Do you really think that hurting the very subset of players that keeps their site alive is in their best interests?

I am convinced that a large majority of current online poker pros are in financial hardship to begin with. Forcing them out with worse rewards programs/high rake will just make the 2015 player dropoff worse for PS. Now is a time for new management to show some kind of commitment to the (increasingly few) people that have decided to stick with poker.

Without getting too specific for now, when 2 people can't play most variants in HU cash because the rake will win 50+% of the time, or when an entire GAME is shown to be close to unbeatable pre-rake, something needs to be done.

I've played at least several thousand hands in 10 different limit games in the last few months. I've had to stop several entirely because of rake.

My post stated the clear opposite of that, so no.

Noticed as I hit reply, reading sarcasm online is srs biz.

I don't see why instead of inviting reps of people who do play on Stars, they don't simply find people who don't play on Stars, and who are long-term losing players. Rake is unlikely to be reduced, at least in any game in which it is still possible to have a pre-RB edge, and the best thing for both the existing Stars regs and Stars themselves would be to find a way to attract more recreational players to the site, and frankly people who are pro/solid winners are unlikely to be able to tell Stars anything they don't already know in that regard.

When I threw out the number by around 15% I meant that for SNE's. And that doesn't mean rb of 70% going down to 55% it's 15% of 70% so more like down to 65% or so.

I don't expect Supernova to be affected too greatly. Perhaps a slight hit if any.

The fact is many SN/SNE players already took a hit by 15% in real dollar terms with the switch to WC.

The only thing we can hope/lobby for is for that money that gets shaved off the top to be spent wisely in recruiting/maintaining recreational players which would lead to softer games which would increase winrates of SN/SNE type players.

As teh past 3 times i vote to send nobody and this time i want to be able to click on "nobody" and not on something like "i abstain my vote" bc those 2 are not teh same things!

And something tells me that this time or at teh very least teh next time "nobody" is going to win teh vote^^

Having the "send nobody" option in the poll is fine imo - though I think "abstain" serves the same purpose for all expect MH who sets it up. Don't really care, but if the wording is important to some of you I'm sure it can be arranged.

Meanwhile, I'm personally very tired of arguing the legitimacy of the meetings and would like to get on with building an agenda. For some final thoughts, I ask you to consider these points:

1) Are you quite sure these meetings are the cause for the deterioration of places like the SNE-thread?

2) If the meetings were ended now, would that communication return to what it used to be during the golden days?

As for my thoughts wrt the agenda, here's a few topics:

-VIP-program overhaul - minimizing the costs for high-volume players and finding out how Stars is planning to use the left-over resources (after we find out what the actual plan is)

-Table-starter only system for non-zoom cash tables - giving feedback on how the system should work

-Zoom-ecology - seeing how zoom-winrates are evolving and if Stars sees any room for extra VPPs, for example

-forum interaction - there's clearly a lot of people here who would like to see a stronger Stars presence on 2+2

-Spin&Go "lottery-style" SNGs to be released on .com - Apparently attractive to many recs, these should draw new players. They will probably also draw significantly from existing games into what could be an effectively unbeatable format for many regs (depending on finalized structure and rake). There are also "appearance issues" as they can be seen to blur the line between casino games and poker.


I vote for NOT negotiating with political tactics such as sending no one or sending a riggy. Instead, nominate and vote for GOOD reps.

Thats awful, buying the most sucessful poker site and trying to make it half a casino (wtf) is not a smart move, this will not end well. They must think why stars was so sucessful (remember: "We are poker")

-SNG STRUCTURE-

New blindstructure please

there's a difference between expressing no particular preference between the possible attendees, and actively stating that you'd prefer to send nobody as these meetings are a waste of time.

Having "send nobody" as an option would bring out all the trolls, riggies, anti-poker and anti-PS users and be a runaway "winner".

However, it would be a totally unrealistic vote and not at all representative of those who are interested in PS, and online poker in general, and who want to try in any way possible to improve the lot of players at PS, specifically, with the almost inevitable knock-on effect of improvement at many other poker sites.

Unless PS tells me to include the "send nobody" option, (but they usually give me a relatively free hand in organising matters), I will not be doing so. The abstention option gives a far more realistic read of what genuinely interested players are thinking, imo, as the trolls, etc, generally don't bother to vote, knowing their disruption of the process is minimal.

