Discussion Thread re PokerStars Player Reps Report. Feb 2012

[RiverIsMyFriend]

for PLO:

krmont said that the main reason stars didnt allow rake deduction for PLO and CAP games was there were similar distribution among winners and losers, i.e. game still beatable.

I'm wondering if they compared that data before and after BF. I'm sure preBF small stake PLO was very beatable despite of the high rake. I'm not sure if that's the case now. PLO game is getting tougher on a daily basis, at least for me it was. I started last year as marginal winner and ended up as a loser in PLO200. I'm pretty sure most regs will agree that games got a lot tougher in the past few months. My point is even you have a similar distribution right now, it will change, fast. Do you guys notice the trend or did you just ignore it? Does your data support my observation? Does stars only consider doing something about it until the games are not profitable for most of us?

[krmont22]

The main two arguments were they wanted one structure to fit all for aeshetic reasons and that people are still winning post rakeback.

[Sect7G]

Originally Posted by Birdseye

We sent number sense people. I want Bull**** detectors and hardcore negotiators. Using data Stars gives us is POINTLESS. We need to show at Stars with our own data and our own conclusions.

When I say negotiator, I mean someone that argues and doesn't make friends with his enemy. Reps got too buddy buddy. Stars was humanized and it was hard for them to 'fight' with stars. I am sure the reps are nice people, but the average online poker player might have difficulty with being the person in the room that is making statements that cause uncomfortable feelings in the room. I'll stop ragging on the reps as I feel they tried hard but just weren't equipped for the situation

What we need is to be told what the agenda, timeframe, number of reps and an agreement from Pokerstars to not get involved on who goes and who doesn't ahead of time. I made a post in this thread and even reposted it asking for Steve to comment on it with 4 criteria. Still no response.

[omnimirage]

Cliffs?

[CPGJ]

The only way to get real, positive changes from Stars is to threaten their bottom line. If you're not willing to do that then don't expect much.

[TheRaiderr]

Originally Posted by Sect7G

So I assume similar rb deals of 50+ are coming next week?

Seriously though, Stars never made it to where it is today by being competitive with other sites. The owner of Stars and Sr. Management managed to earn the market share that they enjoy today by doing what the other guys wouldn't or couldn't do.
During the good times Pokerstars took a much bigger benefit than any of us players combined since nearly all of us cash game players pay more in rake then we ever earned. But now it seems that Pokerstars has hit a plateau that it can't seem to climb and instead of putting the effort into recruiting new players or earning new players from other sites, Pokerstars is looking for the easy way out and that is taking money from it's most loyal customers who are the ones that ultimately made Pokerstars what it is today.

I wish you got to go. You have the right attitude.

I hope the second time around you get the chance.

[Gregg777]

Originally Posted by krmont22

The main two arguments were they wanted one structure to fit all for aeshetic reasons

and that people are still winning post rakeback.

This statement is direct from the horse's mouth (rep).

Stars is only concerned with people winning post rake back?

A PlatinumStar member only receives 28-31% rake back.

So the only long term winning players Stars wants for low and micro stakes are extremely high volume players on the multi table hamster wheel rake back grind.

Exactly what percentage of players is that?

Stars would cripple almost any other potential competition with 3bb/100 low stakes rake.

True there is BTG and eventually there will be some US sites, but the US sites will have regulation and taxation which prevents them from a really low rake.

TBH I don't really care one way or the other, I am a rec player. I retired to the beach almost a decade ago.

If all of the poker sites (Everleaf, Bodog, and now apparently Stars) are going to keep pushing the winning grinders out, it will just make the games easier for me.

[Sect7G]

Unless the agenda of the meeting is up front there really is no point in going imo. This past one it appears has not brought much change and Steve has already said that the discussion can continue in April, and if nothing works out- oh hey there's always November. This past one was a stall tecnique where serious players partially locked themselves into the VIP program with the expectation of change and unless Stars can commit to some of the things I suggested ahead of time I really think as a community we should boycott these types of meetings as this past one brought false hope and it appears to have only locked people into the VIP program.

If Stars can't agree to a few meeting parameters ahead of time I have no interest in taking part in these talks. My key parameters are:

1) Will the agenda of the meetings be brought up to the community ahead of time.

2) Can Stars agree ahead of time to state the number of reps allowed to go and the dates and then stay out of all involvement when it comes to voting and accept whomever the community decides. i.e no pre picked reps or people who should go by default.

