i wish i could be so eloquently ... but here we go

funny thing is, that you have a pretty narrow POV ... "WE WANT TO MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE" is called maximize EV and this was/is preached by poker players. don't twist the facts. recs throw their money on the table, and the aim is, to grab as much as possible. and of course regulars compete with the house. and i know you aware of the fact, that since 2006 the numbers of regs has risen.

and in no way, professional poker players have ever cared about where the fish got their money. also lol you said in the podcast, that PS somehow misleads recs, that they have to pay rake. seriously, do you inform all of your fun player customers, that you make a living, b/c they play badly ... what's about all the good old 'don't tap the tank'?

so if you blame the operator, you should also blame the poker players. call them greedy, call them liars. which of course would be stupid, b/c of the nature of the game.

and this nature is exactly the reason, why the whole thing was bound to happen. even with zero rake, there would be a decline in deposits and therefore a decline in money, to be made. Plus the fact, that more and more winners want a piece of the cake.

what other way would you suggest? it's a fact, that there is way less money coming in and it's also pretty common knowledge that operating a poker room is way more expensive due to regulation and taxation. that's the reason why the Scheinbergs and others sold this company. simply b/c they were sure, they wouldn't make this money within the next 5-10 years.

the recreational layer model isn't new and of course it's sugar coating for saying "hey, we make less money, let's think about getting rid of some of the ppl cashing out constantly". that a decent amount of winners (which is a small percentage of the overall pool btw) is left out of the equitation, might be sad, but well ... life is though.

the definition of winning and losing players also isn't binary, as many grinders imply when they talk about themselves. a small loser could be a winner, if a bad player joins the table, and a small winner could be a dog, if some strong players show up. so asking a poker room, to lower the rake, is like begging other regs to play softer, so your own winrate goes up.

there's simply no "oh, i deserve this winrate b/c i study so hard ..." and basically everyone outside of the tiny poker world, understands that. there are so many companies, who make far more than amaya. hell, why don't they pay higher wages or make their product cheaper. they could, but where's your outrage about greed and a call for socialism?

F***, when i started working within the poker industry, i got far more per hour. i could buy a house, if i would get the hourly rate from back then with my current volume, but strangely it never occurred me, to open whinny postings in a forum for freelance writers, that the big bad companies don't pay enough. i adapted and when i don't see any more profits, i move on.

it's also delusional to think lower rake would invite more ppl in. i'm pretty sure the long term effect for lower rake would be more regs, who try to get a few crumbs. it's not like mega fish would pop up and throw money at you. poker rooms don't want to "kill poker", they simply go with the trend. mobile gaming is booming, so of course they offer new and fast games.

tl;dr: as a professional you shouldn't blame the environment, but ask yourself "what can i do to improve", "what alternatives do i have" and "what are my options, if i leave poker behind". but instead of that, most grinders (here) tend to wallow in self-pity while getting pads on the shoulders from other grumpy forum posters.

Amayafly, does your life evolve around defendig actions from stars/amaya?

Yes




Nobody is talking about mega fish, how can you think lower rake would not invite more people in to the game?? More players would be winning which in turn would cause more regulars. Some of those players would be beginners and fun players aspiring to make some extra money from poker. More regulars forming from that is natural. I'm not referring to MEGA FISH at all.




I'm not sure if you are saying that me replying to a couple people about this for the first time in the history of the thread is me but yes this seems incredibly accurate. Nice read


You have it all figured out, can't nobody tell you nothing, I got it. I don't mind discussing this with someone who is capable of seeing all sides but you clearly are not that type. Most of what you said is just random **** thrown together trying to make a case for what you believe. I said "I really don't think this could be the only way" and your response is WTF OTHER WAY COULD IT BE THEN, as if this was the only possible option.


Poker players make it pretty clear this is the agenda. Pokerstars is making it seem like this is not the agenda. I can understand them wanting to maximize EV

I believe I said something to the nature of leading them into games where they have a very low likelyhood of beating long term due to the rake. They also did mislead some recreational players with rake changes and still do mislead them with the rake in some offerings.


Yes the only way this could have been handled was to try to eliminate a majority of the winning players and the high stakes.

IMO Joey came completely unprepared and was simply outclassed when debating with Negreanu. I think between the above posters (ChipPorn) ramble & Negreanu's excellent vocab they both make great points.

Joey after spending the summer in Vegas have you ever considered playing even 1 or 2 day's "Live" per week?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It wasn't supposed to be a debate in anyway, DN has probably spent 100s of hours talking about this in recent time (and who knows how many hours debating on Twitter, I've probably been in 1-2 debates on social media in 6 years). I've spent less than a couple. He should have a much stronger grasp on it than I do with the information he has available to him. I acknowledged during the podcast and ITT that he made really good points. I'm not saying his way or outlook is wrong, I can understand why both sides would feel the way they do about the situation.

I've said this a few times, might as well say it here. Pokerstars never had a sustainable strategy for cash games. They go from area to area advertising until all the fish are dead then they move on. Each time this happens they add pros to the playerpool which means the fish don't go as far on the next stop.

Now there's only China and USA left for them, both of which have denied them.

Instead of trying to create an environment where cash games can actually be sustained, they have implemented an exit strategy where they take out as much as possible in the last few years that cash games are still a thing.

This is also why I'm against legalizing poker in USA#1 if it means allowing pokerstars in.

Propz for all the podcasts Joey...... they're for sure eating up way too much time in my life but can't help myself, have to watch close to all of them entirely.

