So first we are told the recs don't play at the site because they are losing money quickly. Then we are told recs don't care about losing money. Lolwtf

Do I understand correctly that they are putting players in "classes" and that RB is not the same for each class? And that they are not transparent on which class you are in, what determines your class and how your class can change over time?

If yes, that's pretty ridiculous. They could have found other ways to achieve their goals that don't seem so ridiculously unfair.

Call me thick, but how many chests can one open up during a day?

1.05% rakeback pro! He wouldn't survive if he had got 0% of his rake back.

They hate losing to poor grinders--**** them and their skill. They love losing to a multi-billion dollar corporation that is ripping off Candy Crush. More spins. More chests. More weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Amaya doesn't want them to lose quickly so that more of their money has a chance to go to rake rather than to mass tabling rake back pro's.

They don't want them to lose to regs as quickly*, Recs will still lose the same amount or more , faster because now they are getting owned by regs + owned by high rake + low rewards,

What sounds better?

Rec losing 10bb/100 to regs + 2bb/100 to Amayas rake + 20% rakeback
OR
Rec losing 10bb/100 to regs + 8bb/100 to Amayas rake + 1.5% rakeback
(maybe even losing more to regs because the bad regs who live off rakeback might switch sites, only the crushers stay so perhaps recs lose 15bb/100 instead)

If they deposit $100 it will be gone a lot quicker in the 2nd situation if you're talking cash games, obviously in high variance 3 handed hypers like spin n gos and beat the clock the variance is super high so -then- the recs deposit may last longer , but that is the game format and not based on because they are raking the hypers 10% instead of 5%

People seem to be arguing and defending stars saying #2 is much better for the health of the ecosystem and for recs to last longer , I just don't get it? Are people genuinely getting tricked by Amayas marketing and cover up that hard and unable to think for themselves on the situation?

I'm just wondering what's best for Amaya in the short term because that's probably what they will do. Decreasing withdrawals seems to be the way because then more money is left to go to rake. So, reduce the number of people who withdraw expecting that to reduce the total amount withdrawn. So, what kind of game do regular withdrawer's play? I don't have the actual data but I think it used to be that many would play hyper tight mass tables and break even at the table or lose a bit but make a bunch off rake back. So, reduce rake back seems natural though I think they should have just made huds and tracking software illegal instead(at least to start) because those software advantages are also used by withdrawal'ers far more than non-withdrawal'ers. That wouldn't cause such anger and blaming but the same class of players would have to change their game tremendously and some would fail. Also, it would be more fair to casual players who just aren't going to bother with tracking and huds.

What do sites want?

player 1) plays at a limit so long as he can beat it and withdraws profits.
player 2) plays at a limit and deposits more when he loses and moves up when he runs hot until he loses it all back then deposits again.

They could just tell any player who is regularly withdrawing to move up, that they are not allowed to play at the lower limit anymore(or leave the site). They should also increase rake at higher limits.

Some players with run hot and withdraw but the site should monitor the account to see if all that money eventually gets redeposited.

It is important, however, to make sure some people are still able to make a living so that everyone can hope and try but their goal should be to reduce this number as much as possible to maximize rake. This makes sense to me but there are many who are in such a panic that they just can't accept that this might be true.

Sites should want games that are hard to beat due to low edge, high rake & players to grind more tables to have a chance to win & generate more rake for them. Regulars still have to be able to win for those games to run with the exception of probably spin & go's. The mass tabling grinders who barely win but play loads & generate alot of rake is the ideal customers along with the depositing fish of course. If they price out the mass tabling low edge grinders they will lose profits cause games will cease to exist in certain formats. What they're doing is short sighted unless they make by a wide margin majority of there profits from tournaments or spin & gos etc rather than cash game traffic.

only if liquidity stays the same, which is essentially impossible, as withdrawing players provide most of the liquidity

This is something that I don't understand. People think that a winning player is generating rake so the site should be happy with him and that if this class of player weren't playing there would be fewer tables going at any one time and therefore less rake/day. I think this is false if other classes of players play longer(resulting in more tables being played). So if other classes of players play longer when the "winning player" class is reduced or eliminated they are still getting the same/more rake/day. It's not true to say that maximum number of players equals maximum rake in the long term.

No disrespect, sir, but why are you talking about "recs" ?
You simply view the problem from the wrong angle, your assertion being that Amaya decided to please "recs" and getting rid of "regs".
It's not a war between recs and regs, it's a war between those who are able to make long-term steady income as opposed to players who come just for entertainment.
A "reg" is someone who plays regularly, ain't it ?
A "rec" is someone who plays occasionally, ain't it ?
A "reg" and a "rec" can be of equal skills.
That's just 2p2ers and fallacious thinking process that make some people think that "regs" are pro educated players and "recs" are clueless fishes, it's just a wrong translation.
"Recs" are NOT the target of Amaya.
"Uneducated players, recreational or regular" are what Amaya is looking for and ofc, the more regular players are, the better it is for Amaya. So they actually try to attract "regs" but not educated poker player "regs", they want the same kind of regular people who play Zynga (and, in some extent, games like Overwatch, Hearthstone, Candy Crush...) everyday.
Winning pots is obviously part of the entertainement, but losing some also, and these people couldn't care less if they can withdraw any money this month or the next, they just don't especially plan to withdraw regularly.

