Everleaf hates winning players too - Page 4 - Internet Poker

nckfor · 12-03-2011, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TiltTheTilt

First, let me say I don't think this recent trend is a good thing for iPoker if it continues with other Networks. I should have phrased that differently and made it clear that only if these 2 Networks are the only ones that made the changes. I think there could be atleast something good come out of these changes for US players as long as these changes remain isolated to these 2 Networks.

I understand what your saying but for arguments sake if we combined the traffic at Bodog, Everleaf, and Merge then that would make for a decent sized Network. A lot of US players aren't playing iPoker because the Tournaments aren't large like they were on FTP or PS. Others aren't playing online because they don't feel they can get enough volume on a single Network.

I think increasing the traffic with the existing players to one or two Networks would help start a domino affect where we could see some of the players that left post Black Friday return.

Obviously, just having all the traffic on one Network would be a good starting point, IMO.

NOTE: the example above is extreme and just for arguments sake. I realize that not all are going to leave and not all are going to go to the largest US Network. Again, that was just to give an example of how I think it COULD help.

I think a mahor current issue is the fact that FTP went down....alot of US players are afraid to play on a single network, fearing the same could happen to theirt funds on that network. If it happened to FTP, which was the second largest entity out there, it can def happen to one of these small skins or networks. Unitl poker is regulated (ie: heavily taxed), its going to be tough to get anything really rolling. And even after that, then what happens? It may not even be profitable anymore, because of the taxation that you know is going to accompany any regulation. Thanks DOJ, and USA, for butting into yet another place where you shouldn't even be interested in. I live in the US, and for us to think we are the world police, its sickening.

rbracco · 12-03-2011, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8Nilor

I hope that when everything is said and done and poker becomes legal all over the world that everyone will remember this ****. I hope the GENERAL PUBLIC will know which site to trust(pokerstars) and not these shady bastards.

+1, enjoy burning your site to the ground over some short-sighted BS.

39suited · 12-03-2011, 01:47 PM

It might make sense if a mod can actually change the title of this thread since it has become clear that this was a network decision and not Minted themselves ... . TYVM.

Francis_MH · 12-03-2011, 01:48 PM

This is amazing. Glad I didn't put any money on Everleaf.

gadolparah · 12-03-2011, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TiltTheTilt

First, let me say I don't think this recent trend is a good thing for iPoker if it continues with other Networks. I should have phrased that differently and made it clear that only if these 2 Networks are the only ones that made the changes. I think there could be atleast something good come out of these changes for US players as long as these changes remain isolated to these 2 Networks.

I understand what your saying but for arguments sake if we combined the traffic at Bodog, Everleaf, and Merge then that would make for a decent sized Network. A lot of US players aren't playing iPoker because the Tournaments aren't large like they were on FTP or PS. Others aren't playing online because they don't feel they can get enough volume on a single Network.

I think increasing the traffic with the existing players to one or two Networks would help start a domino affect where we could see some of the players that left post Black Friday return.

Obviously, just having all the traffic on one Network would be a good starting point, IMO.

NOTE: the example above is extreme and just for arguments sake. I realize that not all are going to leave and not all are going to go to the largest US Network. Again, that was just to give an example of how I think it COULD help.

yeah. we should reorganize ourselves into one collected location, then put the bank account right in the DOJs name

GoDeViLs · 12-03-2011, 01:54 PM

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.

qetou · 12-03-2011, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MintedNeil

Hi

This change is a NETWORK wide change.

To put it into context, less than 0.004% of the entire player pool will be affected by this change. It is this 0.004% of the player pool that accounts for over 50% of the net win on the entire network.

Minted are in no way attempting to justify this decision however we are bound by the rules of the network and will embrace this change for better or for worse.

All of you, who fall into the remaining 99.996% of the player pool, will have easier games.

Regards
Neil

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

gargamel_fk · 12-03-2011, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qetou

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.

olinolin · 12-03-2011, 02:03 PM

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.

prodonkey · 12-03-2011, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenzor

everleaf probably having liquidity issues like FTP. can't afford to pay out big winners if they keep winning at the current rate.

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

jmurjeff · 12-03-2011, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qetou

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

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

WVUskinsfan · 12-03-2011, 02:07 PM

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

3betu · 12-03-2011, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skraper

This is certainly not limited to Minted only. I have had several students complain about this today, they play on a number of different skins.

Nice self promotion.

guitarizt · 12-03-2011, 02:35 PM

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.

GAH3 · 12-03-2011, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by olinolin

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.

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.