Actually really enjoyed the 2nd pod with negreanu. Great conversation, it actually made me laugh quite a few times (and i for sure didn't expect that to happen .

Papi !!!

your self doubt creeping in. Cate hall seems well grounded in several areas
if you haven't yet, maybe listen to the first part of her interview on pokercast 2+2.

approach poker sort of like her and the world is your oyster. its just a means to the end.

p.s. the "pros suck" outburst from dnegs girlfriend was prob the funniest thing I have ever seen on your show. have to give dnegs a few points for that

Most ppl ITT are blinded by their own self-interest. I thought Negreanu gave some solid insights into the business perspective of PS. Poker is drying up. The market is something like 90% of what it was during the boom; so PS needs to adapt or die. I don't necessarily think they're doing a good job of adapting or being particularly innovative with their platform but I can see why they're making cutbacks / doing things that take money away from the players.

Unfortunately a lot of things Negreanu said in the most recent podcast about rake were either blatant lies for which he would have seen massive amounts of data contrary to what he was saying or statements that show he is at least relatively oblivious to what is actually happening to the online poker ecosystem.

I'm seeing a lot of general accusations of Dnegs lying but not anything specific. Could you provide some examples of blatant lies?

What comes across as disingenuous to me, is that they are still claiming that the changes are for the benefit of the players.

'Something has to be done and the solution is to raise the effective rake multiple times in a few months'. Ridiculous. Every change they have made has been designed to take money from the players pockets and put it into their own. They're free to make whatever decisions they want but some honesty would be nice.

I really need to start including a Kappa on 2p2, I thought the sarcasm would be obvious

Please have Viffer tell the story about the origin of his nickname

Congrats on the recent podcasts papi-super good content there.I have been following you for 2-3 years now and you are just insane bro Keep it with the good work!
Lastly,if you can get some of the oldest online pros from the old days like Erik123 or Empire2000,it would be great

Well that's just the subjective feeling I get - I can't really back it up with anything.

I haven't seen the podcast yet - obviously I'm thinking about when he said he would take the SNE thing to pokerstars on behalf of the players - i.e. spinning himself as an intermediary rather than a company rep.

So the gain for Negs was Negs plugging his own podcast, which was in fact quite enjoyable which I hate to admit. And I hate to admit that I'll be listening to his future podcasts as well (**** you Negs & **** your ****ty Podcast intro theme).

That said, the lying self-preserving snake did indeed produce a lot of vomit and BS during the promise topic. And he dodged a lot of questions with smooth segways into BS topics. **** you Negs and your smooth dulcet vocal tone segways (that I'll be avidly listening to in the future on your podcast).

He basically shielded Amaya for his own interests at the expense of the many - defending the demise of the dream for a few fake promises that he knew wouldn't be delivered. I don't buy this poker stability BS one iota. I do buy that he wanted the players to stop revolting and start playing though, which he accomplished.

We needed the emotion of JoeySNE on this podcast to call him the f out and some. Where was JoeySNE!!!?

What Dnegs was saying in December was these changes will reduce the slide of recreational players playing to bring stability. Thus would provide pro's opponents to play.

Now his emphasis is that something had to be done to stop the slide of Pstars profits. Thus there will still be a place for pros to play. The recs aren't really part of the equation anymore.

All the bs talk about recs lasting longer on Spins... umm they could have a slot machine that has an RTP of 94% that would allow recs to last longer. So what? The only winner is Pstars. In no way shape or form does this help "winning" players or even "Poker" in any way as other rec poker players won't have easy games either.

This is hyperbole in a vacuum of spin.

The bottom line was, Amaya wanted to squeeze another year or two out of the lifespan of online poker in its current form.

This extra lifespan came at the expense of the dream. We have no evidence to believe anything Negs spun in December or a few days ago.

this is true. basically what stars is doing nowadays is promoting variance. Recs are getting crushed at spins in the long run same as the do in cash, but since the (short run) variance is higher in spins (rec can win a random spin smth like 30% of the time) stars can get more rake out of the rec. All the stories about ecosystem are pure bull**** and stars is just maxing their short term ev (finally dnegs admitted that). If amaya really cared about the so called "ecosystem" they'd lower the rake across the board since almost every game is over-raked nowadays. Once the in-game competition gets tougher, rake needs to be lower so that getting an edge becomes possible and poker would remain a game of skill, but instead amaya raises the effective rake. if amaya actually cared about the longetivity of poker they wouldnt do that ****, but obv they only care about short term profits and after maxing out stars in the coming 5? years they move to something else.

Rake pays for promotion and promotion brings in new deposits to feed the games.

Tie your rake-back to how many deposits you bring in by referrals and what is raked on them and you might have a more honest formula cognizant of reality.

representative for recreational players? so, what exactly does it mean to represent recreational players?

does it mean this?: get new recreational players on stars, and decrease the loss-rate of recs on stars, so that their playing experience is less harsh and can continue longer.

ok, sounds fine. until you notice that, in this model, the decreased loss-rate is designed never to become a win-rate. the playing experience, though longer and less harsh, is designed to be a permanently-losing-player experience.

God damn you Joey Ingram for getting this guy on. I'd rather shlt out a grapefruit than listen to his bullsh**, but somehow I'm compelled to watch!! Hopefully sitting on my hands for the duration will stop me from smashing my monitor. If not I'm sending you the bill.

Ask Viffer if he has any good Viffer stories!

This is my point. Having recs last longer but with less of a chance to win/cashout only helps Stars and not "poker" or anyone tied to poker.

Joey I love the work you do and I fully expect a Fantasy Sports sponsorship coming soon to help out in the coming months.