 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
Sam9ball
Is there anyway we can get the 9PM EST tourney back for the next event. With these times now it makes it hard for a lot of people to make it.
Also, is there anyway we can sign up for the tourneys at the start of the day. I can't sign up for the 7PM EST one at 7AM EST.
Can I get this answered?
We lost the fight. As usual a few loud voices outweighed the majority quiet voices.
They are now adding 10 slots to each tournament instead of adding a 4th tournament.
so dumb to change format in the middle of a contest without a vote or something...daneblazer, who made that thread, doesn't even play tournaments here regularly anymore.Originally Posted by Slanina
Slanina... I like ya pal, you're a solid man but you're out in left field here: You were *NEVER* gonna get a 4th tournament... read carefully: NEVER.
All guys like daneblazer were valiantly trying to do (those "loud voices") is *improve* things for SBR poker's overall health... and the health of the overall community. You want more players playing the poker here, not less.
It's in the long-term best interest of everybody (SBR & players) that anyone that wants to play in a tournament to be able to do so, relatively easily. The fact that people wanting to play were being shut out was... dumb; and the fact that SBR has now changed things to help prevent that is... good.
No one screamed louder than daner for a 9pm to be reinstated... no one. He simply assessed the situation properly (read: it ain't happening, for this promo anyway) then smartly moved on to suggest something else that had a shot of happening and would be in everyone's best interests, long-term.
Now, none of that has anything to do with SBR lacking the common courtesy to answer zach's questions. I love SBR, but common courtesy from them is (oft times) not a strong point.
Also, while I'm here, Mr. Slanina: calling peeps "dumbasses"(in other thread) for expecting a tournament to be what it's advertised to be is really out-of-bounds. Don't blame the messenger; successful sites know it behooves them to always foster feedback from their community (that's how sites often get better). The weekend tourneys were a simple simon fix... SBR is the guilty party that chose not to fix them. Please don't misappropriate the blame. And, seems obvious SBR just wanted to end them for now, but again, common courtesy would implore SBR to make an announcement about them and not just have the tourneys "pull a Houdini".
*the 10 players added (potentially, probably only be few more each tourney) will minimally affect tourney times
** GL today Slanina in all your gambling endeavors
|
|
It was clear that it was a long shot on having a 4th tournament added. After all this is the same poker room that cut payouts to just 5 people with 50 entries at one point. Only changed due to the enormous backlash. So no way they were about to add one for free without some luck on our end. Nevertheless, it's frustrating to see it changed because some have more weight around here. Not their fault. Hell I wish I could get someone to listen to my suggestions.
My dumbass comment was referring to the constant weekly Sunday posts after the tournament ended complaining about it. Those same people now never post about asking for it back. SBR is definitely the one to blame but the posts sealed the deal. I don't wish to call certain people names. It was figurative.
Last edited by Slanina; 10-25-15 at 02:09 PM.
FYI, paying out 5 people with 50 entries is how it works for the rest of the poker world...was a giant step forward in nurturing an environment where winning meant a lot more than showing up daily. Don't blame SBR for getting something right just because most didn't want a skill-based format!
With the sporadic communication, I don't think you can accurately guess what does and doesn't motivate SBR to act at this point, so finger-pointing probably useless.
|
|
|
This post was nominated 1
time
. To view the nominated thread please click here.
People who nominated: BiTeMe UsAdOj
|
Sometimes I get a little confused on your posts. One day it may seem like you're with SBR and another post you think changes are needed to the poker room. Do you want them to add slots? Add a 4th? Lessen payouts to make it more skill based? Keep it how it is now? Honest question. I'm just wanting to know where you stand.
Haha, fair enough....I'm largely for SBR poker, which is why I'm still here, but my opinions are sometimes supportive, sometimes not. I'll sum up my thoughts for ya:
1) SBR could run the poker program better, despite some improvements this year....tournament formats, contests, more responsive to feedback from community (not necessarily acting on feedback, but at least acknowledging it), etc. I think it could be done without having to throw more points at players too, and I'd like to see the improvements someday.
2) SBR's business model for poker seems to be geared mostly towards participation awards instead of skill-based play. Although it's not what I'd prefer, they presumably have their reasons for it, and depending on the business model it might be for the best. The downside of a participation-oriented player base is that they're not likely to pay much or anything to support bigger prizes. worth noting there are ways to boost poker considerably while keeping this participation-based.
