Why do pokersites (everleaf, bodog, ongame, soon to be ipoker) continually try implement any sort of model that doesnt mirror pokerstars?

I mean they are the one site that is universally trusted and has survived nearly all hurdles that have crippled or killed other sites. Why try to be different? The past suggests it doesnt work.

Lol seriously, 0.004% of players are winning $4k/month or more? This cant be right.

The rake is 6% capped 5€ (7€ cap tables). The only reason regs play there is because possible rakeback deals. The rake is like 10bb+/100 up to nl100 and there are some decent regs currently on almost every table (cause there is just too few tables to really table select+ it is one of the few sites that still accept US players).
Also the rake is capped 5€(7€) on every table(so also on HU & 4max tables) so most regs try to avoid starting tables (there are some prop players but i haven't seen them so active in starting 6-max nl tables).
Basically it is hard to beat 6max tables up to nl100 given the rake and CAP,4-max tables and HU tables are unbeatable pre rakeback.

I can believe that very few players make that much on Everleaf each month.

It's just a monumental **** up that they mistakenly applied this to players who make less than that. Had they only applied it to the players who actually make >$4k a month this asinine policy would have gone almost unnoticed.

that would just mean they can't afford to pay everyone their balances right now, ducy?

How many players is this total on the network? Soon there will be no winners only losers in poker.

I got the message this morning and I am sure I do not fall into even the top 5%

Nice self promotion.

I didn't want to post this in the minted support thread but I'm getting off minted asap and going to merge. Neil promised that the new minted software that has been coming soon forever now would do away with the star rating system. This was very misleading, as was the rake increase to 6%. The rake is too much at minted, the software is horrible, people timeout all the time and this has to be worth at least 1ptbb per 100 hands itself, and 8 tabling is really buggy because one table always freezes and auto topup is bugged.

The reply from that rep. Neil seemed counter-intuitive to me. He tries to placate everyone by saying that it will affect a pretty negligible percentage of players and yet still tries to claim that this will have more than a negligible effect on the difficulty of the games. I don't get it. If you make a new policy that only affects a handful of players, how is that going to help the majority of the players?

Very weird overall. I wouldn't play there. Just increased rake and now this strange move that just seems... wrong.

Fixed your post. The rest was terribad.

So what if you start tables can the fish still sit down or will the site not let them?

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THESE COMPANIES LATELY JESUS CHRIST

So what tables are the winners barred from? All of them?

Simple, really. Bunch of winning Americans flocked to their sites and started crushing donks and requesting cashouts. They don't like issuing money to people, especially Americans that require shifty (read: expensive) methods to obtain their money.

Yea, that's like 1 out of every 25k players. I doubt there are many more active accounts than that in a given month.

So which tables does it affect?

All winners must sit together with their entire rolls at one table called the "thunderdome". Players are not allowed to leave until either they busto or triple up.

hes obv skewing the numbers to make it sound better. lol only affect .004%.low move imo. Tell the REAL % of players this is gonna affect that have active accounts. who cares if u got millions accounts signed up but 99% of them are not actively playing anymore. this will affect prolly 5%-10% of the total active player pool.

I don't know why, but always have been one of my favorite posters.

The network that his site is on just implemented a ****ty policy that they don't want to give a justification for, and he has to come on here and give us some reason that will make us accept the new policy.

But obviously none of us care about what percentage of players this effects but rather that the network is trying to cap how much players can win.

Does this count for tournament winnings too? Like 1 decent tournament score and you're done for the week?

What if someone wins $750, but then loses $1. Or if they're at $749 and win a $1, do they get booted off the table until they lose another $1?

Reread the OP. It clearly states the restriction is only for cash games. That's because they realize you need to run hot to bag a tourney, and they still want the vig after you've reached your cap.

Nothing new, ipoker skins do that too.

Very interesting times in poker - more and more sites are making some kind of move to "protect the fish".

Most Sites - Move to contributed rakeback
OnGame - Essence
iPoker - Penalizing sites with net withdrawals which resulted in winning players getting booted, switching to Essence-type system
Microgaming - Some anonymous tables, adding more
Bodog - Hiding tables from lobby, making all tables anonymous
Everleaf - Capping winnings

And yes, I know that contributed rakeback and Essence-type systems can also be a cash grab, but I honestly don't think that's the only reason they do it.

While I'm not going to defend what they're doing, I'll say this - it's probably the least of all the evils, if they fix it so it truly is $750/week, and is applied in such a way that it doesn't limit people on short-term heaters. At least it's transparent, and it allows everyone to continue playing; it simply limits how much they can win.