as long as the rake is "okayish" ill gladly change to party poker lol

Haven't played the fast fold format games but I did play the regular tables. They were infested with bots and Party's solution was to make the hand histories anonymous, making it impossible to find them after that. Also found it shady af that players, including myself, were reporting bots a lot and there were never any refunds until they announced they were changing to anon hand histories. They suddenly announced a one off refund due to bots at that point but I think that was done to deflect criticism of the upcoming changes.

guess it's time to learn TRADING or some****

Very glad I went back to school. Maybe I'll be an app/video game designer. Who knows. I'll be a server/bartender while playing poker on the side until I get my sh!!t together career-wise. I don't even care if I'm gonna be poor. Unless I won't be able to afford to eat I'd rather be poor and try than be rich and give up (accept a 9-5).

Anyone happen to know Android Studio? I'm trying to learn it but it's the most confusing programming language I've ever seen. It's even worse than C++ and C++ is pretty involved.

They haven't explained what will happen exactly, so I'll consider be the worst case scenario, -85% rakeback for all players. Usually rakeback in the micros goes from 7bb/100 to 10bb/100(depending on your style). I'll consider 7bb/100 because if rakeback goes down 85%, I'm pretty sure defending steals with crap(T5s,T7o) from the BB will be -EV.

Rakeback today is 28%, giving us a 5bb/100 effective rake, with the changes, the effective rake will be 6.7bb/100.

Let's see how tables will have to get softer so a we have the same winrate as before.
Made some research about how much fish usually lose in bb/100, let's consider it -10bb/100(I have a 10k sample size which I played heavily tilted with 70 VPIP, so had a -13bb/100 winrate)

Now let's estimate what's the winrate of a bad reg that will quit the game because of the additional rake increase: let's say that regs that will turn into losers/breakeven after rakeback will quit the game, so their winrate should be 2bb/100 after today's rakeback, turning them into -0.7bb/100 after the changes.

Considering a 6-max table, how many bad regs will have to be replaced with fish so we can have the same winrate?
A bad reg is making 2bb/100, so he is taking 0.5bb from each player in the table every 100 hands(yes, you're losing money to that nit, not because he is exploiting you, but he is taking money from fish that could be donating to you). A fish is donating 2bb/100 for each player in the table.

So if we replace a bad reg with a fish in that table, every other player will make an extra 2.5bb/100, changes reduced the winrate by 2.7bb/100, so we will need 1.08 less bad reg in each 6-max table, considering a fish will take its place.

If we look at that calculation, it seems really really bad and optimistic to believe that we will have an extra fish on every 6-max table in addition to those that existed before.

But the calculation doesn't work like that, these changes have great impact on break-even regs: if someone is happy making their 2bb/100 after rakeback, if they start losing, they will stop playing as soon as they realize they're not winning anymore.

Now for this calculation I'll use something I found in blackrain's second book:
1) 20% of players are small to significant winners in the long run after rakeback (2bb/100 - 10bb/100)
2) 30% of players are breakeven in the long run after rakeback (0bb/100)
3) 30% of players are small losers in the long run after rakeback (-5bb/100)
4) 20% of players are significant losers in the long run after rakeback (-10bb/100)

Let's consider those changes won't impact on the bad players, since they don't care about rake, so let's keep them the same.

Let's consider the best case scenario, where all break-even players quit the game.

So we will have a new player pool that looks like this:

1) 29% of players are small to significant winners in the long run after rakeback (2bb/100 - 10bb/100)
3) 42% of players are small losers in the long run after rakeback (-5bb/100)
4) 29% of players are significant losers in the long run after rakeback (-10bb/100)

So the bad reg-to-fish ratio changed from:
1 to 1

to: 1 to 2.5

But reality isn't like that, usually players take a lot of time to realize they're losing, some will focus on getting better, some will play even if they're losing.

So let's consider that 50% of the break-even players will quit the tables, it will end like this:

1) 23.5% of players are small to significant winners in the long run after rakeback (2bb/100 - 10bb/100)
2) 15% of players are breakeven in the long run after rakeback (0bb/100)
3) 35% of players are small losers in the long run after rakeback (-5bb/100)
4) 23.5% of players are significant losers in the long run after rakeback (-10bb/100)

Then, reg to fish ratio will be:
1:1.5

So converting the numbers into a 6-max table,
in the best case scenario, we will have around 2 regs and 4 fish
In a reasonable scenario we will have 1.5 regs, 3.5 fish and 1 break-even reg,
and in today's games it is in average it's around 1.2 regs, 3 fish and 1.8 break-even reg

In the reasonable scenario, we will have +0.3 good regs, + 0.5 fish and -0.8 breakeven reg per table

In the best case scenario, we will have +0.8 good regs, + 1 fish and -1.8 break-even reg per table.

