Any interest in a boardsie $100 freezeout on PPP for IO ticket?

Solksjaer

WH BONNEY wrote:

Congrats to Hoki and best of luck in the M.E.

Suprised nobody has picked up on the fact that this was advertised as a boards only satelite, whereby boards members would have a minimum number of posts before they could play. It was also promoted as probably having an overlay. In the end anybody that posted on the thread was allowed play, ensuring that PPP could avoid any overlay.

A very cheap shot by them in my opinion, but they did their job well, maximising their advertising and revenues and making sure the customer got minimum value for money.

It's a fair point BUT I was in a similar position trying to organise a Boards Syndicate game, 29 people confirmed and yet only 23 paid. I had to get two extra people on the day (non boards) so 21. The thing is Joe Public can be very inconsiderate and selfish, some people who read my PMs didn't even bother to reply to me. One or two had valid excuses BUT a few just couldn't be arsed to let me know. (??) So to be honest I don't blame PPP for opening up a little.


I actually put my name down for Karls game but didn't make it (beyond my control) so I suppose I'm as bad.

PPP-Pit Boss

WH BONNEY wrote:

Congrats to Hoki and best of luck in the M.E.

Surprised nobody has picked up on the fact that this was advertised as a boards only satelite, whereby boards members would have a minimum number of posts before they could play. It was also promoted as probably having an overlay. In the end anybody that posted on the thread was allowed play, ensuring that PPP could avoid any overlay.

A very cheap shot by them in my opinion, but they did their job well, maximising their advertising and revenues and making sure the customer got minimum value for money.

ERM....

LuckyLloyd
Live Tourney Donk





Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Getting right up in your polite little face...apparantly
Posts: 2,371
Adverts | Blog | Friends Quote:
Originally Posted by karlh
new rule from this point on: only open to boardsies with post count >25 just so nobody pulls the plonk


Bad idea. Postcount of >25 for those Regged after October 2006 maybe. There are a lot of genuine guys who have been registered for months or maybe years who just lurk and don't post for whatever reason. I don't believe they should be excluded tbh. Example: Goremount below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whyno
Does this mean karlh that i dont qualify to play the freezeout..If it does tell me now and i`ll post 25 useless comments on all the threads to qualify!!!!


Although I love the idea of random poker davids posting nonsense in the PI forum, it'll prolly get me banned for inciting it - you're in Whyno.

Fair point about the lurkers, just dont consider someone a boardsie if they have signed up since I started this thread.

As the great Bill Hicks once said "You're not even a f'n human being until you're in my phonebook buddy!"



WH BONNEY
Registered User



Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 138
Adverts | Blog | Friends Quote:
Originally Posted by 5starpool
If there are going to be as many in this as is indicated then there will be no real value at all. I might have to review on Monday evening.


There is no pleasing some people

WH BONNEY

karlh wrote:

anyone who has alreay posted or PM'd nickname is in, we're getting there.

ill update original post with a list this evening.

new rule from this point on: only open to boardsies with post count >25 just so nobody pulls the plonk

Your use of my quote in your response (PPP-Pit Boss) is wholely inappropriate. My response in this thread was made assuming that the criteria set out by your colleague (karlh as seen above)were going to be adhered to. When they clearly were not I felt totally justified in making my observations.

Its quite clear who was "pulling the plonk".

Please refrain from quoting me out of context.

5starpool

PPP-Pit Boss wrote:

Originally Posted by 5starpool
If there are going to be as many in this as is indicated then there will be no real value at all. I might have to review on Monday evening.


There is no pleasing some people

What is your point and why are you quoting me?

You don't want me to start.

PPP-Pit Boss

It is not you I am quoting it is WH's response which is underneath it which he is clearly retracting. Start away

5starpool

PPP-Pit Boss wrote:

It is not you I am quoting it is WH's response which is underneath it which he is clearly retracting. Start away

I beg to differ as you have a previous post from me in there. Methinks that counts as quoting.

