I think we asked but were given a reason why other data was more relevant and legitimate, maybe one of the main ones being people underestimate rakeback/rewards as part of a 'winrate' although we discussed the importance of a game being beatable pre-rakeback. I wasn't convinced that the data shown was a good indicator of how fair the rake was. There's a chance we were shown a list of the top winners but definitely not a big list. To be fair, we brought it up once early on and didn't really ask again later on after being given a 'reasonable' reason (at the time in our opinion).

Started session, then quit session because every table has 4-5 russian shortstackers on it.

****ing ridiculous

Just dowloaded the latest software update. No changes to the 215$ special mixed events structures that I could see.

Pokerstars Steve, do you know if this is being looked at??

I am pretty sure the players would 100% support removing an early level ( level 1 probably) and adding the much needed 250-500 level.

Did Stars go into detail about their method?

Aren't the results of a method like this heavily biased by the definition of "winning player". Especially the minimum sample size per player should be a deciding factor, right?

I mean we could make a study of how much $ online roulette pros make in comparison to the house, putting anyone in the "winning player"-group who is up after 100 wheel turns and would come up with some useless data.

We all know how much variance there is in PLO and that we would need way bigger sample sizes to come up with useful results, compared to sample sizes needed for NL.

In any given game, if standard Deviation is high enough we will have huge winners even in seemingly big sample sizes and even if there was absolutely no edge to be gained.

Am I off here?

most likely the usual BS unless they can prove it. but it is secret, no?

steve, problem is that i can not play under these conditions (i guess i am not the only one). stop the BS and give us something to work with. cashing out gradually until i hear something worth thinking about.

how times have changed then...

i was just noting that stars support used to be great, like sick-overkill-helpfull-great

Thanks to Chuck Bass, OmgClayDol and Pokerstars Steve for the thread.

Would like to see PS Steve address Chuck Bass's last post regarding his recollection of events, maybe if Stars is willing to show him the data under the NDA if it was a legitimate oversight he can provide commentary on that (or at least pledge to do it with whoever the next reps are)

Personally as a HSMTT reg i'd love to see some of the early tournaments improved (the early 75 should be a kickoff big 75, plus maybe the 55 that starts at around the same time as the hot33 should get a bigger guarantee, since the players that play the 75 and 33 will play that 55 as well) and potentially remove some of the useless 215 turbos that only get 70 players that are all regs in favour of fewer but larger guarantee 215 turbos that may get 200+ players - the 33quad numbers have steadily gotten smaller since black friday and the 50r tournaments are shrinking too, it could be nice to have a 'big spark' type tournament replacing some of those, say a 8r 3x-turbo with a 25-50k guarantee replacing something like the useless 12k gtd 33rs that no one wants to play because bigger prizepool better tournaments are on at around the same time

I'd also like to see a few of the tournaments timings flipped, like say the 162 50g and the 55 30g, those are near the end of most players sessions and it's much more tolerable to be 1-tabling your larger buy-in tournament, I often skip the $55 one and end rego with the $162 simply because I don't want to get stuck 1-tabling a smaller tournament for hours, and the smaller buy-in one will almost always have a bigger field meaning it runs for longer. Scheduling the MTTs into sessions that run for a few hours and finish at around the same time is always ideal (lots of big field nonturbos, then medium field nonturbos, then small field nonturbos and big field turbos, then smaller field turbos and hypers starting in that order)

Individual tournament suggestions

Replace 33 quad and 50 cubed with one bigger 20-50 dollar 'big' guarantee rebuy

Flip some of the tournaments schedules around so that players regging a bunch of tournaments over a period of 2-3 hours will have those tournaments end at around the same time

Add some 2x and 3x-turbo non satellite rebuy tournaments with large guarantees during peak hours with a buy-in higher than 5 dollars but lower than 20 (i'd suggest an 8r 3x turbo 50k gtd or similar where small stakes guys can take a shot at a big prizepool for $16 and high stakes guys can invest $120 or whatever) instead of some of the unplayed 30r and no guarantee $55 tournaments etc.

75 before the hot 33 should be a 'big' tournament. If need be, remove the $55 that starts at the same time as the hot33 to accommodate it

Fix the schedule for the two hours before the early 75/55/33/265, the aus/asian satellites and turbos are on, then there's nothing but a 10r, no guarantee 55 and a 109 turbo for a two hour period before the early mtt session

Maybe a weekly double vision day on bigs and hots (saturday?) where there are two of each 'red' tournament

VIP Level between SN and SNE. As an MTTer, you always hit supernova but SNE is basically impossible. Having a new reward every 100k VPPs doesn't make me want to grind more. Having a 300k VPP level or rewards every 10k vpps along the way would encourage me a lot more. Once i hit supernova for the year the bonuses just aren't there since I have to grind a bunch to get to 200k, and if I somehow make it there then i know I don't have time to hit 300k before the end of the year.

Also give fish reasons to play on full tilt again please, the MTTs there have gotten ridiculous since it reopened to the extent that I barely play there anymore even though I like the software as much if not more than Stars

SwoopAE- I really like your thinking about the "timing of tourneys" as no reg likes getting stuck playing just 1 tourney for 3 hours at the end of their session.

