Annual Renewal of Pro Status
I am just asking a simple question. Under the new format there are only three tourneys per day, only 8 prizes and the prizes have been drastically cut not only in the daily tourneys but also the main events. It makes it difficult to afford the 3000 or $100.00 donation needed to renew pro status. Are you (SBR) thinking of reducing the renewal amount for pro status ? I am just asking !!!
-
-
Logging in daily will get you 4380. that is more than enough for your 3000 pro renewal
how is it difficult to afford?Comment -
The price of bitcoin doesnt factor in at all mpashal.
But really you guys should renew with the $100 option. $100 on this site is really closer to 2000 points than 3000 based on the pizzza gift cards. Based on the $100 pizza gift cards that is equivalent to 2125 i thinkComment -
Lol...guess you guys don’t have a sense of humor.
BTW PO69, why didn’t you pay back totolover the amount you signed up for. You still owe him 250 points per the agreement you set.Last edited by mpaschal34; 04-04-18, 05:36 AM.Comment -
You can clearly see my decision. And btw you still get half(6) of points for daily log in even if not SBR pro. Now we cant even flip anymore so another nail in coffin in my opinion.Comment -
It is still worth it, yes of course the value is reduced.Comment -
Love this site and it’s members. Asking if it’s “worth it” to donate a measly $100 to a charity.
Carry onComment -
I'll still stay pro, but there's no doubt if poker was my deciding factor, id be non-pro as well. The payouts versus the time involved are brutal. Not that we need to go back to the 2500 pool. But somewhere in the middle. You can play for 1.5 hours for whopping 20 points(that then need cleared), versus simply logging in for 12 betpoints. Pretty crazy. The turnouts just after 3 days of qualifier ending is a pretty clear indication many don't want to grind away everyday in hopes of a few points. It is what it is though. In the end, ill still stay pro. Looks like a few have already dropped pro or plan to drop pro. Ehh.Comment -
If you want to get technical...
Pro - Logging in everyday earns 4380, like you said. 4380 - 3000 = +1380.
Non - Logging in everyday earns 2190. 2190 - 0 = +2190
2190>1380
Granted, that's a very specific way to look at it. Because Pro gets trivia and more contest eligibility.Comment -
Don't forget that there are more and larger event prizes for the poker series now.
Some of the points from dailys going to players more interested in poker might be seen as a good thing by some too..Comment -
Comment -
We had 125-135 everyday during qualifier. That's 20 -30 less registers per day. Let alone a spike in AFKs. I think nearly a 20% decrease in turnout the first week is pretty significant. Don't get me wrong, ill always be in the 106. Hell, im playing right now! Im saying it's pretty clear why many have seemed to of stopped playing them.Comment -
I think just 20 or 30 dropping off means the vast majority don't agree with the loud complainers calculating if its not worth them making a donation to go pro anymore.
It's stated like some sort of blackmail tactic to go back to the points leaky poker scheme that was not bringing enough benefit to SBR or the real poker players who want to play the game... or they wont be pro too.
These are the people who treat it like a game to mine points and flip and go for any angle to get the most advantage with the least give back possible. Not a bad 20% to drop off really..Comment -
While I obviously would not object to them lowering the cost of pro membership, how many pros are there here? Not even sure but I assume there are far more of them than there are regulars in poker. Not sure it really makes a ton of sense to me to correlate less poker prizes with lower membership cost since probably a strong majority of pros here don't even play poker.
And while it would naturally be disappointing to me if poker went away entirely (and I say this as someone who has been playing SBR poker for probably as long as they've had it), I personally would still go for pro membership without it - Beat the Prick by itself makes it worth imo.Comment -
And heck as someone posted above, if you do absolutely 0 on SBR besides logging in daily, that nets you 4380 points a year. Minus the 3000 for renewing you are still +1380 points for the year for doing absolutely nothing but logging in once a day. Not a huge chunk of change but even that for doing nothing but going to the site once in a 24 hour time frame isn't bad! Add in Beat the Prick, NCAA contest, etc. a great deal in my view!Comment -
ArunSh and other defenders:
Other than getting in the good graces of the powers that be, what is the incentive to try so hard to defend an entity that is in it for profit and is visibly getting greedier and providing less benefits to their members? I just don't get it. That mindset can only hurt the community as a whole. I appreciate SBR, but obviously nothing they do is charity nor should it be. They want to maximize profits. It's entirely reasonable for the "customer" to demand more from the "business", particularly when things are clearly getting worse. What is the upside in defending them?Comment -
there may not be an upside. thing is, this is a message board and they believe that pro is worth it. if theres a discussion regarding being pro that they disagree with, and they feel like writing up a post, they can do that without looking to gain something. they just might want to engage in the discussionComment -
Blankoblanco: I'm not trying to get in good graces of anyone - I've certainly been critical of SBR over things in the past as Optional can verify. I too would prefer that they went back to what we had most of last year with the larger daily prizes and no promotion. I simply feel that that rewards the better/more frequent players long-term rather than leaving most of the rewards up to one extremely luck based tournament (where essentially almost none of the top qualifiers wound up cashing). But that's just my opinion, and I don't run the site.
