This is not a good argument. If everyone was a sensible person aware of their edge and aware of the rake and how impossible it is to win at these no matter the level of play, then doing capitalism to it would work. Instead, pokerstars has spent years building up a name being the good guys, always offering games that were beatable either before or after rakeback, adjusting rake whenever it was deemed unfair, protecting the professional and recreational player alike by providing fair games. Games like this are blatant abuse of whatever is left of that image, and a lot of recreational players are going to feel cheated once they realise they have no chance to win no matter how flawlessly they play or feel like online poker is rigged. Apart from my own selfish reasons of not wanting players drawn from other formats which will make them tougher and dilute the player pools more, I don't think websites should offer unbeatable games. Poker isn't like playing against the house and the dream that is poker is that you can make money in the long run if you play well. Amaya is tearing down that image, potentially ruining poker altogether for some people. Also, with legislative issues in so many countries, this is not the type of game we want on our resume when it comes to convincing governments poker is a game of skill.

I've largely kept quiet about the decisions amaya has made. I think they should run their business the way they want to and rake increases and chests suck donkey testicles. But it's their right, I'm still playing their tournaments and 8-game because some stuff isn't offered elsewhere. But this game crosses a line that should not be crossed.

I'd like to hear from PowerfulReg before passing judgment.

The amazing changes dnegs mentioned last year they just keep coming

I'm surprised they haven't copied Ipoker yet.

It's just a game type. Don't see why everyone is up in arms. Don't play it if you don't like it. They are hardly the first site to offer a game like this. They are a business and it must not be hurting them overall.

Stock price is up from 13.5 to 18.85 from the beginning of the year. So they are doing well as a business.

its like the insurance on blackjack

everyone knows its not good but casino offer you anyway in case someone falls for the trap

basic rule is: never accept any deal a casino offer you

If this was just another s***y poker variant like beat the clock I would agree with this sentiment. But it is not a poker game, it is a poker themed casino game. Here in Canada online poker is a grey market that has up till now avoided any serious government attention. One of the main reasons for this is the poker operators have voluntarily not offered casino games which would bring them in direct competition with provincial gambling sites. Offering a casino game in the poker client could upset the status quo. I doubt Canada is unique in this position.

This format still requires skill and you're not up against the house so it's not a casino game. I've played like 6 of these and they are super soft. In fact I would love them if it wasn't for the fact they make you go all in after 20 hands. Only 1/3 of the games I played made it to the all in fest though.

I play 2 of those just for try and I am telling you they are super soft it has the thrill of big money it is fast I expect from this format to bring a lot of new players to the site and especially on the sngs where I am grinding

The game format is dumb and exploitative which I guess we're now used to but they've hidden the rake again and apparently they take additional rake at the end?

@ PokerStars: what is the fee for the "cash-out" option?

Thanks,
--Max

The real scam is changing the structure. The old structure used to be bb20, 30, 40, 60, 80. The new structure is bb20, 40, 60, 80, 100. This makes it a lot harder to beat. It also makes it a lot more boring, because 12.5bb no ante poker is very boring. This is similar to how the 50/100 level in 1500 chip turbos is a terrible level.

Personally I think a more ideal structure is something like bb20, 20, 30, 60, 100 in terms of providing the most play.

http://i.imgur.com/HFfxuew.png

Did 2nd place really win more than 1st place? lol

Seems like they nixed the cashout option, which is smart.

It's ridiculous that a game is raked so absurdly hard - 9% on pushfolding is unbelievable. CAP cash games had some of the worst rake ever where pros were really grinding it out, and if you compare the rake directly to this, it is an order of magnitude higher.

Whoever designed the payouts should be shot. 7 players and 1st wins $5 more than their $15 buyin back should never happen.

It's not really though, it's kind of false advertising to call this "poker". At this price with this few hands you're almost playing more against the house than against other players. This isn't comparable to a cashgame or even a hyper turbo mtt.

Is it always 20 hands or does it vary? Are levels by number of hands or time?

That's smart though because it's a no lose situation for them since even if noone takes the "offer" they lose nothing . But of course plenty of people will take it and they save themselves heaps of money on average

Like a $1 buyin with the $10k and maybe a $1k and a $100 and they offer something like $2700 well plenty of people are going to take that even though their EV is $3700 . So stars saves $1000 ez game . Even regs are going to be tempted at the higher buyins , right ? (if regs ever play this sh*t)

Are the three possible 1st-place prizes always balanced with the middle prize being the average of the three? For example, in the picture on the website, it is balanced withe $150, $275, and $400.

There is no house you are playing against, it is normal poker for the first 20 hands. It's still a poker type, but just different. I'm not saying it's a good form, but the Double or Nothings were also not a good type of poker for other obvious reasons. Just because you get more or less play doesn't make something a good or bad form of poker.

Not really. It's not just either versus house or no house. If there is any rake, you are always playing against the house to some degree.

I have a feeling I'm going to hell, then. Obviously, this is not a game I'd ever want to play, and I appreciate those who've examined this for providing me with fair warning (not that I can put a dime on PokerStars right now).

But there's another part of me – and this is the part that will send me to eternal damnation, or at least NVG pariah status – that says some variation of, "Wait, so players might start playing a game in which they not only have no edge, but they're actually minus-EV. They can't win long-term, but not only do they not know that, but they might fool themselves into thinking they can. And they WILL win just often enough to get them to come back. Aren't these precisely the people we WANT coming to a poker site?"

I know, the free-market side of me can be a real bastard sometimes.

It's precisely the people pokerstars want coming to their pokersite
If you can't beat the rake in this game then why would you want other players even bad fun players to play it ? You want them to play a game that you can still beat them at AFTER rake
Unless you are suggesting that this will bring in brand new players who then will also play other formats in which it is possible to beat the rake ? More likely though that this new format takes away action from other formats

Gave a $1 one a try, just to see what it was like - maybe worth the $, just for the chance to see the direction PS is going with games?


The three possible prize payouts for my 4-player table were $2.50, $7, and $2.50 - at the end, the 3 prizes appear like the 3 cards of Gold Rush promo that Full Tilt used to have, and the winner has to pick one of the three.

Oh wait - can show a screen cap of what mine looked like ... recorded the tourney so would only have to play one once to see what it was like, and then now can just look back at the video instead of playing any more games

My game lasted 7 minutes - so almost as long as my Spins usually do But there were only 18 hands ... although 18 hands seemed like more than the 888 Blast game seemed to have? Guess these PS Max games don't have antes?

lol yeah and combine that with 40-72% rb for most of the pool compared to 5-10% its a huge huge huge huge joke