Also can we have one Zoom daily please either right near the start or end of the main session with a $33+ buy-in? (early or late to minimise number of tables everyone is playing) I really enjoy the Zoom MTT format but as a HSMTT guy, having the biggest Zoom tournament at $16 means I rarely bother playing. Surely you could fit a single $33, $55 or $11r Zoom onto the schedule

We have any clear dates on the antirathole measures?

Would be nice if we could play 2 more zoom tables at a same stake (still limiting overall zoom tables to 8)

Lets say Steve responds today with a clear date would you believe him?

what an embarrassment

I really am surprised about peoples complaints about support. I've had 6 emails returned to me over my last issue when tbh 3 would have sufficed. Perhaps the support is tiered to the VIP status? But as a SN I've never had much issues with support.

Same here, I had an issue as well and they were quick as usual and very helpful

Years ago, after waiting until December 26th-ish to announce the change to contributed rake, and the uproar that follow the late announcement, I thought Pokerstars said they were going to stop waiting until the 11th hour to announce drastic changes.

It sure does look like PS is back up to their old tricks. Announcing in mid-December that on January 1st all the $50/100+ games are going Zoom only. Where was the discussion about this with the player base? This is just another example of why meeting with a few people is no substitute for communication on 2+2. Oh and about what little 2+2 communication is going on at 2+2, it isn't back and forth. No PS personnel are answering questions in the high stakes NL thread, the high stakes PLO thread or the small stakes PLO thread. The most asked question in all those threads deals with antes and the min. buy-in.

Even before this announced change there has been a ground swell player realizing that Zoom (a fast FOLD game) needs antes to compensate for the nittiness or player are just ended up playing tighter games with lower win rates. Couple that call for antes with this new announcement that all $50/100+ is going Zoom only (it is important for lower stakes players to understand they might be coming after your stake next) , and players in those threads are asking, "what happens to deep ante?" Answers from PS so far in any of those threads....not a word from PS. Weak PS meetings. I'd offer to have the next meeting at my Las Vegas Nevada home, but since owner of PS is under indictment in the USA he obviously wouldn't be able to attend. Weak 2+2 PS representation. People in every one of the threads I pointed out are asking about antes in Zoom but PS says nothing.

Players often take this sheepish view that they can only get small things done and are often on here asking for tiny changes. Thinking that nothing big can ever get done. Well the change to contributed was big (for PS). And this change to $50/100+ Zoom only is big (for PS). It is about time players get something big too. For some time now the common solution to short stacking was asking for a legit increase in min. buy-in to solve the problem. The rat hole solution PS has promised to bring out for ages now certainly hasn't been the answer. So this Zoom only situation presents a chance to get real solutions to several problems. Zoom-regular is 50BB, ring deep ante is 100BB, combine the two and make this January 1st change for $50/100+ Zoom only 75BB deep ante pools.

I suggest everyone to go check out those threads, even if this topic isn't too related to you. In those threads you will see how PS once again waited to the last minute to announce something important. And also doesn't answer questions. PS meetings a fail. PS 2+2 a fail. PS support (this is all support) a fail.

Here are the threads that PS starts at the 11th hour to announce changes coming January 1st. And you'll notice PS pretty much does a run and hide after making the announcement. What do players get??? Willy Wonka Chocolate Factory meetings and not much else from PS.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...014-a-1397947/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/19...014-a-1397946/

Im convinced PS have just decided to delay implementation of their ratholing solution until the new VIP year. This decision was probably taken months ago.

How long until this quote:

Though billed as a trial, the change has been in the works for some time, and the Zoom product was originally developed “with an eye toward replacing all High Stakes games with Zoom,” writes the rep.

Becomes this quote:

Though billed as a trial, the change has been in the works for some time, and the Zoom product was originally developed “with an eye toward replacing ALL GAMES with Zoom,” writes the rep.

Many speculate that this would someday happen, I wonder.

If so they r communicating this pretty well

So, Poker eh, great game.

Can anyone explain to me why Stars holds player rep meetings at all if they have these NDAs essentially stopping the reps from reporting anything useful to us?

It's $50/100 only to start, not 50/100 and up. they've publicly talked about trying zoom-only at high stakes for ~9 months. And it's only a trial. I'm not sure its comparable to the last-minute VIP changes. Ultimately i don't see how announcing it 2 weeks in advance is really different to 2 or 3 months in advance - how would that affect players?

The reason why last-minute VIP changes were such an issue is people make SN/SNE decisions in december which can involve real life decisions, even relocating your home, in preparation for next year's grind. I don't see how this limited trial has the same effect.

This is embarrassingly naive of you. If you are too daft to see the significance of announcing such a change 17 days before the new year starts, then there is nothing I can do for you.

But maybe the words of the likes of Galfond, Kanu, Forhayley etc. can begin to bridge the gap of what is escaping your understanding. I can re-post the links to a high stakes NLH thread and a high stakes PLO thread with over 200 posts unhappy with the timing and intention of the change. And especially questioning this change in the face of other options. But ahh shucks, who cares about other options, PS fubarred the players by waiting to the last minute (oh yeah you don't understand that concept).

Here is just a link to the high stakes NLH thread. Post #99 by Forhayley (who has played over 300,000 hands of $50/100 in 2013) is a nice post to read if you are too lazy to read the whole thing.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/19...014-a-1397946/