing. Bearing in mind that the goal from Skys point of view is to attract five or more runners to avoid losing money. The overwhelming majority of the sats that start with three runners, end up with more than five.
As I have said I have never, ever played one that has ended with four runners, and paid out 2 seats. You say you have, but cant find the proof, even if it does exist. Lets say you are telling the truth and it did happen once. What would that prove? How could something that happened once is proof that players see it as an incentive, when the other side of the coin is that this "incentive" causes cancellations every week.
So lets try one more time. An incentive is causing sats to be cancelled every week, at certain times.
MISTY'C MEG thinks there won't be a problem with the afternoon 2 seat sat's this Sunday .....or too much in future, as I for one, will be joining more (as I mentioned earlier), and I'm sure there will be others too, having seen this thread.
MISTY'C MEG thinks there won't be a problem with the afternoon 2 seat sat's this Sunday .....or too much in future, as I for one, will be joining more (as I mentioned earlier), and I'm sure there will be others too, having seen this thread.
Thankyou Mr two short. I bow to your superior knowledge, and am glad to have helped Sky solve a problem, that you didnt see as one.
MISTY'C MEG thinks there won't be a problem with the afternoon 2 seat sat's this Sunday .....or too much in future, as I for one, will be joining more (as I mentioned earlier), and I'm sure there will be others too, having seen this thread.
I am going now as you have worn me out Mr two short. Just one last question. If you ran a poker site where a particular tourney was cancelled week after week at particular times, due to being one runner short. Would you address the problem or merely continue to cancel them?
MISTY'C MEG thinks there won't be a problem with the afternoon 2 seat sat's this Sunday .....or too much in future, as I for one, will be joining more (as I mentioned earlier), and I'm sure there will be others too, having seen this thread.
I am going now as you have worn me out Mr two short. Just one last question. If you ran a poker site where a particular tourney was cancelled week after week at particular times, due to being one runner short. Would you address the problem or merely continue to cancel them?
Well 'the Team' at SKYPoker are far more knowledgeable than me (I think), and they haven't seen fit to alter it.
Anyway Mr Hayes, it's your fault I am how I am....... you taught me well, and to never take NO for an answer. (incidentally an anagram of ON ..and ON and ON)
Comments
Yet many are cancelled.
You have no proof that any of the players entered because of the extra seat, or whether they would have entered anyway, if there was a min three runners and only one seat guaranteed.
Post the lobby then.
CBA trawling thru' my account to find it ........ and it's probably not possible since the change to My Account
As is winning the lottery.
It rarely if ever happens.
Somebody wins BIG every week ..tho' not necessarily the JACKPOT
That is one example.
Yet many are cancelled.
You have no proof that any of the players entered because of the extra seat, or whether they would have entered anyway, if there was a min three runners and only one seat guaranteed.
I'll defo play more of these now ...... I must be able to 2-Table at least
GOOD LUCK for the week
See you SUNDAY
GOOD LUCK for the week
See you SUNDAY
On and on and on and on and on..........................................
Yet more irrelevant stuff.
No proof.
.......and NO I don't agree to increase the numbers from 3 to 4 is pointless, when 2 seats are on offer, especially when you do actually get 4, the sat. goes ahead, you end up with only 7 players and you have 2 seats (as happened in the 5.15pm sat. on Sunday) ......MUCH BETTER
This may have been purely because there were 15 runners in the 5pm.
Just a thought.
I play my best poker in “All in” sat’s. Ask anyone.
I was merely asking the question which was,
If the addition of an extra guaranteed seat results in a number of cancellations, at a particular time during the day, doesnt this defeat the purpose of doing it?
The facts that support this are,
Every week there are cancellations, where 3 runners are registered.
Most people would probably accept that if there were less cancellations caused by a one seat guarantee, and three runners, that would be a good thing.
Bearing in mind that the goal from Skys point of view is to attract five or more runners to avoid losing money.
The overwhelming majority of the sats that start with three runners, end up with more than five.
As I have said I have never, ever played one that has ended with four runners, and paid out 2 seats.
You say you have, but cant find the proof, even if it does exist.
Lets say you are telling the truth and it did happen once.
What would that prove?
How could something that happened once is proof that players see it as an incentive, when the other side of the coin is that this "incentive" causes cancellations every week.
So lets try one more time.
An incentive is causing sats to be cancelled every week, at certain times.
I hope so, I've taken the Overs on a 40 post thread.
Fixed your post @stokefc
......or is it not possible anymore Tony @Tikay10
Just asking to help you with your bet on the 'overs' obv.
@Sky__James @mumsie @bbMike @MattBates @FeelGroggy ....and Keith @goldnballz obv
I bow to your superior knowledge, and am glad to have helped Sky solve a problem, that you didnt see as one.
Just one last question.
If you ran a poker site where a particular tourney was cancelled week after week at particular times, due to being one runner short.
Would you address the problem or merely continue to cancel them?
Anyway Mr Hayes, it's your fault I am how I am....... you taught me well, and to never take NO for an answer. (incidentally an anagram of ON ..and ON and ON)
Mr TOO Short