You seem to be overdramatising the situation; the changes don't seem to take away the ability to pay the bills by playing poker; what they might do is bring the attainable poker income more in line with what can be earned at a real job with the same effort - poker has been enormously profitable for too long, but it has to reach an equilibrium state sooner or later when no one but the biggest enthusiasts will want to become or remain a reg.

This doesn't make any sense. In that way, they shouldn't be proffiting much more than the other companies proffit, with the same effort. Don't compare the uncomparable

You do realize this wasn't an actual preposition right? Just to make it absolutely clear; this is not an idea I want you to try

Also I love that a rep of Poker stars (owner of Full Tilt) doesn't get the 350 reference. Nice job.

You were equating them as being essentially impossible to hit and he was showing that there is a massive practical difference

nm

Yea wtf was stars thinking hiring someone without checking in the interview process they had a satisfactory understanding and ability to spot south park memes. They need to get their priorities sorted!

If setting up a gambling company and turning it into a giant were so easy, everyone would be doing this, but it isn't happening. There was some luck involved in Stars' rise - the US government let them fly under the radar for over 4 years and use the network effect (high traffic) to build a solid ROW player base too, whereas Party chose to pull out and shrink immediately - but the decent management has been a vital part of the success too, that's what allowed Amaya to be approved in NJ despite Stars being a bad actor, as the officials realised how good the entrance of such a solid company into the US market would be.

If being a profissional poker player and become one of the best was easy everyone would be one...

So how is 1:33.000.000 possible for one player to hit realistically? If someone binks the lottery I'm not thinking "hey this actually IS possible". So what if the player pool is so huge every now and then someone binks it.
South park, yes. I was talking about south park....

to put it another way-- Lets play a game. I'll flip a coin and you call heads or tails. The winner of each flip gets $100k. The rules are you aren't allowed to stop playing until I say so, and the winner of every flip must agree to go double or nothing on the next one. Would you like to play this game with me?

I`m a simple man. I see 100k - I play

If stars clearly stated this promo would only run until the first 1 million spin hit, or November 30th, then I wouldn't have a problem. But they are controlling how much rake they're taking, which is going to be AT LEAST 8% or very close to it. But they'll probably end up raking an additional 1%, or more, which doesnt seem like a big deal until you add up all the buyins

and for the record, I'm fine with whatever rake they set. People agree to it by playing, but I'd like some transparency so we know they aren't taking more than advertised. Am I being irrational for having these concerns?

Your concern is just based on a misunderstanding of probability theory concepts, pls read the answers ppl give you and stop spamming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optional_stopping_theorem

If you have problems understanding it, you can ask for advice here:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25/probability/

Yes, I must be misunderstanding some of these concepts. Sorry for the spam, guys. I'm still learning. Thanks for the enlightenment

[ ] understands what sarcasm is, your english its not your fault

That makes no sense. The variance in every single spin is the same for PS. That's not analogous to your example where the variance increases with each new flip.

Yes, you're being irrational. You seem to think that Stars operates like a degenerate gambler who continues playing indefinitely to recover the losses if they had bad results in the past. Their EV is the rake and it doesn't change based on how many 1M prizes were hit.

The EV/spin of a specific player is determined by his skill-set and by the probabilities of each multiplier and it is not affected by Stars' decision to continue spinning or not. Stars can't affect a player's EV on a specific spin by choosing to stop the promotion a week from now or a year from now.

When I call a gambling site 'one of the best', I mean it's one of the most useful / enjoyable, not necessarily the one that gets the most quarterly revenue, though in the case of sites the two metrics are well correlated.

In the case of poker players, they aren't - such fishes (relatively to the nosebleed field) as Gus Hansen, Chris Moneymaker or (formerly) Annette Obrestad create not less hype than almost any winning HS reg.

The reason is that they binked a tourney or a few and weren't afraid to gamble with their winnings... someone who ships a $1M spin and lasts for long enough at the HS (which is possible due to variance) can become a new legend of the Isildur / durrrr caliber despite not having a big or even positive winrate EV, that's actually one of the points of such promos.

This thread sucks

+1
only nerds with no life here

I wasn't talking about variance there. The example was to demonstrate how I have control of the situation and will never lose, much like how stars won't end up taking less than 8%. But I don't have a firm understanding of the optional stopping theorem so it all doesn't make sense anyway

The reason they can't do that is because when they realize after 50kk games that players paid less than 8 % rake it have no influance on future events so they can let another 50 kk games , 100kk games and the rake maybe even lower. There might be no point in where rake paid was 8% or more in a 10000kk games. It's unlikely but there is no point for them to wait for that because past spins doesn't matter in the future they would still run a game with 8 % expected rake.

Ya thats kind of what I was thinking, in a perfect scenario, but I thought there was a little room for manipulation based on when stars ended it, but I guess I'm wrong. Thanks for the respectful reply

Its pretty funny, people who respond like this tend to be average poker players, at best, and you are no exception

It used to be good

It still is, but it used to, too.