Hi all, there are many questions/thoughts around the poker economy. These changes have been made after months of analysis evaluating data from many different perspectives. We do expect some game types/stakes will be impacted, but overall we believe these changes will have a positive impact on the long-term viability of the poker ecosystem. Approximately two percent of players are significantly impacted by these changes. Many of the changes are designed to make the VIP Club easier to understand and more engaging for most players which we believe will have long-term benefits for everyone.

In regards to some of the questions:

‘Could you clarify if there will be reimbursements for unused Quarterly Freeroll tickets earned via Gold/Platinumstar satellites (if anyone has more than one such ticket now)?’ Yes. Next Saturday is the last Quarterly Million Freeroll to use your ticket. Any players with remaining tickets will have the FPP value of their ticket reimbursed.

‘Will there be any additional promotions (or freeroll prize pool increases) specific to Gold/Platinumstars in Nov-Dec 2015 to compensate for the lost option of satelliting into the would-be Feb 2016 Quarterly Freeroll ?’ No.

Spain, Italy, and France – changes for these countries will be announced soon.

Best regards, Matthew

answer these questions

Thanks for the prompt answers to mine, Matthew (I guess the yet uncovered questions are going to be answered soon.)

The real way to "balance the ecosystem" would be to also decrease the rake all-around.

I find Pokerstars' wording disgusting considering they're trying to drive all the action to spins when they're essentially hypers with 8% rake. This is a short-term moneygrab and will result in alot of games dying.

Even MTT's will suffer. Even more regs will drop turbos etc alltogether->guarantees will be reduced->recs are not gonna play.

There is no way you could possibly be so stupid to believe this crap you have written. Shame on you Matthew for having no balls. These words have come from your pen, and as such, no one should have any trust or faith in anything you say henceforth. Seriously, how can you write such drivel without losing self-respect for yourself?

People never play primarily for volume- they play solely for money (or enjoyment.) Volume is simply a way to maximize one's earnings. There is no difference between money won at the tables and money won through rewards- it is all money won at the tables. Stars just happen to take an extremely large slice of those winnings which results in a rebate dressed up as "rewards." You haven't inadvertently altered why people play at all. You're trying to dress it up it to appear like Stars have been giving away free money, which of course they haven't

Now Stars is a business, and they have every right to make whatever changes they like. (Long gone are the days of Isai Scheinberg's excellent customer-centric business model.) Stars don't have an obligation to cater for what the players want, however they should have an obligation to be honest and truthful with their customers. You must realize of course that these PR untruths won't wash with the serious players who have a basic understanding of the poker ecosystem, so presumably you're counting on enough noise from the larger portion of less-informed players to drown them out.

The real truth as to why the changes are being made are as follows:

In the past, when online poker thrived, there was plenty of liquidity and an seemingly endless stream of depositing fun players. In the early days it was in Pokerstars' interests to encourage high volume players because a very simple model existed: More volume across the site led to more profit for Pokerstars. It would have looked something like this:



Overtime though the poker landscape changed, player pools got smaller and the player funds that supported the system were seen to be finite. When I was invited to the player meeting at Pokerstars' HQ on the Isle of Man in March 2012, I had an informal chat with Pokerstars' Nick, the Head of Ring Games at that time. We discussed the current climate and how the system was evolving. Nick even mentioned how it could be seen to mirror the flow of real-life eco-systems. It was clear that the linear "more volume = more profit" model no longer applied. High volume players are Pokerstars' friends up until a certain point- they are needed to drive games- but anything over that point and they start to eat into Pokerstars' profits by taking too large a slice of the depositor's money. A simplified version of Pokerstars' current model looks more like this:



So, a more truthful explanation for your changes would be:

"The poker ecosystem has changed dramatically over the years. We don't think we need the high volume players any more and we believe we can tailor it to better serve us. We are taking a calculated risk but we have run simulations of several different models and we think what we have come up with will maximize our profits. We no longer adhere to the Scheinberg "Player First" model, rather we are trying to find a balance between maintaining a reasonable amount of traffic whilst at the same time reducing edges between players. It is in our interests to limit the influence that player skill has in our games and to increase the element of chance. This ensures that less money leaves via the pocket of players, rather than own."

Yes, that would surely work better...