What make you think that people like you are a majority ?
You think "majority" of poker players (educated and not) are 2p2ers and passionate about the game ? That's in YOUR imagination, not the real world.

It's like if the girl you loved for 10 years said for more than 3 years now that she cheats you regularly and will soon go live with her new guy.
I can understand it's hard to accept, but the fact is that girl (= Amaya) doesn't love you anymore and don't need your presence anymore. She still lets you live with her as long as you don't ask for sex, food, or any other interesting thing (= rakeback etc), you're free to stay but she simply doesn't care about your life anymore.
You're blinded by your emotions and simply can't accept the obvious.
You try to convince yourself and some others that she still loves you and want your presence, but that's not the case.

Just go find a new girl that matches you better and move on, your beloved ex is gone

Wtf are you babbling about? how does any of that sentence make sense. How does less players playing & less tables played equate to more tables played overall? hahha i swear.

Oh & yes maximum # of players playing= maximum rake in the long term. There's a reason they don't limit # of tables able to be played, stars is basically pushing the boundaries of there pricing of customers before it backfires. I think this will backfire & they will make provisions for certain formats.

If a "losing player" can play 1 hour in a game that has 3 "winning players" but can play 6 hours in a game that has no "winning players". Then it's reasonable to expect that total number of tables wont decrease by getting rid of "winning players". It might increase.

"Oh & yes maximum # of players playing= maximum rake in the long term. "

What if the maximum # of players can play for 1 hour but half the maximum can play for 6 hours?

The way I look at it is, where is the money going? How can they decrease the money that isn't going to rake?

That's exactly like paying money to unlock a virtual chest in a video game like CS:GO for example : of course, you expect to get a very rare thing that is worth more than the price you paid to unlock chest, every player expects that.
But if the guy don't get that rare prize (= winning money) but simply got a common item (= losing money), will he stop stop playing CS:GO ? No, because he likes that game and having some fancy skins is just the icing on the cake for him.
That's exactly what they are trying to sell on their new product that will come in the future.
Winning money is what every poker player expects, that is obvious, but not winning regularly won't make majority of them stop to play, only the ones whom the purpose is specifically to regularly win and withdraw money will stop.

So what you're saying is the aim is to convert real money players to their play money product?

well, that will make the game 'poker' more shady and less fashionable for sure, so less new customers. people want to get rich playing e-sport nowaday, candycrush type of games are not credibles anymore.

they can cut the rake but if they do not touch the game in itself regs will stay. some will leave angry and the others are gonna play against dummer people (people who wants to gamble) so it will re-equilibrate.

personally, rakeback represent about 25% of my profits so i'll continue to stay there withdrawing profits.

I think where we diverge in our thinking is the sheer amount of recreations vs regulars that play online. I only play zoom poker & no way that the recreationals are close to outnumbering the regs. The people who play breakeven, slightly losing or winning poker is the clear majority. The recreationals who don't care to lose loads is what, 10% of the player pool, maybe 20%. If majority of the players leave then the games won't run plain & simple. The regular tables will reduce but still survive as it's an enviroment with high edge but only runs with fish on the tables, it's abit different from zoom as zooms a format where regs accept lower edge & play alot more hands/pots with other regulars which honestly is the ideal environment for a website.

Alot of formats won't be too negatively impacted by this change, but especially zoom will, probably plo as well & hyper formats. Spin & gos will continue, bum hunting cash reg tables will continue & tournaments probably won't be affected. As i said stars will make provisions once zoom basically is over as i think it twas stated that it is the biggest money earner cash game wise for them.

Nope sir, it's a bit more complicated than that.
They are trying a new product, they are changing the poker industry's paradigm.
"Rakeback", "grinding" and all that stuff is a model of the past that attracted people who had the dream to make rich with it (and represented the majority of player pool at that time), that's what the poker industry as a whole sold for 15 years.
What Amaya is trying now (still nobody knows if that will fail or not) is to make "online poker" an "entertainment experience" that could potentially attract the same kind of people who play "freemium" games or any other "entertainement products" with no real return on them.
You pay for entertainment, like a video game, a movie or anything else and you're not complaining about you making no return on this.
Why would people complain if they had the entertainement they paid for ?
YOU, as a poker player who wanted to win more than entertainement (= money) through this way, are not part of the plan because it's obvious you won't be happy with the new product.

Ummm, no just no.

Liquidity = deposits - withdrawals - net rake

Withdrawing players contribute nothing to liquidity they reduce liquidity as does rake. Only deposits increases liquidity.

Honestly this wouldn't be such a terrible idea if players still received the same rakeback EV. Rec players and degens like myself like a little extra gamble. But knowing stars they will use this to mask further rakeback cuts I'm sure.

scoop 2017 was the biggest in the history so it seems players pool in increasing.

lol no they don't, they want to keep as many people as possible regardless of their thinking process

showmeurace, your a complete moron. and a blocked moron now at that. enjoy spreading your spewy idiotness thoughts to the world