Withought these two things in place I really don't see the point. Personally I'd much rather Stars just say hey this is the way it is and take it or leave it. I may not agree with their business philosophy but I can respect the transparency.

[663366]

OK here it is:

I will not play another hand of PLO on Pokerstars until they end the silence regarding high rake of small stakes PLO games and drop the rake significantly. Not the 2% or whatever miniscule drop that can in fact be an increase in some way. A true drop in the rake for PLO.

I will not be replacing those hours that I would've spent playing PLO(around 20% of my hours) with other games on Pokerstars. I will spend that time studying the game, playing live, tournaments etc etc instead.

This is not a one day protest, it will last until PLO rake is dropped on Pokerstars.

If enough of us can do that, they WILL drop the rake.

If enough of us can do that with CAP games, they WILL drop the rake.

What do I have to lose anyway? Spending more time studying the game is long overdue.

[663366]

Originally Posted by Sect7G

Unless the agenda of the meeting is up front there really is no point in going imo.

If I was the negotiator I would demand that Pokerstars demonstrate with real stats that there is an acceptable % of winning players pre-rakeback at every stake of every kind of cash game currently offered on Pokerstars. I'm not saying that I should be the negotiator(and in fact I may not be able to go due to commitments) but any further discussion with Pokerstars should start with them disclosing that either every game offered is perfectly beatable, or that they can't produce reasonable stats for some games being beatable.

Then, we focus on the unbeatable games and start working out how rake can be dropped to allow good players win.

VPPs, I believe, is a separate issue. Stars likes to use VPPs as a way to mask their high rake... but for the majority of players who are not SNE(and here is where even a negotiator who's SNE should be impartial), they want to see rake dropped not multipliers increased. Fish, also, don't ever make it to SNE or even SN. But we want their money stay with them before they go bust so the money can come to us, not to Pokerstars first.

[LunaEqualsLuna]

Originally Posted by krmont22

The main two arguments were they wanted one structure to fit all for aeshetic reasons and that people are still winning post rakeback.

Aesthetic reasons... lol i won't even comment on this because it basically exudes BS and it isn't even an argument, simply a fob off. How can the reps just accept this as an argument?

The 'people are winning post rakeback' argument is nonsense and you know it. First not everyone has the same or sufficient rakeback to make certain games beatable. So is it right for certain games to only be beatable if you play 1 million hands? (ie fish certain to lose irrespective of skill?)

Winning post rakeback wasn't even considered winning until recently here on 2+2, because games were actually beatable in the past. With skill levels increasing games are no longer easily beaten and instead of lowering rake, pokerstars are clutching at straws claming people are winning post rakeback... any argument possible to justify keeping the rake rape going as long as possible eh?
And again the reps just accept this and parrot it.

How about lowering the rake so that people actually just win? Instead of taking so much money from people and then giving them back a fraction as 'rewards' while forcing them to multitable like manic hamsters to get said 'rewards'. Rakeback should be a minor part of player winnings not the majority of them, and certainly not 100% of them.

The fact that this is the case confirms the rake is far too high.

Its not a reward if you take all the money they won and just give some back.

-_____-

Originally Posted by TheRaiderr

I wish you got to go. You have the right attitude.

I hope the second time around you get the chance.

Yeah, I wish Sect7G had gone as well tbh, would have been good to have at least one rep who wasn't just there to be best buddies with stars. Though i don't see the sense in future meetings, only way to get their attention is to hit their bottom line and stop playing there.

[Reckless_Abandon]

Originally Posted by krmont22

The main two arguments were they wanted one structure to fit all for aeshetic reasons and that people are still winning post rakeback.

Was WC taken into post rakeback winrates?

[LunaEqualsLuna]

Originally Posted by omnimirage

Cliffs?

Just sayin...

[omnimirage]

Hang on wait is that before or after new rake system?

[mme]

>>People have spoken about taking rake as a set bbs/100 hands, which would be the same amount for all stakes, making the whole system fairer. This is transparent and everyone would know where they stood at all times regarding rake.

Originally Posted by PokerStars Steve

We've just aligned our rake such that it can be compared well with other sites. Such a move would be in the exact opposite direction.

Originally Posted by PokerStars Steve

However we will continue to listen to ideas to make rake more transparent and consistent, including discussing them at the next player meetings.

wow, bbs/100 would be as transparent as can get. a blunt pencil and a slice of paper to find out what you pay. i hope everyone noticed what steve said through all the noise in here.