Some of my friends play midstakes fixed limit holdem and they say without any RB for 5/10-15/30 the games will just die instantly. I realise it's not a huge playerpool but still..
Even when we consider only HS NL players - there are not that many games running and without RB, as someone has already mentioned, it will be more of a 'let's hunt that fish down'-game

You also have to take into account that other sites will probably take advantage of these changes and will try to get some of your high-volume players over their side. High-volume = more $$ in rake for you. You've probably already taken all of that into consideration. We can only hope for the Americans to be included in the international player pool once again. That'd make up for all of that

RIP stars

instead of SNE rakeback u will get 0 action in cash games from me. a lot of the tougher games will die off completely and you end up making less rake. GJ


and have some respect to the posters on here with your bull****. changing for more balanced longterm poker economoy, GTFO no1 is buying what you're selling

[1] No they haven't. You have examined how different player types will be affected, but ultimately you have only looked at it from one perspective.

[2] No you don't. You are not concerned with a true poker ecosystem. You have an interest in a "gaming" ecosystem and how it can be maintained.

[3] Two percent of players seems very small doesn't it. Would you care to elaborate on what percentage of volume that makes up? Your 2% figure obviously takes into account every single account you have. This includes players that have never played, players who have stopped playing, and players who play one SnG a year. In real terms, it is a significant portion of your player base. Even if you are being forced to lose any self-respect, please have some respect for those players you are addressing.

[4] True, but it's unimportant and no ones gives a ****. You can't list it as if it's a positive change that off-sets a negative change:

"We're very sorry Mr. Smith but we had to amputate both your legs, but there is some good news. The man in the bed next to you wants to buy your slippers."

-------------------------------------------

https://www.pokerstars.com/en/blog/c...e-158887.shtml

Clearly you are being forced to parrot the words of Eric Hollreiser. I just hope they're paying you enough if you have a conscience. (Either that, or I hope you're really, really stupid and actually believe it!)

Now would be a great time for 888 to get their act together

How do Pokerstars define volume?

I agree that it can't be defined in terms of just gross rake. Most recently, the popularity of $60-100 Spin & Gos has led to a new breed of SNEs who didn't need to play an extraordinary number of games in order to maintain the status. This was no good imo - they had decent ROIs and were able to get top-level rakeback even without outstanding contribution to the traffic (i.e. they were only 2-tabling). But my point is that 'traffic makers' (who forfeit a big part of their per-game ROI as a result of multitabling), incl. table starters in ring games and those who, like acbarone, would opensit in all non-Spin Sit & Gos of their stakes without table selection if those games were any good, deserve a bit more (not a whole lot more, though).

Can't believe you really wrote that as justification. LoL.

2% of players who generate how much of the total volume? 30%? 50%? More?

Probably you think your best clients are idiots and don't get that.

It seems unlikely, all players loose.

If they use the cost savings from this to reduce rake across the board, this could end up being a fantastic change.

But they won't. Time for someone else to step up and become market leader.

Isn't it obvious that the "2% of players" you're are adressing to are likely some of the best players in the world and mostly pretty smart guys.

So why not just tell the real business reasons behind those ridiculous changes, which are superunderstandable as some guys mentioned before ($$>$).

The only thing that really tilts me is the fact that you treat a big part of your best customers as if they were stupid idiots. But well, I hope u'll get to feel the bad impact on the traffic right where it hurts you (in your bank account)..


Best regards
SNE

there are a ton of babies in this thread. for the past 9 years ive done everything i can to avoid playing on stars outside big special events. I focus all my action on sites with really LOW RB% as the games on stars have been **** since forever but table composition on sites with crap rewards is always so good.

this 30% cap could actually possibly bring me back to stars.

I hope you feel embarrassed and ashamed to work for pokerstars when you type out this garbage.

lol. 2% aka 90% of the volume on your site.

Hello Matthew.

Please could you tell me if ChromeStars players will see greater rewards?

HUD RIP

Games just got really hard for the little guys on Stars. I'm sure a lot of rakeback pros will quit or move to other sites, but I expect a lot will be content to take a pay cut and move down in exchange for a more relaxed schedule not tied to yearly VIP rewards. Obviously other sites are overjoyed by this. I'm sure there will be a domino effect. Maybe one site will appeal to the rakeback pros and offer a new SNE type program.

the sad thing is, that is exactly what pokerstars wants.

or to put it in other terms: "one less mouth to feed"

Wow, you are essentially firing a large portion of your workers and shutting down several games -- midstakes Zoom, SNG, and probably decent portion of PLO games as well.

Bold move, Amaya, Bold move.

Amaya is a publicly traded company so you will get the corporate speak. Forever.

Mike killed it though. Loved the graphs.

This is closer to the truth.

Every game on Stars just became less profitable. There is really no argument against that. All those rakeback sharks are not just going to quit poker. I respect Amaya's right to kill the economy but let's call a spade a spade.

You are trying to kill regulars who are probably already paying you more money in rake per month than they are profiting from their winnings themselves after each month. And now you want these regulars that pay thousands of dollars in rake per month to have it even worse? Monopoly is fun I guess.