LOL so Hollreiser wrote:
In considering changes, we believe we are successfully balancing our responsibility to recreational players, the game of poker, and the interests of our employees and shareholders against the expectations of our professional poker player community."

So finally they admitted that we, professional player are no longer considered part of the community they are willing to bother with.

Agree with most of your post. The one qualifier I'd add is that while the shift you describe above is the the hoped-for outcome, it's hardly a foregone conclusion that it's going to play out that way. It's a pleasant-sounding narrative, but the poker ecosystem is complex and not even Stars knows what effect these changes will have. A few possible hypothetical scenarios that could play spoiler:
- Stars overestimates just how much of a role "game enjoyment" plays in keeping rec players depositing more;
- Whatever increase they Stars achieves in capturing more rake is more than offset by the $ they lose by lower overall traffic due to the higher effective rake;
- Or, the most likely caveat, some substantive fault line in the overall ecology that hasn't even been thought of yet (cue goldblum_chaostheory.gif)

The goal here is not to analyze the likelihood of the above hypotheticals. The point is merely that Stars is doing nothing but taking their best guess at what these changes will do to the existing equilibrium. I'm not going to call for anyone's head on a stick because Amaya was unable to prove to the 3 attendees beyond a shadow of a doubt that their changes will be effective in bringing about the desired outcome. They're making an educated guess...I just want a little more evidence that it is, indeed, "educated". Hence my questions earlier ITT about wanting to understand just what misrepresentations the players felt were being made to them in the meeting, and just what series of events resulted in the alleged unsustainability of an ecosystem that had been just peachy in previous years.

Good questions but at the same time the combined brain power of the three guys who attended is about the max you could ever hope for and the DD post you quoted earlier is about the strongest worded indictment that I've seen coming from anyone with first hand knowledge. It echoes, in stronger language, what Ike and Ansky have said, that incompetence reigns. I trust these guys 100% to make those assessments even without knowing every detail.

I've believed the following to be true since the rake increase last year so all this is confirming a biased opinion but I mean how much more do you need to conclude these guys are cowboys who've been gambling it up at the faro table from day one? Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't. Our guess is probably at least as good as theirs.

The problem with your quite limited (or maybe just jealous towards winning players) reasoning, is that Pokerstars is a poker room and not a casino. Moreover, it probably never will become one (as much as Amaya want it to), simply because a huge percentage of the "customers" are just not your classic gambler idiot type who thinks that burning money on pure chance/no skill roulette type crap is a great idea.

Therefore I would venture a guess that banning winning players would most probably not sit too well with the Pokerstars customer base (current or future) and would, consequently, not be a very bright idea.

Beating a dead ****ing horse. They said this in the announcement of their changes on 11/1/15.

2 questions so far...

Did anyone actually read SageDonkeys' screenplay a few pages back? And if so, is it worth it?

One person replied to it and insinuated that it was low content, so probably not.

I thought as much.
The need to preface it by explaining 'its satire' is never a good sign

Isnt that the exact opposite? Sportsbook and casino have higher revenues globally. Just look at Las Vegas. Those are not poker players sitting at slots or playing baccarat (unless you're in Atlantic City accompanied by a Chinese lady). What you hope for (as a poker player) is that a guy that gets lucky on slots on Saturday will play some cash in the poker room on Sunday.

You want poker to be part of a casino so you attract new players from there. Martin Harris had a great though in one of recents Brokos' podcasts - it's not the skill element in poker that is attracting new players. It is the gambling element. If you advertise poker as a skill game, you are likely to attract few chess players.

I agree, I think reneging on the deal made to SNE will backfire. An important part of any company's valuation and stock performance is goodwill, which they just lost with this crap over a few measly million dollars.

The SNE changes probably needed to happen (and soon). But they didn't have to destroy their goodwill in the process

Hi Trusty,

If you achieve Supernova, you maintain Supernova for the current year and the following year (there are no longer maintenance requirements). The rewards are subject to change in the following year.

The webpage you refer to says the following: 'Supernova rewards shown are for the current year only and are subject to change in following years.'

Tx, Matthew

This is the thread and particular post you decide to reply to this week.

You realize you're nothing more than a joke on these forums now right Matthew (or whatever your name is).

I agree. I would be very curious to know how Stars is thinking about the above too, and how confident they are that the strategy will have a net positive benefit for the company. Are they stabbing in the dark or is this well thought through.

@Dani, Ike, DD,

Did Stars discuss a shift in business strategy with you? If so, did they discuss coherently what the new strategy is (e.g., how it all fits together and where they are trying to take the company, beyond a few isolated initiatives such as cutting SNE benefits) and then justify why these specific changes are going to support it?

OR, was the meeting just them presenting doom and gloom data justifying that things need to change, but what they plan to change, why they plan to change it, how the changes fit together into a strategy, and why these changes support that strategy, never discussed?

First of all, ty to the 3 players, to DNegs for facilitating the meeting and to PS for being willing to engage to that extent at least.

There are 2 seperate disputes here and they are very different in nature imo.