PPP-Pit Boss

Eyes rolling. My point is...
Karl attempted to put a restriction on the people who could register so that it would be long term Boards members only.
He received a swift slap in response for his attempts.
He waived it due to that response as it was a tournament for this group so your decisions were deemed as final.
IF a frequent poster had won there would be no consternation.

So I do not see the reason for the boggle?

smurph

Look, if it was one of the regular posters on Boards, there would be no hassle over it. Paddy power have put the winner hoki in their last longer trip to Vegas group which is good. Yes there was no outlay on their behalf, but the standard of play was quite high and it happened to get more than expected. It’s a public forum, open to the public so by setting a criteria i.e. 125 posts or more etc., was never going to work (in my opinion), for the following reason.

Hypothetically speaking say I have 126 posts, that does not reflect how many posts I have in Poker forum section, I could have 123 posts in say "The Mustard forum" and only 3 posts in the poker section (126 total). Do I have more of a right to play in the boards PPP game than someone who has been reading the boards poker section, used the information on it but never felt the need to post?? I know it was an idea to stop people jumping on the bandwagon but the fact that they were reading the poker forum, play poker online etc., means we should encourage them to get more involved by posting etc., just my 2 cents anyway
.

WH BONNEY

PPP-Pit Boss wrote:

It is not you I am quoting it is WH's response which is underneath it which he is clearly retracting. Start away

I dont wish to retract my response anywhere.

What I do want to do is point out the fact that your colleague said something in this thread relating to the tourney and then choose to ignore it.

This in my opinion was wrong and misleading.

I am unsure as to your motives in struggling to grasp the point I am making. Maybe I am too cynical, there may not be any motives and it could be just down to competancy.

PPP-Pit Boss

Im going to close my comments after this because I am not getting into yet another batting match.
I think you will find neither I nor Karl are in any way incompetent or motivated to RIP you off as from a business perspective that would be none to clever for members of our target market.

Karl trid to introduce a new rule.
It was voted against
He waived it

We would not be having this debate if a low volume poster had not won.

5starpool

I am tired and grumpy (for a change). I can't see anyone of the above posts where people are imploring him to allow non regular posters in, except those by non regular posters.

I don't care too much, as I never expected there to be a big overlay in this and it is none of my business who is included in the first place, and good luck to the lad that did win it - I hope he goes on to do well and becomes a regular poster here.

However I do somewhat resent the fact that my previous post is just above where you say "There is no pleasing some people". My original point is that if there was only to be one ticket then I would rather not have to wade through 60+ people to get it because as I proved yesterday I have difficulty securing a win in those type of events. I never gave out one way or another, I was only expressing a view that I might not play if there were too many in it.

carrigeen

theres a mustard forum:eek:

smurph wrote:

Look, if it was one of the regular posters on Boards, there would be no hassle over it. Paddy power have put the winner hoki in their last longer trip to Vegas group which is good. Yes there was no outlay on their behalf, but the standard of play was quite high and it happened to get more than expected. It’s a public forum, open to the public so by setting a criteria i.e. 125 posts or more etc., was never going to work (in my opinion), for the following reason.

Hypothetically speaking say I have 126 posts, that does not reflect how many posts I have in Poker forum section, I could have 123 posts in say "The Mustard forum" and only 3 posts in the poker section (126 total). Do I have more of a right to play in the boards PPP game than someone who has been reading the boards poker section, used the information on it but never felt the need to post?? I know it was an idea to stop people jumping on the bandwagon but the fact that they were reading the poker forum, play poker online etc., means we should encourage them to get more involved by posting etc., just my 2 cents anyway
.

5starpool

PPP-Pit Boss wrote:

Karl trid to introduce a new rule.
It was voted against
He waived it

This is incorrect. Also, as I stated I am not trying to argue over who should and should not have been allowed in, I don't really care, but to say that it was limitied and then a clamour erupted (apart from the people outside the limit) and he relented is blatantly incoroect.

