Why not challenge the "suits" to look at standardising the rake across all levels/games on the site so that everyone is on an equal footing first?
On the MTT front I don't mind the current system, it is easy to see how much rake you are paying and where the rake is above 10% then you can avoid it like the plague!!!!
In Response to Re: "£10 MTT entry please". "Fine, that'll be £11". : is it not right that guarantees and overlay go hand in hand? to have a guarantee you must balance it against the risk of overlay. at what level to set a guarantee you must also consider the cost. for example, it is not point having guarantees that will never be reached, it costs profit. equally, if the guarantee is always beaten, it ceases to operate at an optimum, and potential profit is missed. i would set guarantees to be beaten on say 95% of tournaments. i would vary guarantees regularly, upwards and downwards. but overall, the numbers playing will be higher than not having the tool. but overlay and guarantee are part of one mechanism. Posted by aussie09
Well one is an uninternded consequence of the other, yes.
I have no idea of the actual %, or whether you refer to number of MTT's, or "subsidy" (total amount of Overlay), but they micro-manage it, very tightly, so I guess 95%$ would not be far out.
It has very little to do with the £10/£11 thing though, that was not part of the thought process at all. I guess it is a consequence, though, but a very small one.
it is good business sense to aim for overlay in, say, 1 in 20 tournaments. otherwise skypoker loses money. insofar that other positions will lose more. Posted by aussie09
i think this is a simple move to eradicate the cost of overlay yet retain numbers. i would guess that the next move would be to have the £9.10 element of the £10 entry rounded to £9. this is a 11% increase in "rake". so, all in all, my thoughts are no. the change would not be in the interest of the player, it would be in the interest of sky, although even then sky would lose as they would no longer have this tool to increase or maintain the number of player in each mtt. Posted by aussie09
Have to agree with this.
Round numbers might sound better to the recreational player but at an effective rake increase its a loose loose.
Loose the reg's & won't attract players form anywhere else that understand how this affects profitability.
Afternoon Mr Kendall Why not challenge the "suits" to look at standardising the rake across all levels/games on the site so that everyone is on an equal footing first? On the MTT front I don't mind the current system, it is easy to see how much rake you are paying and where the rake is above 10% then you can avoid it like the plague!!!! Posted by dabossman
Afternoon to you, Mr Dabossman.
I have not "challenged them" on that or anything else, but if you want my views, & me to send feedback on that particular issue Upstairs, I'm 100% fine with that & will try to field all questions such as I'm able.
Feel free to start a new Thread on that topic, otherwise this one will wander too far off track. I'll try & field questions on that matter, & send it all up to Suitville.
In Response to Re: : I get your drift Rob, but I don't fully agree. Posted by Tikay10
yes, i see. i am only putting forward that the overlay/guarantee thing is a healthy and honourable mechanism by which skypoker can increase their income.
the planned existence and regular occurrence of overlay should be a fundamental part of the business plan. rather than someone in the office getting a clip round the ear if overlay happens they should be patted on the back if the overlay is in line with plan.
In Response to Re: "£10 MTT entry please". "Fine, that'll be £11". : Have to agree with this. Round numbers might sound better to the recreational player but at an effective rake increase its a loose loose. Loose the reg's & won't attract players form anywhere else that understand how this affects profitability. Posted by belsibub
"effective rake increase".
My main discussion topic did not include such a thing.
For the purpose of balance, I then included the "effective rake increase" theory, too.
I am not aware that they have any plans to do either.
I DID think it would be good to have a sort of "thinking out loud" debate, where we could chit & chat about the pros & cons, because I genuinely think that is a good thing. Very few Online Poker sites do that.
In Response to Re: : yes, i see. i am only putting forward that the overlay/guarantee thing is a healthy and honourable mechanism by which skypoker can increase their income. the planned existence and regular occurrence of overlay should be a fundamental part of the business plan. rather than someone in the office getting a clip round the ear if overlay happens they should be patted on the back if the overlay is in line with plan. Posted by aussie09
Ha!