3) For the current format, it seems like a 4th tournament would be the most popular, although it remains to be seen if people would be willing to do another slot if the prize pool had to be reduced by 25% in each one. Given past participation, I don't think it was a bad idea for SBR to stick with 3 40-man tourneys; for world cup, participation dropped off quickly after and registration wasn't much of a problem. After that proved not to be the case here, SBR should probably have reacted sooner, either by adding a tourney (least impact to contest format, but costlier in points) or adding spots to each tourney (changes the nature of the contest, but doesn't cost more points). For this contest where pretty much everyone is in, it's not as big a deal as it might have been.
4) All of the above considered, it's still free poker. As much as we might wish it was better and as simple as it seems to incorporate our feedback, it's still free, and any sense of outrage should be tempered by the fact that they're giving us something for nothing.
My thoughts in a nutshell, and most of the comments you see me make on SBR poker will be along the same lines
Bottom line: Peeps should be able to express their opinions to SBR freely w/o being named called "whiners" and "complainers" by administration (which has happened). SBR should always welcome an open dialog with its users on all aspects of the site; obviously it's their decision to take all feedback and to ultimately do what's in their best business interests... but rest assured, smart companies everywhere in all businesses listen to their customers, closely.
I've no doubt SBR has made some poker decisions based on the ol "oh, they're crying?... let's give them something to really cry about" motto -- and that's really been unfortunate and wrong-headed, IMHO. And, of course, having the courtesy to at least officially respond to direct questions posed by customers seems like a simple enough concept to grasp for any company. But......
Hey, I'm not Tripper but I'll answer your direct questions! (for shits & giggles)
1. Many changes could be made to make SBR poker more beneficial to all parties. Need someone that really knows poker to implement them.
2. Adding a 4th tourney would have been the best option (for us, the players)... but it's clear it wasn't the best option for SBR, for obvious added costs reasons. Fair enough. Going ahead and adding the slots was a good solution to an obvious problem, i.e., people that wanted to play weren't able to (dane hasn't been playing b/c, like others, he couldn't... and he clearly stated the reasons why. It's not like anyone has a birthright to play freeroll poker, but if SBR could make a minor tweak to allow more players that wanted to play the tourneys to play them, they should do it, and now have. SBR poker needs all the players they can get... not less.
3. Put me in the camp of wanting skill based payouts instead of participation payouts (as long as the total prize pool is equal). Like Tripper stated, it's how the rest of the poker world operates, and I personally loved the pay 5 outta 50 format we had in that earlier promo ('cept prize pool was less... not good). That was normal poker payouts in the normal poker world. FACT. No need for SBR to drive the shortbus in this regard.
4. Again, many changes could be made (rather simply) that would benefit both SBR & player. SBR is a long way from maximizing its poker product. But it's not a priority for them (as is their right), so......
|
This post was nominated 1
time
. To view the nominated thread please click here.
People who nominated: Triple_D_Bet
|
Did they really increase it to 10 players??
I didn't see that mentioned anywhere! But that is cool. It will only add 5 to 10 minutes to each tournament and most tournaments will only have 42 or so players
Bring back the 9pm
Sincerely,
Middle aged guys with families that actually semi like them
|
This post was nominated 1
time
. To view the nominated thread please click here.
People who nominated: zacharyj53
|
that is not a lie at all booby, even with 5 more players it would only add 15 minutes max and usually less than that. And some of the tournaments wont have any more players than usual. bobby you only don't like it because it hurts your angle shooting. Now you will be forced to check every tournament everyday at the deadline to see how many are playing
You're delusional to think there will still be 40-42 players. No need to check every tourney, as I'm kicking your ass in our annual challenge.
Lol yeah 2 people caused all the outrage and will now get seats. There will be posts within a week titled "why are there only 50 seats? SBR do something!"
And I'm surprised you think the changes are cool. I'd think you would understand overlay and equity. The complainers made it even more pointless to play than it already was for anyone actually trying to generate points. It's already hard enough to find a decent cash table to roll the points now there's ten more mines on the field.
I was one of the guys who was pissed because the tournaments were always full. I know all about overlay and equity and I know that this is an overlay no matter how many players play. We don't pay a dime to enter.
The equity part doesn't mean anything when I cant signup. If 50 is not enough, then they should add more seats. I me we are on talking about points here
...not happening.
smh
Reply With Quote
aggieshawn gave BiTeMe UsAdOj 500 Betpoint(s) for this post.