Why would they go ahead and tell you to include it? Maybe if you ask them they'd say ok go for it.

From my perception of the comments here ~90% are against sending anyone right now, so not sure how some trolls or riggies (we have 1 riggie itt..) would mess up the voting process so much.

Besides, people voting for not sending anyone are probably more concerned about
the health of poker & stars but are just done with the actions Stars has or has not made so far.

My first sentence is a bit convoluted. To be clear, I am for sending someone qualified and sincere about representing the community.

I vote Sect7g

Yep, if u give send nobody option all of a sudden every 2+2 troll who would never have voted b4 will jump in tis thread and start voting for nobody. MAKES SOOOO MUCH SENSE JA?

its just a joke. So far this thread indicates that teh majority of and even people wit good reputation are fed up of those meetings and that they want an option to "send nobody"

I DONT WANT TO ABSTAIN FROM MY VOTE, I WANT THOSE MEETINGS TO GO AWAY AND THEREFORE WANT TO BE ABLE TO VOTE FOR SEND NOBODY.

Obv if teh mod is highly biased and huge stars fanboy it's quite hard to create a fair poll...

teh TimStone speak the truth. five stars post.

send nobody and abstain from voting are two different things and you know it.

I'm still in favour of these meetings and will vote for whomever I think is the best candidate.

That said, it's getting harder to keep supporting them whenever there is nothing obviously good that comes from them, even if there is something good done behind the scenes or a change not made that would have been but for the reps.

If he's interested, I back the nomination for Sect7G

When democracy was created, voting was done in a forum, in which the community was small enough that everyone's voice could be heard. That is to say, the vote and negotiation, are not solid without proper facilitation from a forum.

You are either American or heavily influenced by American policy and consciousness. It's interesting sometimes how certain institutions seem to be simply an extension of the popular governing system and/or cultural beliefs at a given time. Much like how the US gov labels anyone they wish to trample on their rights a "terrorist", you now deem the posters in this thread suggesting we send no one "trolls". I don't allow you to do that without expression my greatest dissent. Labels sir.


Again by dehumanizing the players in the community that want to address the real issues you have completely taken away the freedom of the community which is of course your right, since this is a community privately funded by not the players.

This is clear, and should be clear to all, that you are puppeting yourself to poker stars. Treason. You have rigged the "democratic" vote in favor of NOT the players. Many REASONABLE posters have expressed their desire to send no one, it seems to me the choice FAR outweighs the other choices. You will give us option A or B, but we want C?

Make no mistake, the problem is not stars, nor the negotiator, nor the table. Until 2 + 2 stops unnecessarily controlling the players wants and needs and stops censoring the conversations the players want to have, we will never have the freedom needed to not only collectively choose, but to have the "choice".

If it were a system of integrity, I would appreciate sectg there as well (among certain others), however given the current setup I am not interested in using players rake paid to give a free vacation (although I would be happy a fellow community member got a free vacation) just so they can write a trip report to the players that shows work got done yet nothing got accomplished.

As for rake we must keep in mind the nature of a corporation is to maximize short term profits (much like governments) and so any decrease in rake % is likely to be made up by one of many factors that simply rearrange the player pool. That is to say "rake" as a % is not key factor the players should be concerned about but rather how much money is raked from the game vs how much money goes into the game. The formula behind it is FAR more complex and important than x%. If you lower rake by a % the corporation will just restructure the economy of the game to make up for it.

The same goes for changing rackback programs, these are elements of the "thing" we want to change, they are a subset, and changing it is like pacifying a hungary baby with a "suckie" but no milk.

In other words the UFC is rigged, not because Dana White gives the fighters "scripts", but because the UFC owns the rules, the regulations, the match ups, the timing, the whole system down to the micro elements. The trick is these things do not appear rigged. In poker the rng can be assumed provably fair, but if the effective rake is to the point the game is bled dry, what does a provably fair rng prove?

Sites are like banks and should be thought of as such with an exchange rate for your deposits and all. Rakeback is like a government taxation/social welfare policy. In this light we must understand the inherent weaknesses and dangers this socialist approach has brought and continues to bring to the community. And then we should know that there are "economic" approaches to such subjects that seek to dissolve such destructive system. Send someone who has read "the road to serfdom" and is familiar with Austrian economics.