Iago

well there could be a couple of reasons behind it

1. it would have been very easy for PPP to leave this tourney hidden and only visible to people who were registering from here. By putting it into the main tourney listing with the title "boards.ie invitational tournament" you directed users to the website prompting random people to register accounts so that they could qualify to enter the tournament

this could have been a purposeful act to minimise the hit/overlay or it may just have been a genuine mistake/oversight/lack of thought. Either way it drummed up interest from the great unwashed and led to a number of unknowns being entered into the tournament.

2. using the excuse that Karl got a slap on the wrist for posting that only certain users should be allowed enter doesn't cut it. The fact is that even the lurkers here are relatively well known and as such it would have been very easy to restrict it to genuine boards users only.

Quite frankly, I think it started out as a great gesture from PPP but left a bad taste in the mouth afterwards because of the fact that it was wide open to abuse and effectively you just had a $100 satellitte for anybody on the PPP network who had the foresight to check the tourney schedule and register an account here.

From my personal point of view, I'm not that bothered. I was playing in the hope that if I didn't win a ticket at least someone I know would benefit from this, that didn't happen but cest la vie. If I or the people I know weren't goo/lucky enough to get the ticket then that's life. I would say that I don't think PPP have any obligation to boards or any of it's members, and as such the gesture was welcome and appreciated. Thank you PPP pit-boss, Karlh and PPP for the opportunity presented. I also think it's a good gesture to afford the winner a place in the Paddy Last competition.

IF and I know it's a big if, something similar was to occur in the future, my recommendation would be to only open it to subscribers of boards.ie as opposed to posters/account holders. At least that way boards will get something out of it and you can be relatively sure that the majority of players will be genuine.

Once again thanks for the opportunity and congratulations to the winner.

and p.s.: Karl, next time press the button for me so I can win a hand tyvm

David Michael

Well I enjoyed it regardless.

I lost 4,400 ish when AQh with Qs9h5c Got raised 900 (A steal?)..reraised..called. Turn Js.. feared a straight/flush draw..all in (5965)..called by 7s 9d .... River... 9s....

The 1465 returned later soon after died a death to my push with K8h v K7d on 6hAd3c...and that 7 on the turn didn't do me any favours!

Being ppppoor I now need to win that 110 back...

wp all gg etc Nice playing with you all.

smurph

carrigeen wrote:

theres a mustard forum:eek:

Lets not open that particular can of worms:o

David Michael

Never mind.. I saw my answer second time round...

5starpool

David Michael wrote:

Just out of interest.... didn't PPP require your user name (via boards.ie) to let you in/register? I pm'd karl and after that I was allowed to reg?

Yes, but Iago's point is that anyone on PPP could have seen the tourney there as an invitational, and then signed up here after reading this thread, just to get an invite. I have no idea if this happened, but this is what he is saying.

Iago

David Michael wrote:

Just out of interest.... didn't PPP require your user name (via boards.ie) to let you in/register? I pm'd karl and after that I was allowed to reg?

yes but the tournament was up on their page from the Friday afternoon. So if I was interested in trying my hand at a satelitte and I wasn't a member of boards I could have just registered as a member on Friday and played on Monday.

again I'll highlight that I'm not complaining as such, and with it being rushed it was probably the best that could be done, and it was a good gesture. but I can see how it would leave a little resentment. Still you can't please all the people all the time, but if PPP wanted to do another one say tomorrow night for boards subscribers only I think I'd enter...hint hint, nudge nudge

Solksjaer

be the hoki this is getting amusing.....

A classic case of how the written word can be misinterrpeted . Both people have valid points but somewhere along the lines they are lost in translation...

WH -> I think Karl threw something together and was trying to accomadate another boardsie/David entry into the IO..
I can see how it can looks in terms of overlay pretence, but how do you prove lurkers ain't worthy to play.....I think the mistake was mentioning an overlay at all as it tends to draw the eye..

Also, Boardsies surely should welcome other players as a pack of boardsies (winning poker experts) should surely feast upon a passing PPP lurker.
Let's be honest though how many people see a tourny, then sign up to a website and agree registration and then WIN the thing.