Well I'm sure they include Overlay ("Subsidy" is their terminology) in their Forecasts, & no, I doubt anyone really gets a clip round the ear if overlay occurs within Forecast.
But I bet he gets a cooey-wooey note from Lord Top Suit if he spends less than Forecast.
It's an interesting thing, the whole "Guarantee" debate really.
In Response to Re: : Ha! Well I'm sure they include Overlay ("Subsidy" is their terminology) in their Forecasts, & no, I doubt anyone really gets a clip round the ear if overlay occurs within Forecast. But I bet he gets a cooey-wooey note from Lord Top Suit if he spends less than Forecast. It's an interesting thing, the whole "Guarantee" debate really. Posted by Tikay10
clip round the ear should occur if overlay is more than plan and clip round the ear if overlay is less than plan. overlay must exist at a planned rate.
I'd prefer to keep it as it is. I reckon if the £3.30 game drops to £3 they will take a rake of 30p and not 27p which will increase the rake. Ger would not be a happy camper! No change keep it as it is. Posted by gerardirl
Not buying that. Ger is ALWAYS happy. Almost always......
For the record, there is no agenda in my thread. I just thought it'd be great to discuss these things.
However if Sky did replace 10% rake with a 10% take from the prize pool it would be correctly critiscised by many as being a stealth rake increase of 10%.
If you buy-in for £11 (£10 + £1) 9.09% of your £11 is being taken in rake.
If you buy-in for £10 (£9 + £1) 10.00% of your £10 is taken in rake.
So that's an extra 0.91%, a 10% increase on the 9.09%.
Don't really mind either way. However if Sky did replace 10% rake with a 10% take from the prize pool it would be correctly critiscised by many as being a stealth rake increase of 10%. If you buy-in for £11 (£10 + £1) 9.09% of your £11 is being taken in rake. If you buy-in for £10 (£9 + £1) 10.00% of your £10 is taken in rake. So that's an extra 0.91%, a 10% increase on the 9.09%. Posted by GaryQQQ
Is.......CORRECT.
But my personal theory was not to do that, as I postulated originally.
I thought it gave better balance to include the alternative though.
Based on the original theory, which almost nobody is commenting upon, as you say, & I said, it makes no real difference. To me, though, it just feels a bit neater & more logical. A "stealth increase" was not in my mind at all.
If £10 + £1 was replaced with £9.10 + 90p I can't see anybody having a problem. The round numbers might help market the events, things like "The Tuesday Tenner", "The Friday Thirty", "The Fast Fifty" etc sound quite catchy. Posted by GaryQQQ
BOOM!
Love those.
Friday Fifty
Sunday Centurion
Sunday Century
Century on Sunday
Fursday Forty
The smaller stuff adapts well, too.
The Quick Quid. (Hard to do that @ £1.10).
In SNG's....
Ten Bob Turbo
I'd better stop there......
Oh wait. What about Rainman's jobbie? Have to move that to 2pm.
Personally prefer it the way it is for the simple reason that higher buy ins = higher prize pools.
When I look at an £11 game, I always just naturally round it down and think of it as a 10er, and I imagine a lot of people would do the same. So on that note, I can't imagine anyone looks at an £11 game and thinks "If that was £10 I would play, not £11 though." With that in mind, I don't see that there is a problem just now that needs fixed.
Also, seeing a £10+£1 with a gtd of £2000 for example, makes it really quick and easy to work out how many players as a minimum will be in the game.
There may be other concepts that I am missing but that's my initial thoughts on the subject!
Hi Tikay, Personally prefer it the way it is for the simple reason that higher buy ins = higher prize pools. When I look at an £11 game, I always just naturally round it down and think of it as a 10er, and I imagine a lot of people would do the same. So on that note, I can't imagine anyone looks at an £11 game and thinks "If that was £10 I would play, not £11 though." With that in mind, I don't see that there is a problem just now that needs fixed. Also, seeing a £10+£1 with a gtd of £2000 for example, makes it really quick and easy to work out how many players as a minimum will be in the game. There may be other concepts that I am missing but that's my initial thoughts on the subject! Gary Posted by gazzaluf05
That all makes perfect & agreeable sense, Gary.