As for changes:

1) deposits be held on an anonymous/transparent ledger, so we no longer must "trust" that sites hold our money in a safe place. (this could probably appease our governments some as well)

2) full access to finishing distributions/winrates for all games so they can analyze the profitability of them. THEN this can be used to reduce EFFECTIVE rake, not the fake variable "rake %"

3) Players should demand a standardized rake system which fluctuations with measurements of the overall profitability of the game based on moving averages, variance, and statistics of overall deposits vs withdrawals.

But to be clear, I vote we put a "send no one" button on the ballot, of course I am just a troll that comes from the wood work...yet I have great sincerity and passion for the game and the community of it-I just don't serve stars. There is GREAT dissatisfaction amongst the community in ever section of this forum, with people fed up with stars inability to properly interact with the players. It is completely within our legal and moral rights to request these things, and we should not be made to feel like an outcast just because we see this.

Overly pompous, impressively so.

What's your normal username?

Awesome post Jazzmaster.

Personally I believe these IOM meetings have the potential to benefit Pokerstars and the community. What goes on there is largely out of the communities control and Pokerstars has the right to censor them as they see fit. But I don't feel that this should apply to the voting process. Mike Haven agreeing to remove the "Vote No-one" option because Pokerstars doesn't like it? Hmmm what's that all about? It shows that the voting process is controlled by Pokerstars and if you can control the process you can control the outcome. For example if Pokerstars didn't want a specific candidate to go they could easily make the adjustments to ensure this doesn't happen.

Mike- Your argument that it would bring out the trolls and riggies? Why don't you close the riggie thread then? Put it as an option because the members of this community want it. That's the reason it should be there. Personally I think it's a bad selection as I'd pick a rep everytime.... but it's not up to me and it shouldn't be up to Pokerstars.... err Mike Haven I mean.

"Your Highness, the peasants are revolting!"

"Yes, I know."

Basically, I am charged with finding (at this time) two users to meet with PS managers and staff who will then report back to the other users details of the meetings, subject to NDAs.

In the past, I have tried to encourage people to volunteer to go; to nominate others to go; to provide agendas for going; to enter into public elections for choice of attendees; and to gather information from other users as to what they would like discussed and debated at the meetings.

Yes, being the host, of course PS has the final say over all matters relating to the attendees and their input to the meetings; but they want and try to be fair and reasonable, as far as sensibly possible for them overall.

I regret that I can't see what the riggie thread has to do with this, but as I try not to put any restrictions on who can vote, (bar that they are users pre-announcement, and that one person has only one vote), it is quite obvious to me that trolls, etc, would come out of the woodwork purely because they could vote negatively. That is what trolls do - although I accept that some genuinely interested users do think that ignoring the invitation from PS and not talking face to face with them about anything is a better way to show that they are dissatisfied with some aspect or another of PS' business model.

If we could choose who can vote and only allow genuinely interested players to vote, I would have no compunction in adding a "send nobody" option. As we can't, I still believe it is a pointless option to include. If anyone else wants to, they can give their arguments for sending nobody in this thread, which, of course, is being monitored by PS. In effect, they will be voting to send nobody, and, additionally, readers will be able to judge the validity of the "send nobody" arguments.

It seems to me the players community should be deciding these things, not forum admin with a vested interested in keeping the relations between sites and the forum favorable for the coalition between them.

They have not been fair, and are not reasonable in this regard, nor has the process been fair or reasonable either.

I think then it would stand to reason that adding it to the poll would have the effects of legitimizing the other options. The problem with not allowing the option is the collective community doesn't have a shot at giving the subject of sending no one any validity.

Furthermore we do indeed HAVE the technology to create single person single vote for the community. 2 + 2 runs too archaic and for its own interests to even consider its implementation, so suggesting that trolls and multiple account voting is the reason the players cannot have the most popular options as an option to vote for is again just two plus two rigging the game against the community.


This logic doesn't make sense, genuine players agree with the trolls?

Let's not use American based democracy for this, nor American based freedom, nor American based definitions for words like terrorist and troll.

A community of trolls is bred from the system that created them no different than the "terroist" groups funded and supported by the US before such groups labels were then changed to "terrorist"

Why should the players accept a false, deceptive, middleman what's pure function is to slide the scales in sites' favors