I think the Smurfs post is pertinent here also.

Let's move on people.....




PITT boss....are there any sattellittes (so many Ts and Ls) for the 1k event?
ahem open to all etc. Perhaps 3 tickets with a 100 buy in. Last nights one appeared to have been fun.

Don't mention the war/overlay.

Fatboydim

I have Harry Enfield's scousers in my ear going "Calm down! Calm Down!"

All of us who are regular Davids will know that Karl's intentions and PPP Pit Boss's intentions were to run a quality sat for Boards.ie members.

To then suggest it was some cynical attempt to drum up business is just pathetic. That the reg proces was not perfect and an unknown David won the event is one to chalk up to experience.

Perhaps in future Boards could either PM or email regular posters who may qualify.

If anyone joined Boards just to play the event then good luck to them. After all what's the Bonus Whoring thread about.??

Cake and eat it.

Iago

Fatboydim wrote:

Cake and eat it.

you were doing so well until this part. OF COURSE I want to have my cake and eat it. What's the point in me having a cake in the first place if I can't eat it!!

especially if that cake is a black forrest gateaux or custard slice......mmmmmmmmm custardy....

WH BONNEY

Fatboydim wrote:

I have Harry Enfield's scousers in my ear going "Calm down! Calm Down!"

All of us who are regular Davids will know that Karl's intentions and PPP Pit Boss's intentions were to run a quality sat for Boards.ie members.

To then suggest it was some cynical attempt to drum up business is just pathetic. That the reg proces was not perfect and an unknown David won the event is one to chalk up to experience.

Perhaps in future Boards could either PM or email regular posters who may qualify.

If anyone joined Boards just to play the event then good luck to them. After all what's the Bonus Whoring thread about.??

Cake and eat it.

From your post above it is clear that you failed to understand the points I was making. It is quite obvious that you felt an urge to post any old rubbish to defend your colleagues.


For those of you that dont know, fatboydim writes a column for PPP.

Solksjaer

Iago wrote:

you were doing so well until this part. OF COURSE I want to have my cake and eat it. What's the point in me having a cake in the first place if I can't eat it!!

especially if that cake is a black forrest gateaux or custard slice......mmmmmmmmm custardy....

LOL, I've always laughed at that saying...although there are some (food degenerates) who would prefer MUSTARD on their cake. (oops hope the mustard forum guys ain't lurking here - SHRIEK)

semibluff

HMMMMMMMM


mustard

phantom_lord

I would have thought it was fairly obvious that the guys who signed up recently and who's only post on boards was in this thread should have been excluded. but meh, it's ppp's tourny.







oh. :rolleyes: i is slow.


i think

MrPillowTalk

WH BONNEY wrote:

From your post above it is clear that you failed to understand the points I was making. It is quite obvious that you felt an urge to post any old rubbish to defend your colleagues.


For those of you that dont know, fatboydim writes a column for PPP.

In fairness the link to Lens column is in his sig so he is hardly a shill.

What makes you think PPP have any obligation to provide an overlay lol, Karl said once it got 25 registered it would run regardless, thats a fair enough offer, the fact that there was no overlay is irrelevant.

As for the minimum posts, well in order to stop noise on every thread on the forum that had to be scrapped, no ones fault, cant really understand what your problem is.

Lazare

semibluff wrote:

HMMMMMMMM


mustard

Carefull now!! It's dangerous to return to the scene of the crime.

ecksor

Solksjaer wrote:

LOL, I've always laughed at that saying...although there are some (food degenerates) who would prefer MUSTARD on their cake. (oops hope the mustard forum guys ain't lurking here - SHRIEK)

Lurking? I'm practically built into this site.

Solksjaer

ecksor wrote:

Lurking? I'm practically built into this site.

:eek: Ahem be back in a sec....(walks quickly to door, turns handle...opens door.....SLAMs -> RUNS....):eek: :eek: :eek: