+1 for encouraging more players to do Twitch streams.
I do not use it myself, at least not yet. However, this idea and other ideas seeking to use social media in order to encourage more people to play on the site can only be a good thing.
Something that other site do is run L/M/H Tiers of the same event. I'm not saying it would be best but could be considered. It then allows UKOPS to be promoted as a single entity that caters to all instead of two separate events. It might be better run as two tiers rather than 3 but could potentially work quite well.
UKOPS Leaderboards - Does the idea of a Total Player (Player of the series) make you play more?
Obviously these come at a cost to Sky Poker. As the one who is in charge of the spending I am the one that is asked to sign off on whether we do or do not one of these. Whilst the spend isn't huge, generally £7,500 for a Main and Mini UKOPS series combined it is a decent chunk when it is tough for us to measure exactly what impact it had. When we're looking at the data there is nothing that tells us this person wouldn't have played this event if it wasn't for the leaderboard.
Efficiency of spend is more critical than ever and so we of course we need to make sure we are spending our money on the right things. For what it is worth I like the idea of a player of the series but would like to know what effect it has on you guys.
Super Sats - These can be tried for more events and I will ask James to implement these going forward.
Flipping in satellites is for another thread. I see why players do it, but of course we need to safe guard ourselves from this. We are running a business and giving money away in this manner, generally to the same groups of customers is not good business.
I think a satellites thread would be a good one as there is lots to be debated.
Sky poker tour,why are sky players not able to buy in direct online?,some are a long way to travel with the chance of not getting a seat or having to wait on an alternate list. Unless the SATs fill up the whole tournie to capacity,I can't think of any other reason.
Not to derail too much but you will be able to do this for (almost) every SPT event this year.
Keep ones now, add a mixed UKOPS/Mini in the Summer
2. Length.
Keep "as is", with a Sun-Sun for the Summer
3. Leaderboards
Just Oct/Nov. Possibly a prize for the winner-only on others?
4. Big Sats
A must. Trial the 3pm ones during UKOPS on weekdays
5. Extra Turbo (5 min blinds) at end. Suggest smaller buy-in for that (5r/11r/11/22)
6. Trial restricting the 7:15 late reg qual to those who haven't already got a seat
All useful stuff thank you Phil. I am afraid that we don't have the capability to do number 6. In the not too distant future however we should be able to do something along these lines.
I really wasn't going to comment, but it is an area that has seriously needed looking at for a while (IMO), so I will say my peace and await the hate mob descending upon me. Without knowing all the facts about numbers, it does appear that the MAINS are always the MTT's which tend to have overlay/struggle to fill. This is regardless of how many sats run/seats are given away etc. I believe that other MTTs in the Main UKOPS also struggled whereas the Mini UKOPS never really had this problem/concern. Nobody would want any of the guarantees lowing, so the sat tree may have to be looked at. Essexphil's idea above is along the same lines as I have requested for ages. Getting the lower BR players through sats into the target tournaments is (IMHO) a much much bigger thing for any poker site than the regs/pros playing them for cash/expenses or treating them as another MTT. Last minute/Last chance all in sats (for those who are not already in the target MTT) would work, if the software could handle it. This would hopefully create a 'John Hesp' effect around UKOPS.
Other quick things - 1) Run a MINI UKOPS every time there is a MAIN, but with same structures and blind levels etc. There could be added bonuses etc for winning/getting to final table in both/cashing in both. 2) Leader-boards do encourage more play (imo) 3) 4/5 day festivals seem to work. Not too little, but not overkill. 4) A live twitch channel with a few players would also increase interest etc. 5) The write ups each day by Tikay were rubbish.
I really wasn't going to comment, but it is an area that has seriously needed looking at for a while (IMO), so I will say my peace and await the hate mob descending upon me. Without knowing all the facts about numbers, it does appear that the MAINS are always the MTT's which tend to have overlay/struggle to fill. This is regardless of how many sats run/seats are given away etc. I believe that other MTTs in the Main UKOPS also struggled whereas the Mini UKOPS never really had this problem/concern. Nobody would want any of the guarantees lowing, so the sat tree may have to be looked at. Essexphil's idea above is along the same lines as I have requested for ages. Getting the lower BR players through sats into the target tournaments is (IMHO) a much much bigger thing for any poker site than the regs/pros playing them for cash/expenses or treating them as another MTT. Last minute/Last chance all in sats (for those who are not already in the target MTT) would work, if the software could handle it. This would hopefully create a 'John Hesp' effect around UKOPS.
Other quick things - 1) Run a MINI UKOPS every time there is a MAIN, but with same structures and blind levels etc. There could be added bonuses etc for winning/getting to final table in both/cashing in both. 2) Leader-boards do encourage more play (imo) 3) 4/5 day festivals seem to work. Not too little, but not overkill. 4) A live twitch channel with a few players would also increase interest etc. 5) The write ups each day by Tikay were rubbish.