Yes as you said SBR is not a charity nor should it be, they are a business and one of their goals obviously is to maximize profits - what business doesn't try to do that? Sure, customers can give constructive criticism/suggestions (as I myself have done in the past). But it is entirely reasonable for the business to essentially say "we don't feel that what you want/suggest is in the best overall interest of the company so we are not going to do it". If they decide to change things for the worse, then you as the customer can continue to frequent the business, accepting that fact, unfortunate as it might seem to you, or you can choose to not give them your business anymore.
You (and me and everyone else) would obviously prefer if they went back to the old structure in the dailies. Why? Because we want to maximize our "profits" as business folks ourselves in a sense (or people investing time, whatever you wish to call it). That is, we are trying to do the exact same thing as you seem so critical of SBR for doing. While I too am disappointed in how things got "worse" in that particular regard, I don't really understand how people can criticize them for doing that when they are perhaps doing it for the very same reason that all of us would prefer they went back to the old structure: to maximize profits.Comment -
And as someone who has been around for a long time, I will admit that I too am disappointed that some of the cool features SBR used to have are no longer around anymore (e.g. the casino promotions like 3:1 blackjack or the special football lines just to name a couple). Obviously I and others would love it if those were still around.
But before claiming it's entirely due to greed, let's remember that SBR largely makes its $ via books' advertising, people depositing, and such - things which have been drastically impacted in the past years due to governments cracking down on players' ability to deposit (especially the largest market, the US). Myself as an example, I joined many books via SBR links in my early years here. I have not done a single one in the past five or so years now though simply because the roadblocks the US government has put up to try to prevent it simply don't make it worth the trouble/risk of depositing to me. And I am sure I am not alone in that regard. So there is little doubt that SBR has taken a big hit themselves due to such factors. So if they had to cut back on certain things like those mentioned above, and now poker as well, while that's obviously disappointing to me and others, I think it's a bit harsh to immediately attribute it to greed alone...
What it comes down to in the end is simply whether you or anyone else feels the membership cost/time you put in is worth it for the benefits you receive. I personally feel like mine is at the current moment which is why I choose to stay a part of the site, even if I regret that some of the perks we used to have no longer exist. Every individual has to make that single choice for themselves though - who knows, maybe if they cut back enough someday I will no longer feel this way and then will stop renewing my pro membership. But it hasn't reached that point for me yet.Comment -
I mean, the difference is pretty clear, isn't it? Members can benefit from quite small residuals of the massively larger profits of the site/business. Of course we want to maximize profits too, but they're making an actual living off of us. Comparing the two seems a bit silly
I'm not blaming/criticizing them for being a business. I'm saying that, as a "customer", defending a business that's getting greedier is probably not productive or helpful to the community at large. And it strikes me as a weird side to be on, because I think it's the antithesis of progressComment -
so because none of "the top qualifiers" cashed, this made it luck based
I think I'm not the only one who agreed that the structure and blinds of this tourney took away the luck / shove fest that occurs here daily and actually rewarded actual poker play
you lost me after that comment....sorryLast edited by USCPHILLYGUY; 04-04-18, 03:29 PM.Comment -
And I think you misunderstand my intent - I am not trying to "defend" or "attack" either side in this - just trying to give what I feel is a balanced overall point of view by looking at both sides' perspective in this.
Sort of went through the same kind of debate when people were discussing flipping rollovers in poker. Those who were defending it kept using the argument that they do it because it saves time and why should SBR stop it since "it doesn't hurt anyone". As someone who often used to flip myself, I felt that was a somewhat narrow point of view - they were concerned with again maximizing their individual equity via saving time and so forth - wanting what was best for them individually, not necessarily what was best for the site as a whole.Comment -
so because none of "the top qualifiers" cashed, this made it luck based
I think I'm not the only one who agreed that the structure and blinds of this tourney took away the luck / shove fest that occurs here daily and actually rewarded actual poker play
you lost me after that comment....sorry
USC: in any given one tournament there is always a ton of short-term luck - no reasonable poker player would debate that. Sure some structures leave it more up to luck than others, and the format we had for the final tournament was good at making it more skill based than the dailies. But to claim there is not a ton of short-term luck in one given tournament is absurd - how many of the strongest players in the world will admit that some less than stellar players have won the WSOP Main Event before? And many people here play cash games regularly, probably having many winning sessions and many losing ones - any individual session just like any individual tournament is very much about short-term luck, poker inherently is a very long-term game.
