What's disappointing is I actually have a viable solution for rebuy satellites that both Pokerstars and players could get behind. It wouldn't be quite as good for the current winning players pre-changes, but it wouldn't be as bad as the rake hike that all players are going to suffer.

My reluctance to supply this suggestion is the past 3 suggestions I've put forth only the part that benefits Pokerstars was implemented. Take the voting concept in Scoop for example... I did suggest a voting system where players can have some input in regards to SCOOP... but it had nothing to do with what occurred.

There is a very simply way to effectively stop this from happening. I proposed it before, it was not received well, but I think that was largely because the collectively psychology lags in their opinion on this issue (IOW players weren't pissed off enough!).

Discussions on changes should be separate from Stars reps. Consensus among the players for proposals should be reached BEFORE presenting them to Stars reps. We know that unfavorable changes will still be made, but the deception and unwillingness to interact with reasonable proposals will be highlighted because PS will no longer be able to OFFICIALLY cherry pick decisions from "certain" posters (who sneak in -ev suggestions).

It's a very small change, but I am quite confident it will foster the desired results.

You send a messenger to hand in the players proposal, not a negotiator, not a leader. And to be clear, we know not all or any of the proposal will be implemented, but then this fact becomes crystal clear to all parties.

This is precisely how those IOM player meeting threads should have been done.

It would been if I was allowed to be nominated and if you didn't rescind your nomination out of (basically) disgust. (nonetheless we can win a major battle for the good of the game, if a few reputable players can get behind this proposed change and understand it)

Sounds like a lot of work, for very little extra reward. Who decides what suggestions make the cut etc?

What changes have been made that were suggested in this thread, that were -ev for players? Genuinely curious, I haven't read the whole thing.

I probably did something wrong, but I usually spent like 10-15 rebuys in those 3xTs. with this rake change, this game type probably will disappear soon. I just hope PS get some turbo sat to replace them. regular speed sat takes way too long and too much stalling near bubble time. it is very annoying.

Anytime you have two players disagree on the direction of changes you pretty much can assume that one suggestion is bad for the game. I mean thats not airtight logic, but its quite obvious we are always going to have new or bad players make -ev suggestions for the game. Which is fine and can even be encouraged. But we should want those suggestions to NOT be in the proposal thread because then later they get quoted as "What you asked for". I mean my observation is that it happens every single time and/or more and more as time goes by. But also there is never a clear argument to be had from the players perspective, we have no single consensus, we just have intelligent players and proposals that get drowned out by noise.

And btw when I initially proposed this, I made the point that this would MUTUALLY beneficial, since customer dissatisfaction is obviously -ev for the site, and also because the players do often come up with mutually beneficial ideas.

There are smart, talented, and creative players still left in this community, and probably more that aren't far (lurking etc.), we all understand that proposed changes must benefit the sites but what we need to establish is that mutually beneficial changes should take precedent in dialogue and "negotiations". Who could argue against mutually beneficial changes?

We should be seeking them, highlighting them, backing them up with math, translating them into a simple presentation, and then expecting that they be adopted quickly.

The problem of how to organize a consensus is pretty straight forward, I'd feel ashamed as a community of self-proclaimed game theorists if we could not strategize ourselves out of a paper bag (a single thread!)

Edit: Please understand, and this is why players like Sect7G understand the importance of this suggestion, the difficulty of coming to consensus is a security mechanism in itself. It means that the ideas the players get behind will ALWAYS be quality proposals that everyone agrees on. What I suggest is not intuitive, but we will all benefit if we understood it properly. There is no extra work required, the extra thread, creates natural order.

Do we want change?

Please dont let this get lost in all the comments about rake. The caps are set for both of these at 1000 and 549 players for next week. They definitely need to be changed before scoop and maybe the mountain series.

82 hyper might be fine though

can confirm that luke is aware of the caps being too low @tl65

Correct me if im wrong, but that's my understanding

Like

Will support any futher efforts you make with this.

Is there a reason any tournament has a certain cap, ever?

Luke - with the new rebuy changes do you think anyone can viably win at 3x turbo rebuys, which look to still be the satellite of choice?
Why have some users received an email about the changes and others haven't? Communication in this regard is beyond terrible, similar to when you don't email affected users when Stars' awful servers inevitably collapse and they're entitled to a refund. The crowd you're catering all these changes toward aren't on 2+2 and need to be informed.

I have never seen anyone complain in the mtt stars discussion thread about not enough players being paid or wanting smaller pay jumps in 6 years of contributing to this forum. Excuse my French, but this is bull****, passed as a thinly veiled war on regs.

NEW payout table feel so weird.

for example, with old payout table min-cash is double buyin. whereas now for the big/hot, it's top 7% got double buyin. top 10% finish got less than double buyin??

so the min-cash got less, final table got less.
those are the players who are acutely aware of their prizes.

your new payout table accomplish the almost impossible: upset every player!

if you want to pay more people, take a little bit money from No.4 - top 3% or top 5% , and pay the extra min-cash.

min-cash need to double buyin.
top 3 prizes should not be reduced.
move around with the other payouts, which nobody notice and care.

Lost all my trust in Pokerstars since amaya took over.
Making a change @ Rebuy rake - > removing it and changing it again wtf?!
If there will be a good Pokersite with a good design not as all these Pokersites which were designed by a Kid like 888.. I will instantly move to it..
I hope the other sites put some more pressure on PS.

I will definetly never play 2x or 3x Turbos again on stars, they are not beatable anymore.
Maybe I should go for 2016s Handchart to be able to beat all this rake.

what this guys from pokerstars doing here?

any ps rep shouldn't be welcome here .

I can think of one request that's been asked for a thousand times being implemented.

Rebuy Week.

The Hyper Deep sats to Weekly Omaha 215s are so popular can we have more please.

Also why are there no normal Deep sattys to the $530s. With the rake increase i think it's fair now to offer them along side the standard $3.30 and $11r sats?

They can't just set 100,000 entrants for every tourney because if they set it to 100,000 they will have to write pay table for up to 100,000 players which can be very time consuming and not every tourney has the same payout table and structure, so they have to manually set max entrants and payout table for each most of the tourneys. This is just my assumption.

it was fun two months of being open and communicative Luke, but can't really blame you

Hes just doing his job i guess

This I have asked 3 times where the data came from to support this view stars has and it's not been answered.

I think its quite clear there is no data or reason to believe that regs and recs want more people paid and less money for 1st.

In fact based on what happened at party poker and it being such a huge massive disaster (which they changed) I would say the opposite is true. Nobody wants to play a big fo 6 hours and mincash for 1.2x the buy in or whatever it is.

It's really disengenious to suggest that this is what people want. I respect you are just doing your job and difficult one dealing with 2 groups that have different interests (amaya and the players).


However, there comes a time when you have to question the morals of the people who work at stars lying to the customer base in such an obvious way (and repeatedly) which is quite insulting actually.

Many of whom I should add are actually friends or have known for years through online grinding.

At least Bryan doesn't hide!

A better view of Lee Jones's final table comments.