Had brief chat with @MattBates before you posted already, and he bought up tickets. If someone's playing the 7pm and 9pm £55 and the 10:30pm £55 Speed BHs every night, is it a problem if they win 3 x 9pm £55 sats every night? IMO, it isn't.
I think restricting satellites to certain entrants is a "be careful what you wish for" situation. It's not only good players that grind satellites. Also, do you want 10 seats in the prizepool and 5 of those seats go to non-sat grinders, or 5 seats and people not grinding sats? Plus all of those satellites with 1 or 2 seats guaranteed are probably going to disappear off the schedule.
The argument against sat grinding generally assumes all sat grinders are winners, and that smaller satellites can survive on the tournament schedule without any sat grinders.
I am aware that you're probably not going to change your opinion on sat grinders being bad, and I'm not going to change my opinion on them being zero sum or beneficial in many cases. So probs not too much point debating that.
Tickets IMO are a solid compromise if any restriction is required. It's really not a big deal if people want to win a bunch of £55 tokens and use them over the next couple of weeks - There's 3 x £55 comps on every day atm so IMO there's no problem with people winning 3 x £55 sat tickets a day and playing those tickets. Guys like Bates/TommyD etc. will be playing every £55 going anyway, so meh seems entirely reasonable if they play all the sats as well.
However, if someone is taking more seats out of the prizepool than they're going to use over time, then that is a problem. Tickets ensure people play target MTTs still. Just have to make sure to avoid what Party do at times by overcomplicating things and make a confusing mess for recs where sometimes you're auto registered, other times you're not, and other times you get registered into a sat that has already started and that repeats until you're stuck playing until 2am.
Tickets would allow some flexibility, but not proper satellite grinding with no intention of playing target MTT (like you see with people swapping Stars T$ on 2+2, people swap T$100 for $98 cash or something).
Tickets would act as a de facto restrictions in things like Vegas sats and SPT where a restriction is arguably most useful, without hurting people who are playing satellites into £55 comps and then playing those £55s for instance.
Agree with 2-5 on your list. I personally prefer a couple of days more, but anywhere from like 4-8 days is absolutely fine IMO. 4 days is perfect for Xmas UKOPS to fit in the 'void' between Xmas and New Year.
Re: #1 - I think it's beneficial to have a week or two offset between main and mini UKOPS and make them separate series. I like better structures for all players in theory but have to question if people going to want to play an MTT that runs until 4am where the first prize is £500 (and you're up til 3am to come 7th for £60 quid a lot) as opposed to the amounts of money in the UKOPS mains that make it worthwhile for people.
For that reason, I wouldn't mimic structures across the entire schedule, but there's definitely some room for a couple of £11s with identical structures to the £110s as their USP if there's demand for that, and it's in the right spot on the schedule.
Can't see Sky sticking an £11 freeze on a Friday night peak time as their £6k mini UKOPS main or something, because history tells us it'll struggle to hit guarantees, but an £11 BH with identical structure to the big UKOPS, yeah sure, why not.
There's still the 8:30 £11 minis during big UKOPS, although could maybe introduce like a 10:30 Turbo BH Mini (No jackpot, just as like an additional tournament) for a fiver/£1k guarantee as well if there's demand for that kind of thing during big UKOPS. I wouldn't do anything more than that, just because you don't want a simultaneous main and mini series competing for liquidity (i.e. people deciding "Actually I'll just play all the £11s rather than trying to sat into the £110s") when you're relying on satellite entries from recs to help make big £30k+ guarantees etc.
Maybe trial mini before (instead of after) and see if people binking in mini UKOPS encourages them to take shots in big UKOPS.
EDIT: Okay that worked out way more tl;dr than I thought it would.
Comments
I do not use it myself, at least not yet. However, this idea and other ideas seeking to use social media in order to encourage more people to play on the site can only be a good thing.
Obviously these come at a cost to Sky Poker. As the one who is in charge of the spending I am the one that is asked to sign off on whether we do or do not one of these. Whilst the spend isn't huge, generally £7,500 for a Main and Mini UKOPS series combined it is a decent chunk when it is tough for us to measure exactly what impact it had. When we're looking at the data there is nothing that tells us this person wouldn't have played this event if it wasn't for the leaderboard.
Efficiency of spend is more critical than ever and so we of course we need to make sure we are spending our money on the right things. For what it is worth I like the idea of a player of the series but would like to know what effect it has on you guys.
Flipping in satellites is for another thread. I see why players do it, but of course we need to safe guard ourselves from this. We are running a business and giving money away in this manner, generally to the same groups of customers is not good business.