Dispute 1: PS reducing VIP rewards
At the end of the day this is a fight over which predators at the top of the ecosystem get to harvest the meat. Amaya has decided to exploit the PS monopoly to squeeze out more, partly at the expense of professional players. Unless the anti-trust authorities start to show an interest Amaya will win on this because the players have no coordinated power. Loki put it well: If a side effect of their efforts is that they finally do something about HUDs then personally think that is ultimately good for the general player base and the health of the game. The other changes (net rake increase) is just bad for the players and transfers cash from their pockets to Amaya. The justification of investing more in attracting new players is lol. As a business Amaya will spend whatever it profitably can to attract new players regardless - that's just part of its normal business operation. Its not like they're losing money - stars poker business was making $1m per day when they bought it.

Dispute 2: 2016 sne rewards
None of what Amaya said in its initial announcement, subsequent statements or the meeting justified the action of cancelling rewards already earned by snes. No amount of cleverly arranged data or words like "ecosystem", "poker economy" and "marketing plans" can do so. imo they have a straightforward contractual and ethical obligation to honour their advertised promises. If I was an sne then by now they would have a letter from my lawyer in their in-trays and a serious complaint would have been lodged with the IoM regulator.

You're first stament is you're own interpretation today and not what you advertised to current and potential customers.

The second statement (which I'm not even sure was there last year?) would be interpreted by any reasonable person as meaning that the system may be changed in future years, not that the benefits accruing due to current year play are subject to removal.

If a bank (for example) says "Keep a deposit with us for all of 2015 and we'll give you a 2% bonus in 2016. Offer subject to change in future years" then the reasonable expectation is that you will get the 2% in 2016 regardless but that 2% may not be on offer for deposits made in 2016.

Doesn't the first part sound like a guarantee and then the second part sound like the guarantee could be worth anything that Stars deems is necessary to keep the lights on.

As Raidalot mentions about new money spent in marketing... this is total hogwash. If a company was short on money this argument could hold some validity... but this isn't the case for Pokerstars. If they figure that the optimal ROI for marketing is a budget of 100million or 500 million... the number is a mute point... they'd already be spending that amount. Only if a company was cash strapped would they need to take money from other sources to pay for additional marketing.

Furthermore players should be very concerned about what type of marketing Pokerstars looks to engage in. The only adds I see is promoting Spin and Go's.. and I'm willing to bet that in markets that allow Casino/Sportsbetting that the only adds they see is promoting these higher margin games.

For the markets that Stars has introduced Sports betting/Casino into what do you really think has happened to a greater extent?

1) Current Poker players have started to play Casino/Sports or

2) People who have never played poker decided to open a Stars account to bet sports/Casino and have since moved on to playing poker.

I'm willing to bet a good wager that the 1st option has beaten out option 2 by more then 10-1. Therefore this new initiative has taken money out of the "poker ecosystem". This "ecosystem" is a fragile thing as Pokerstars likes to say... but the only solutions available to them are having poker players foot the bill.

How do you determine the ROI of the marketing campaign? Your investment is the money spent on Ronaldo or Neymar and the return is the rake from the new player deposits.

Now tell me what is the return from a new player that deposits hundred and gets destroyed in 15 min in a way that will prevent him depositing again? It is much lower vs extreme example of him playing fish only with a decent chance to have a winning session while still being a long term loser because of rake. This fella would return and redeposit hence your return on investment is much higher vs current ecosystem.

The objective of a marketing campaign is to maximize revenue and profit for a company. Not to secure a steady supply of fish for people unable (unwilling) to earn their current hourly in a proper job.

Originally Posted by TrojkaT View Post
Daniel Negreanu is deaf and blind ?

And is paid for it by amaya. FYP LOL

the only thing im wondering if the `change in following years for supernova` will be an even harder decrease in rakeback and increase in effective rake taken (which is sick at the moment anyways), or amaya will be savvy enough to realize they should boost the rb a bit, and increases effective bonuses of players who create most of traffic at their site?

Short term of course - pokerstars is unkown among potential consumers for sportsbook / casino and they will obviously will have their existing customer base trying casino or sports book and grow it from there. Long term (planning 2x increase in revenues) it is not going to happen by poker players starting to play casino games and sports book.

O I am sure Matthew is told exactly or needs to ask if and on what posts/threads he is allowed to react and what to say, so he is not only a joke but also a puppet on strings right? LOL

You know what would help these rec players last longer

1) Ridding the site of seating scripts.

2) Ridding the site of Huds

3) Lowering table caps

All of these options would help the rec player but in the short run would cost Pstars money until they see a return of players who feel the game has become easier and more fun. But no they didn't go this route because in the short run it would cost them $. Their solution is take from withdrawing players and then spend extra money on inventing and promoting new "verticals" that ensure the company higher profit margins. Amaya getting richer doesn't help the poor in any way shape or form. Taking from the rich to give to themselves doesn't help the poor in any way.

But there are a fair bit of casino or sports book players that play/try/use poker for some fast profit to use on the casino and/or sports book sites, but if that raises or/and attracts more new players and/or revenue much or at all I don't know.