I happen to prefer to think in nice, neat, round numbers as to what I can spend, but it's not a big deal, I just thought it interesting how poker players come to accept these really rather weird anomalies without ever questioning them. I also thought it'd be great to chew the cud on things like this now & then.
In Response to Re: "£10 MTT entry please". "Fine, that'll be £11". : That all makes perfect & agreeable sense, Gary. I happen to prefer to think in nice, neat, round numbers as to what I can spend, but it's not a big deal, I just thought it interesting how poker players come to accept these really rather weird anomalies without ever questioning them. I also thought it'd be great to chew the cud on things like this now & then. Posted by Tikay10
Yeah it is an interesting topic. £10 actually being £11 is something you find out when you 1st start playing poker and there is so many more important things to learn that it just gets accepted and never thought about again. Until this thread.
Comments
I have no idea of the actual %, or whether you refer to number of MTT's, or "subsidy" (total amount of Overlay), but they micro-manage it, very tightly, so I guess 95%$ would not be far out.
It has very little to do with the £10/£11 thing though, that was not part of the thought process at all. I guess it is a consequence, though, but a very small one.
I have not "challenged them" on that or anything else, but if you want my views, & me to send feedback on that particular issue Upstairs, I'm 100% fine with that & will try to field all questions such as I'm able.
Feel free to start a new Thread on that topic, otherwise this one will wander too far off track. I'll try & field questions on that matter, & send it all up to Suitville.
yes, i see. i am only putting forward that the overlay/guarantee thing is a healthy and honourable mechanism by which skypoker can increase their income.
the planned existence and regular occurrence of overlay should be a fundamental part of the business plan. rather than someone in the office getting a clip round the ear if overlay happens they should be patted on the back if the overlay is in line with plan.
"effective rake increase".
My main discussion topic did not include such a thing.
For the purpose of balance, I then included the "effective rake increase" theory, too.
I am not aware that they have any plans to do either.
I DID think it would be good to have a sort of "thinking out loud" debate, where we could chit & chat about the pros & cons, because I genuinely think that is a good thing. Very few Online Poker sites do that.
Well I'm sure they include Overlay ("Subsidy" is their terminology) in their Forecasts, & no, I doubt anyone really gets a clip round the ear if overlay occurs within Forecast.
But I bet he gets a cooey-wooey note from Lord Top Suit if he spends less than Forecast.
It's an interesting thing, the whole "Guarantee" debate really.
For the record, there is no agenda in my thread. I just thought it'd be great to discuss these things.
However if Sky did replace 10% rake with a 10% take from the prize pool it would be correctly critiscised by many as being a stealth rake increase of 10%.
If you buy-in for £11 (£10 + £1) 9.09% of your £11 is being taken in rake.
If you buy-in for £10 (£9 + £1) 10.00% of your £10 is taken in rake.
So that's an extra 0.91%, a 10% increase on the 9.09%.
Is.......CORRECT.
But my personal theory was not to do that, as I postulated originally.
I thought it gave better balance to include the alternative though.
Based on the original theory, which almost nobody is commenting upon, as you say, & I said, it makes no real difference. To me, though, it just feels a bit neater & more logical. A "stealth increase" was not in my mind at all.
The round numbers might help market the events, things like "The Tuesday Tenner", "The Friday Thirty", "The Fast Fifty" etc sound quite catchy.
Love those.
Friday Fifty
Sunday Centurion
Sunday Century
Century on Sunday
Fursday Forty
The smaller stuff adapts well, too.
The Quick Quid. (Hard to do that @ £1.10).
In SNG's....
Ten Bob Turbo
I'd better stop there......
Oh wait. What about Rainman's jobbie? Have to move that to 2pm.
anything else = marketing nonsense
I happen to prefer to think in nice, neat, round numbers as to what I can spend, but it's not a big deal, I just thought it interesting how poker players come to accept these really rather weird anomalies without ever questioning them. I also thought it'd be great to chew the cud on things like this now & then.