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
In heads up SNG's, should we be able to have the decision whether to play the game or decline?
TheWaddy
Member Posts: 1,592
in Poker Chat
There are players for my own reasons, i really dont want to play, but have to if i sit first. Im sure many dont want to play me for instance. Surely we should have a choice. Afterall, we would in the real world.
In heads up SNG's, should we be able to have the decision whether to play the game or decline? 51 votes
Yes, we should have a facility of whether to accept
13%
7 votes
No, we should have to play whoever sits
86%
44 votes
Comments
Clogging up the lobbies with regs that don't want to play each other has been a long-term problem. Giving the open sitters the option to decline would only make that worse. You have to earn the right to own the lobby, which means you have to be willing to play anybody.
There needs to be a balance between looking after the high volume players, and looking after the purely recreational players.
It is very easy to choose your opponents-but that necessitates being 2nd in. Not 1st. That's the balance-right there. Play all-comers, or miss many of the weaker players.
In addition, Sky has fairly antiquated software. It would not want to accommodate 6 HU single players at every level who did not want to play anybody unless they were deemed sufficiently weak.
Increasingly, poker sites take steps to protect new players, for example by anonymising players or banning winning players at micro stakes.
It's nothing to do with people disliking you. And everything to do with your idea is not a good one. For the site, that is. Can see the benefit for you.
You truly are two steps ahead of your own shadow.
So he sits at another table... but the spider drops in....
This is not 'to benefit me', actually it could be very much against me, as in the above example.
I personally think more would play, if they could reject certain players.
No idea why this comes down to 'my ego', but maybe the moderator will open his eyes more in the future when a perfectly reasonable poll question is met with immediate hostility...
Apparently i should be made to, so personally i think there is a lot to consider in forcing players to play such people.
What i find strange is why you go on and on about something out of your control what do you aim to achieve ? ..Nowts gonna change here on Sky Poker so it's you who has to adapt , what are you gonna do about it ?
with regards to sit and goes, every sit and go on every poker site that I have ever seen starts when all players are registered. a six max game starts when six players are registered, a two man game starts when 2 players are registered. having a model where anyone can unregister if they dont like playing their opponent or opponents would be difficult to work and would result in mass game selection it would be difficult to ever get games going.
with this model effectively better players then me would seek to sit me potentially whilst weaker players would avoid me. This is nothing special about me this would apply to everyone. games would never run or would run far less often.
you know you waste far too much energy on all these things. constantly suspecting some sort of weird rig or complaining about this or that been unfair.
Here is the truth the vast majority of winning regs who tell you that you are wrong when you claim rigged or whatever else are not statistically qualified to know for sure would not even know how to check and are just saying what they reckon.
That may make you think that you have some sort of high ground or your right but heres another fact a lot of those regs make good money from the game, better then most of them could make from a day job. Instead of complaining they put work into their game, most professional players who earn over 30k a year that I have spoken to at some point get frustrated with bad luck or even suspect something not right at some point. Yet they study or play more and continue and make decent money.
You on the other hand complain and cry rig and continue to make a measly profit, risking eventually getting yourself banned under responsible gambling.
You know I have put quite a bit of work into push fold ranges, limp shove ranges limp call ranges min raise call ofvs fold ranges etc etc for spin and goes.
Do you have any idea how frustrating it can get when it seems all that work is for nothing? when people over fold or over call and clearly have no idea what they are doing but beat me time and time again and I know they getting it wrong and I am getting it right but they call me the fish and laugh?
I could lose my **** and write four page essays claiming a rig and whinging, yet here is the thing, on any analysis on any reasonable sample size I come out showing a profit? why because it feels **** when you lose 15 spin and goes in a row but it feels awesome when I look and see that out of the last 100 I have won very close to 50%.
note I am not claiming to win 50% of spin and goes that would be a lie for anyone claiming that at any stakes it is not doable. my point is I have good runs and bad runs and some of my runs are very good and very hot and some are very bad and it averages out at about 38% which is a good win rate in spin and goes.
what I have found is the more I study the better my results get. the more I leave it the more they stagnate or even degrade.
there are ways to game select, and there are ways to improve both can result in much higher profits if you put the right work into these areas.
you can complain until you eventually get banned or worse continue to play for decades with minimal results and complaining and getting worked up, or you can apply yourself in the right ways and actually get decent results.
I agree that it would be nice to play some recs at HUSNG and it sucks for players and the sites when it's just regs controlling the lobbies. Those regs have often worked hard for that privilege, but it does mean the games rarely run and the recs get run out of town quickly. Same goes for HU cash. Your proposal (wish list) is not the solution to a very old problem for sites and players.
Holding lobbies should be and will always be based on merit, it doesn't get any more fair than somebody issuing an open invitation to literally anybody who is willing to challenge them.
On a personal level I would really like to see the heads up cash lobbies have a minimum hand requirement when somebody joins the table. It could never be implemented on sky but bumhunting is so rife in the games and some of the weak regs don't leave when you join their lobbies so block tables from potentially running.
I personally, would click 'decline' to just 2 players... one for unacceptable comments and the other who just has some kind of ability to get whatever card he needs when inexplicably calling. Regs would not sit there all day refusing to play, they sit long enough with no game already and are there to make money.
It would just allow players to refuse games with those they highly dislike and those who you suspect are not playing fair. Sites are not willing to look into such things themselves, so would just bring a bit of confidence and nicer environment for the players.
The forum is a lost cause of course, for player confidence and environment... and thats why the only contributions are severely limited to the same people.