You seem to have taken that comment as a personal attack since you did well in the tournament - obviously you would love to attribute that high finish to being entirely based on your skill alone, but I'm sorry that just isn't true. As someone who cashed in two of SBR's big poker events years ago (once second place for $3000 another time third for $1000), I will be the first to admit that I got a good dose of luck in those tournaments to finish that high (having a couple of key suckouts, being on the right side of AA vs KK, etc.). Yes I played well (as I'm sure you did in the recent event), but if I were to claim that those high finishes of mine were entirely due to skill, no short-term luck involved, I would be delusional.Comment -
I don't disagree that luck comes into play......in the end its cards....but you made a pretty broad statement that because NONE of the top qualifiers cashed it must be luck based.......I also didn't take your comment as a personal attack, just thought it an amusing statement based upon the over all play hereComment -
Philly...you have to agree there is always some extent of luck to poker.
For instance, you got lucky when your 7,6 flopped two pair. However you turned unlucky when you got counterfeited on the river. All skill really does, is possibly give you more chances to get lucky in the long run. Philly, most people here respect your game as you’ve shown several times (online and in person) you have the skill to run deep in a tournament.
As for Arunsh...he’s one of my 3 most respected players on the board. 95% (if not more) of what he writes I totally agree with. I started to take note of this about two years ago and I feel he’s one of the sharpest guys around. I think people would learned more if they listened to him. He’s got a very solid poker game and a good deal of knowledge.Comment -
Ok, fair enough, but I think you somewhat misunderstood me. My comment about the top players was more about the fact that the top qualifiers over a longer period of tournaments should be a combination of the best players/most loyal players (those who played almost every day rather than just enough to qualify). And I think those are the ones who should be rewarded if possible (yes I'm obviously biased too
) - that's why I personally would prefer having higher daily prizes (the old structure) even if no promotion. It's just disappointing to me in a sense when those who showed the most loyalty/best play over a two month structure don't get rewarded for it at the end - having the higher daily prizes with no promotion would obviously fix that. Yes, I do feel that somewhat also does illustrate the large amount of short-term luck in the final tournament but that is not a new concept.
As an example, I saw many people (I think you were one of them) claiming how bad snapperman2 is as a player, way he lost all his big stack in two hands etc. I don't really know him as a player so I can't speak to that point, but he finished 15th out of 100 - obviously a very good finish even if he could have done much better. You and all his other detractors either have to admit that he's a much better player than you give him credit for, or that the formatting of the final tournament required more luck than you would like to admit - you can't have it both ways on that.Comment -
Matty, let me make a few things clear....I wasn't trying to make a infomercial as to the merits of my poker skills....I agree that there's a lot of luck involved in poker........I just don't get the constant threads about "is it worth my time to play poker here" or "is it worth the $100". How many people complained about the new format yet continued to play? If its not worth your time or you don't want to renew your PRO status then don't....these threads just get oldComment -
Thanks very much for the kind words mpaschal, I'm blushing here
. Glad to know that some people appreciate what I have to say!
I think mpaschal has also hit the nail on the head in regards to another aspect of luck. When people think of luck, most think of key suckouts and so forth which are obviously a big thing in any tournament. But there are other types of luck that people often don't realize, for instance the hand he mentioned or what about the hand where you tripled up cause you had AA vs two other big hands. Sorry but getting AA allin three way vs two other big hands and tripling up as a result doesn't require much skill.
For myself for instance, I went out when I got KQ on K62 rainbow board with a pretty short stack (10 Big Blinds), and unfortunately my opponent had flopped a set. Maybe I didn't have to go broke on that hand, but I don't regret the play looking back on it, it was definitely a somewhat unlucky flop for me just as it was a lucky flop for my opponent - that's poker.
To take another hand that I played vs mpaschal himself haha. Somewhat early in the tournament he raised with AK (that's what he claimed he had after the hand), I had 99 and called. Flop came 944 - rather lucky for me. Flop was checked through, he made a small turn bet when a 2 rolled off then gave up on the river when I made a fairly large bet after he checked. In one sense I got very lucky on that hand with such a great flop. Then again, was it unlucky for me that an A or K didn't hit the flop, turn, or river where I might have taken his whole stack? If that had happened, most would not think of it as luck, just business as usual, but there would be no doubt that it was an extreme cold deck for him, again that's poker - most people don't perceive that type of hidden luck.Comment