Now calculating the EV of the average losing player and how much he will be donating to regs: +(0.5*7.5bb/100(average of both kinds of fish) + 0.8*2bb/100)/6 = (3.75 + 1.6)/6 = 0.89bb/100.

Btw, this isn't considering the effect of fish donating to other fish, so I'm underestimating that number.

In a reasonable scenario, regs will lose 1.8bb/100 with the changes, in the best case scenario(which all break-even regs leave pokerstars), regs will lose 0.85bb/100 with the changes.

So even if it turns out better than expected, we will all suffer a lot with those changes.

If I could have a 1 more winning day this month that'd be swell...

Ouch Bagpuss, $5k down, that's nasty

What games u playing?

200-600fr, started mixin in 200 6max this month which is why it's gone all pete tong and the 3.5k under ev... not quite lost my mind yet tho so im sure ill bounce back

So Boito is kind of a complete ****ing ****** right?

Not sure about him yet. I have him tagged as a losing player but small sample

Do Poker players annoy Amaya? They should just shut the site down if they hate Poker that much.

tl;dr rapidesh. iirc i got smthing like 2bb/100 rakeback on stars at micros, if that. 85% reduction is massive, its like having no rakeback at all.

less rb = more net rake for stars and profit. i doubt enough people will move sites to hurt stars bottom line. seems it'll work in their favour.

They have most of the traffic. They have great software (or they did for the longest time). They have big tournaments. And they have all these stupid promos with $1 EV that fish don't sit down and analyze why they suck. No other site is really stepping up to challenge them from what I know so they can basically do whatever they want unfortunately.

I haven't tried ACR or Bovada, not sure if Euro players can use them?

bovada is US, ACR anyone can play

Table selection #1

If you sit at a table and see a conversation like this going on between two recs it's probably going to be a good table. Haha.

I love when people especially regs get salty in chat. Too bad starshelper requires you to have full chat on instead of the summarized chat so a lot of chat gets buried.

This, no other site is even close. Phil Galfond proposed site looks good but it's difficult to categorise players/customers and treat them appropriately to get the most out of them whilst keeping the ecosystem alive.

Stars needs a rival site, there's not enough competition for them.

The collapse of Full Tilt was the worst thing to happen to online poker. At a stroke Stars lost their only real competitor.

As for Phil's site, although I can't wait for it to open I think it may struggle. One the one hand I think it will be reg infested and on the other I think many regs will also stick with Stars hoping the games get softer there. It'll take a massive advertising budget for the site to attract new players.

I have a feeling phil galfonds renegs in his website, the climate for online poker doesn't make sense for one to waste time/energy imo. For any of us to get excited for galfonds site we have to know his investors, without millions upon millions of dollars to spend on advertising then i don't think it does well.

i don't think any fish knoe who phil galfond is which is a problem, the only people who are aware are regs.

the cost of setup is a concern, ideally rake would be as low as possible but costs will have to be recuperated.

i suppose the question to phil is, here's $x, how much damage can you do to stars? i think he'd be better off buying a site and amending it to what he wants rather than starting fresh.

^^ The other sites software is pretty crappy & probably more expensive than starting a-new unless that get a good deal then maybe.

Outside of galfonds site, how does the other sites compare to stars? anybody can give a breakdown?

and let that be a lesson nobody beats me 12 days in a row!

How hard is it to code something that's not a piece of sh!!t and can rival Stars in terms of user-friendliness? I'm probably missing something but it seems like other sites are just lazy and aren't putting in what seems like not a lot of effort to be competitive.

Good to hear that you're having at least one good day Bag. I probably shouldn't whine about being < 2bb this year at Whirlpool. If there is such a thing as conservation of run good similar to conservation of energy I would want to run -10bb at Whirlpool so I can sun run in Vegas.

well i just hit my goal of 115x5 squat this month at 74kg bw
#feelsgood

as for a bonus step everyday i already failed so... my month is done with goals