I think a satellites thread would be a good one as there is lots to be debated.
I really wasn't going to comment, but it is an area that has seriously needed looking at for a while (IMO), so I will say my peace and await the hate mob descending upon me.
Without knowing all the facts about numbers, it does appear that the MAINS are always the MTT's which tend to have overlay/struggle to fill. This is regardless of how many sats run/seats are given away etc. I believe that other MTTs in the Main UKOPS also struggled whereas the Mini UKOPS never really had this problem/concern.
Nobody would want any of the guarantees lowing, so the sat tree may have to be looked at. Essexphil's idea above is along the same lines as I have requested for ages. Getting the lower BR players through sats into the target tournaments is (IMHO) a much much bigger thing for any poker site than the regs/pros playing them for cash/expenses or treating them as another MTT. Last minute/Last chance all in sats (for those who are not already in the target MTT) would work, if the software could handle it.
This would hopefully create a 'John Hesp' effect around UKOPS.
Other quick things -
1) Run a MINI UKOPS every time there is a MAIN, but with same structures and blind levels etc. There could be added bonuses etc for winning/getting to final table in both/cashing in both.
2) Leader-boards do encourage more play (imo)
3) 4/5 day festivals seem to work. Not too little, but not overkill.
4) A live twitch channel with a few players would also increase interest etc.
5) The write ups each day by Tikay were rubbish.
I think restricting satellites to certain entrants is a "be careful what you wish for" situation. It's not only good players that grind satellites. Also, do you want 10 seats in the prizepool and 5 of those seats go to non-sat grinders, or 5 seats and people not grinding sats? Plus all of those satellites with 1 or 2 seats guaranteed are probably going to disappear off the schedule.
The argument against sat grinding generally assumes all sat grinders are winners, and that smaller satellites can survive on the tournament schedule without any sat grinders.
I am aware that you're probably not going to change your opinion on sat grinders being bad, and I'm not going to change my opinion on them being zero sum or beneficial in many cases. So probs not too much point debating that.
Tickets IMO are a solid compromise if any restriction is required. It's really not a big deal if people want to win a bunch of £55 tokens and use them over the next couple of weeks - There's 3 x £55 comps on every day atm so IMO there's no problem with people winning 3 x £55 sat tickets a day and playing those tickets. Guys like Bates/TommyD etc. will be playing every £55 going anyway, so meh seems entirely reasonable if they play all the sats as well.
However, if someone is taking more seats out of the prizepool than they're going to use over time, then that is a problem. Tickets ensure people play target MTTs still. Just have to make sure to avoid what Party do at times by overcomplicating things and make a confusing mess for recs where sometimes you're auto registered, other times you're not, and other times you get registered into a sat that has already started and that repeats until you're stuck playing until 2am.
Tickets would allow some flexibility, but not proper satellite grinding with no intention of playing target MTT (like you see with people swapping Stars T$ on 2+2, people swap T$100 for $98 cash or something).
Tickets would act as a de facto restrictions in things like Vegas sats and SPT where a restriction is arguably most useful, without hurting people who are playing satellites into £55 comps and then playing those £55s for instance.
Agree with 2-5 on your list. I personally prefer a couple of days more, but anywhere from like 4-8 days is absolutely fine IMO. 4 days is perfect for Xmas UKOPS to fit in the 'void' between Xmas and New Year.
Re: #1 - I think it's beneficial to have a week or two offset between main and mini UKOPS and make them separate series. I like better structures for all players in theory but have to question if people going to want to play an MTT that runs until 4am where the first prize is £500 (and you're up til 3am to come 7th for £60 quid a lot) as opposed to the amounts of money in the UKOPS mains that make it worthwhile for people.
For that reason, I wouldn't mimic structures across the entire schedule, but there's definitely some room for a couple of £11s with identical structures to the £110s as their USP if there's demand for that, and it's in the right spot on the schedule.
Can't see Sky sticking an £11 freeze on a Friday night peak time as their £6k mini UKOPS main or something, because history tells us it'll struggle to hit guarantees, but an £11 BH with identical structure to the big UKOPS, yeah sure, why not.
There's still the 8:30 £11 minis during big UKOPS, although could maybe introduce like a 10:30 Turbo BH Mini (No jackpot, just as like an additional tournament) for a fiver/£1k guarantee as well if there's demand for that kind of thing during big UKOPS. I wouldn't do anything more than that, just because you don't want a simultaneous main and mini series competing for liquidity (i.e. people deciding "Actually I'll just play all the £11s rather than trying to sat into the £110s") when you're relying on satellite entries from recs to help make big £30k+ guarantees etc.
Maybe trial mini before (instead of after) and see if people binking in mini UKOPS encourages them to take shots in big UKOPS.
EDIT: Okay that worked out way more tl;dr than I thought it would.