Discussion Thread re PokerStars Player Reps Report. Feb 2012

[CocteauTwin]

Originally Posted by Hood

I don't care about low rake. I care about good games.

Hey shill, just out of curiosity why did you bother go to the IOM?

[BeenAWhile]

According to Hood's logic, the rake in FL games can be high when the games are good but if the opposite is true, e.g. the game are not as good the rake is not the main issue. I dont even know where to start.

The amount of rake I pay in micro mixed FL games is absolutely staggering to a point where it`s hard to be bothered anymore.

All this talk about FL promos..blabla..aside of milestone hands, PokerStars barely ever runs a fish promo and even a $100 reload a year is apparently too much to ask these days

[Hood]

Originally Posted by CocteauTwin

Hey shill, just out of curiosity why did you bother go to the IOM?

I have stated repeatedly that i don't mostly play on stars, because the games aren't as good as elsewhere, in 2011 only about 20-30% of my play iirc was on pokerstars and i plan to do the same this year. I've also been quite critical of stars publicly in the past.

Please define shill in a way that would encompass me.

I've also repeated over and over again that the FL games are in serious jeopardy, something radical needs to be done, and I don't think what has happened is radical enough. For that reason, I don't plan to commit to playing on pokerstars 100% in 2012.

However, I, along with the other reps, saw a positive result of the meetings and had some renewed hope that PS had their heads in the right place. It's all in the reports so i won't regurgitate yet again. Regarding the IOM meetings, most of the 5 days was not taken up arguing that significantly lower rake was the only solution. It was discussed, but the rest of the agenda was focused on the more practical changes at hand, which are much more minor.

Lower rake is one proposed solution to the issue. It's not the only factor in the equation. I'm not convinced that significant rake cuts is the best solution; certainly not in terms of fixed limit, and I went to represent the community and a large part agree with this sentiment.

Continuing to ignore all other factors in to the equation of making "games good" is unproductive and unpersuasive.

[Hood]

Originally Posted by BeenAWhile

According to Hood's logic, the rake in FL games can be high when the games are good but if the opposite is true, e.g. the game are not as good the rake is not the main issue. I dont even know where to start

That is a close approximation to the opposite of what i said.

[BeenAWhile]

Originally Posted by Hood

That is a close approximation to the opposite of what i said.

No it's not,as you clearly stated
""high rake" is no an absolute. If the games were super soft, no one would be talking about 'the rake being too damn high'. It's a relative measure based on observed winrates of players and game liquidity."

Plus I only read "hope", "possible FL promos", "positive results" in the reports and here. Could you be any more vague? Since there are no results besides minimal rake changes it's fairly safe to state that it will be same **** as usual

[Hood]

Please just read what i'm writing. I just said that i'm not planning to play on PokerStars 100% this year for exactly these reasons. I'm not being vague because i'm not defending stars and arguing on their behalf. I agree, it's vague. I was sent to report and i'm reporting.

I know you guys want me to be a shill so you have an easy target to attack, but i'm not and it doesn't stick.

You said that according to my theory, "the game are not as good the rake is not the main issue." That's totally inaccurate I said it is one part of the equation. There are no absolutes, and it is not the only issue, and blindly pretending that there are not other factors does not help your cause.

[chavarie]

All this talk about CAP being unbeatable at the lower limits is bull****. I agree that's it's a rake trap, that most regs are loosers and that the rake is too freaking high but some people are beating CAP50/100/200 for 1BB/100 (even more at 50 & 200). I won't out anyone but most of the regs that I see whining in this thread saying that it's unbeatable should stop blaming the rake and start blaming themself for their losses at the tables. It's not 2007 anymore, you can't win playing a 20bbs stack using a free chart that you found somewhere on the web. You actually have to do some work to be a winner in those games.

Having said that I really hope that Stars will consider a different rake structure for CAP & PLO at the next meeting for obvious reasons and stop screwing table starters and 6max players.

[LunaEqualsLuna]

Originally Posted by Hood

- You say PokerStars is a monopoly: the 2 relevant characteristics of a monopoly here - the whole market is served by one service provider to the point where company=industry and it can exercise price discrimination at will.

Incorrect.
What you describe is a PURE monopoly. You do not need a pure monopoly to wield monopoly power. If that was the case then even at its peak Microsoft was never a monopoly. UK law describes a monopoly as having 25% or more of the market.
Pokerstars IS a monopoly, and it certainly wield monopoly powers.

Originally Posted by Hood

- Yet at the same time, you offer countless examples of other sites that offering highly competitive offers with low effective price (high rewards). You say you will no longer play on PS and play on these competitors, demonstrating that we are in a very competitive (non-monopolistic) business.

This is still not a very competitive business, as it is still a grey area wrt to regulation. The major sites have pretty much all colluded in the form of an oligopoly to keep prices high, newer smaller (but not insignificant) sites have lower rake (like svenka spel which is 2.5%, which pokerstars always ignores when they claim they have lowest rake). Rakeback is hated by most major sites but are forced to tolerate it because saavy players who understand the true outragegous cost of poker are who pushed affiliates into offering it in the first place, but rakeback isn't the same as a true price cut.

Prices are still being fixed by the major competitors. Sure I enjoy 60% rakeback ie 2% effective rake, but I wish ALL players could, and think even that is too high for new players, that is why I am vocal on the subject, if micro players keep getting rake raped the game will die.

Originally Posted by Hood

As a final counterpoint: WSEX

What exactly does that counter?
If you run a poker room poorly it will fail?

Originally Posted by reverie

wrt to cap games, i'm not sure why we should expect a table full or regs playing from hand charts to be able to beat each other post rake. scrap them. short stacking is dead.

Nice generalisation.

The phrase "... and when they came for me, noone was left" seems apt here. FL is easier than NL, regs can't expect to beat rake, scrap the game.

