I believe that what I'm about to write is a generalization of what a lot of players are thinking about PokerStrategy's recent analysis about FTP VIP scheme.

FTP no longer offers rakeback and we are all pissed with that. Any microgrinder enjoyed FTP because of the value this rakeback added in comparison to VIP schemes like stars that only favor someone aiming for at least SN. But what's gone is gone, I hate not having RB but that's the way I have to deal with it, nobody will force me play there, if I want rb and disregard software quality I can simply cash out and move to a fishy european network. We have FTP without rb and this is the way it is. Period.

A scenario like this was already on the horizon once we knew, some months ago, that Stars was going to buy FTP. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out how a monopoly works. Although that was a possibility, I didn't see PokerStrategy concerned about it.

That changed when FTP announced the end of rakeback for players. But, no rb for us also means no commission for affiliates. And then and only then PokerStrategy started to get worried about it. I mean, I read somewhere that PStrategy had around 300k players in FTP, how much will you loose in commisions? I guess it's a lot and I guess it hurts, like it hurts my bankroll with no added rb.

But one thing is the true concern about the players, another thing is using it as an argument to whine about the commissions you won't make. It's not the first time that I noticed this in PokerStrategy but now it became too obvious to be disregarded.

PokerStrategy is not worried about what we get with no rakeback, they're worried about what they won't make as a result of we not having rakeback.

So, at least be honest about this, that's all I ask. Making a couple of articles saying how bad the FTP VIP scheme is just bull***, who cares about the comparison of the old FTP scheme with the new one? I mean, when I go to supermarket do I compare the price of product A today with the price 10 years ago to realize that 10 years ago was cheaper?? No, I compare the same product in two different supermarkets, that's how I decide where to do my shopping.

My point is, your articles where you say new-FTP-sucks-you-were-so-better-with-old-FTP are pointless and are just whining about what you're loosing in your commissions, if you really cared about we, the players, you would do something like comparing the current FTP with the current Stars scheme. This is not the first time I see PokerStrategy doing very biased articles on a given subject, but the recent events just made it to evident to be ignored. That's why I choose unbiased sites, LIKE 2+2, to get the information that I can criticize and debate instead of being sold with the stuff affiliates usually publish.

What would you do if you lost ~ 1 000 000 in commissions per month because of this? Have you ever thought that maybe they are writing these articles in order get people aware of the problem and get ftp to change it back to 27%?

Are you that naive???? Untracking accounts means no rb for us and no commission for PStrategy. However, PokerStars accounts created using PStrategy links generate income for PStrategy. But there's no rb for us because in Stars there's no such thing called rb. Have you ever seen PStrategy demanding rb on Stars or writing articles on how bad the VIP scheme is there? Of course not, let them grind in stars so stars pays the respective commission to PStrategy...

Of course PokerStrategy is worried about commissions. What do you think how they pay their staff? Less revenue means less money resulting in cut-backs in staff. It's not only about them making a buck from players signed under them but about keeping your company intact while maintaining their poker community. Of course they could change to a subscription based model if that is what you would prefer and drop community freerolls and other promotions since their wouldn't be any revenue from player rake.

That's just.... ROFL.

PokerStars affiliate program doesn't pay net revenue based commissions. If you sign a player to stars you receive a one off payment "if" the player reaches the marker to qualify for the said payment and actually makes a deposit and isn't a freeroller.

That the community stays intact is only important if you think about the future. If tradimo is running good, and the pokerstrategy part is not worth maintaining anymore they will cut off their affiliated players faster than we can complain about it and still get the money for us.
Many of us signed up when pokerstrategy was "another" site. I would not track myself trough pokerstrategy.com anymore, simply because lots of the strategies are outdated and it is - again - money which gets drained out of the system.

Regarding the money; nobody forced them to waste money with the crap softwares "elephant" and "sidekick" or did I just miss out on that?

Egoism,
all I tried to say is that PokerStrategy does of course rely on commissions they receive from players they sign to the poker sites they work with as part of their income and to pay their staffs wages. So any changes they do to their site, system, promotions might not always be in favour of the player but to secure the integrity of the company and to maintain peoples jobs.

If you look at their site you'll see that there is more freelancing positions now since the local manpower in Gibraltar received a cut back and in exchange for that PokerStrategy has adjusted their business model integrating more freelancers. The advantage there is that they can now fresh faces that bring new quality to their services and I think that's great.

As for Tradimo. It's a great project but I believe that it's a little late to enter the forex / cfd market. They should have looked at this right after black friday like others did. It will be very hard for them to get their food in the door since that market is pretty overflown now as well.

There has been a large influx on forex trading since black friday with online trading having gained aprox. the market share that online poker has lost after BF.

Stars pays revenue-based for any larger affiliate.

Really? Since when? Sure never did to me so I dumped em but I take your word on it.

I stand corrected in that point then, my bad.