CAP games are popular, and you clearly have no understanding of them. Deal with it. If you don't play in them, why do you care what goes on in those games. If I'm a fan of tennis I don't go into a discussion saying, omg badminton sucks, scrap it.

If sites are willing to spread games where veery few if anyone can beat the rake then you can bet eventually the same will happen to whatever game you play in at which point noone will be left to care and will probably enjoy watching it happen just as you presumably did when it happened to other games.

We are all after the same thing here which is a reduction in the cost to play poker, irrespective of what game you play. If you hate certain games or hate certain players, then start a i hate shortstackers thread.

Originally Posted by chavarie

All this talk about CAP being unbeatable at the lower limits is bull****. I agree that's it's a rake trap, that most regs are loosers and that the rake is too freaking high but some people are beating CAP50/100/200 for 1BB/100 (even more at 50 & 200).

The point is it rapidly will become unbeatable precisely because it is a rake trap, specifically 100NL which is probably one of the worst rake traps I've ever seen. 50NL and 200NL are not unbeatable which is precisely why jumping from 50NL straight to 200NL is ideal.

50NL is beatable because it is the lowest stake at which CAP is offered so players are the weakest.
200NL is beatable because it is the first stake at which rake starts to decrease and a lot of regs who probably could beat 200 and 400NL are actually trapped at 100NL ironically making 200NL and 400NL CAP games easier than 100NL. Fish don't use bankroll management, regs do and lots of them are stuck in 100NL.

Either lower the rake in lower stakes CAP to eliminate the rake trap or remove 50 and/or 100NL CAP from the lobby.

[HiLo66]

Originally Posted by chavarie

All this talk about CAP being unbeatable at the lower limits is bull****. I won't out anyone but most of the regs that I see whining in this thread saying that it's unbeatable should stop blaming the rake and start blaming themself for their losses at the tables.

Nobody is whining in here, we're discussing the fact that over 6bb/100 in rake is excessive at low limit CAP.

Take your superior skills and massive ego elsewhere we're not impressed. If you're beating the game for 1bb/100 congrats, Stars is happy to take the other 5bbs.

[Bruut99]

Being able to handchart yourself to 120k SNE awards with a MEDIOCRe knowledge of poker at best was a shortterm paradise. Ofcourse playing with a 20bb stack does not leave big edges with rake involved. Those times are just not coming back. I agree rake needs to be LOWERED everywhere, every game every limit, even cap.

But, cap will be unbeatable if you lower the rake even by 50%, it will only take a little more time because the game itself is bound to be unbeatable.

Players that named themselves 'poker pro's' based on that short term paradise, is the same as people calling themselves pro's in stockbroking in times where you basicly couldnt go wrong. You don't have many of those left these days..

[CocteauTwin]

Originally Posted by Hood

Lower rake is one proposed solution to the issue. It's not the only factor in the equation.

The community were only focusing on rake changes and as far as we knew that was the only reason stars was holding the meeting. You say they're not the most important thing and are now downplaying it. You don't care about rake you care about good games right? which doesn't even make any sense at this point. Why did you want to go to the IOM if that is your attitude? What could you bring to the table if that is your attitude? Someone else should have gone in your place.

[Hood]

LunaEqualsLuna:

- Evidence of the sites having explicitly colluded on price and 'price fxing by major competitors'? If PS wielded monopolistic power, why would it need to collude with "major competitors" to fix prices?

- If prices are fixed across major competitors, why are there clear differences in prices and rewards across all the major sites? Isn't half the argument in this thread about how it's way better to play on another site?

- Svenska Spel was discussed on day one of the meet. SS has no rewards program (by law? not sure on that), making effective rake post-rewards comparable, although def Svenska is competitive here. Now there is a site with a real monopoly

- The WSEX example was just one of a dozen-ish examples i've given that lowering effective rake has not result in improved games or increased liquidity, and this cannot be ignored to those constructing the argument that stars must slice rake.

[Hood]

CocteauTwin: You are trying to pick a fight that just doesn't exist. My stance has not changed, i'm not downplaying anything. I've been very outspoken from day one. Go back and check my original posts that got me nominated by the community in the first place.

You are trying to speak about "the community" except i have spent the last 6 weeks engaging the community, both the FL one and beyond, and i have no concerns that i misrepresented them, especially with 4 others that brought alternative perspectives.

[Admania]

Originally Posted by CocteauTwin

The community were only focusing on rake changes and as far as we knew that was the only reason stars was holding the meeting. You say they're not the most important thing and are now downplaying it. You don't care about rake you care about good games right? which doesn't even make any sense at this point. Why did you want to go to the IOM if that is your attitude? What could you bring to the table if that is your attitude? Someone else should have gone in your place.

Totally agree here and quite staggered by your comment, if you don't care about the rake changes then why did you do to the IOM? and for the umpteenth time could you explain how and why the rake has increased in the 1/2 and 2/4 sh and fr limit games?

[Hood]

Admania: I've said this i think half a dozen times in this thread. It's been (and i will continue) to discuss this in the FL thread.

And one more time - i never said i don't care about the rake changes. It's entirely false to say that. Be staggered all you like by a falsehood.

I'm going to once again unsubscribe from this thread, as i'm just being purposefully misquoted. I understand you guys are angry and need someone to attack, even if that means entirely misunderstanding what they are saying. But i've only posted in this thread to do the job i was nominated; i have no issue as to whether you continue to play on PokerStars, or play at all. I personally will not be putting all my play on stars this year. If you want to still try to class me as a shill, go ahead.

I only started posting again today because i felt your discussions weren't progressing much towards a consensus, and you were ignoring clear counterpoints to your arguments. Which is a shame, because i think it could be a very good discussion, and i do agree with large parts of it.