I doubt it, and even if so you're probably in a minority of one. People are usually silent when something caters for their interests, even if others are getting screwed.

For example - SNE's are striking now that some changes are hitting them hard in the pocket. But where were their strikes over PLO microstakes rake? (which made the game near unbeatable). Oh that's right, no SNE plays PLO micros, so they didn't kick up too much of a fuss about the ****ty situation there. Where were their strikes over the same situation at NLH micros zoom?

This stuff about how it's all for the good of poker and we're all in this together is bull****...they're doing it for their own self interest, just like Stars is cutting their benefits for what it perceives is the company's self interest. Both groups are talking about the 'poker ecosystem' but really they're both out for themselves.

I'll also add that the 'trickle down effect' proposed by MeleaB is a theory not a fact, and all the available evidence is against the theory anyway. It is high rakeback that leads to reg filled games, not the opposite. Compare the likes of Ipoker (high rakeback) with 888poker (low rakeback). 888poker has a significantly softer lineup because less regs want to play there.

The only thing I agree with the strikers on is the timing of the changes was awful. While it was grossly unfair that an SNE got 65-70% rakeback in the first place, they were promised it, and companies should make good on their promises. Scrapping the program for 2017 is entirely justified though. Couldn't give a damn about the likes of Doug Polk and OTB Red Baron no longer receiving VPP's at the nosebleeds since those guys are plenty rich enough already.

Well, it is when you include yourself in that group and then refer to people who disagree with your views as recreational players who struggle to tie their shoelaces. It is the epitome of arrogance and just highlights the selfish, condescending attitude of many pro poker players towards recreational players who are entitled to their opinion just as much as you are.

No wonder online poker is struggling to attract recreational players when they get faced with that sort of pompous arrogance.

So are there any numbers out yet re:volume in games? how much is it down? people still playing nl zoom 50/nl zoom 100? etc

Regarding cbu38's situation at the PCA where he was mistakenly told he made the money but was not paid. We agree this was a mistake. Senior management at the PCA has spoken with him and we have given him the $500 for his cash. Procedures will be evaluated to prevent this type of situation in the future.

Link to PokerStars reply from tournament team at PCA:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=134

Tx, Matthew

Yeah, it is extremely arrogant. The approach creates the attitude of "if you do not agree with what I say, then you are not smart enough to understand - hopefully I am helping you, little man." I know, because I use that approach often when trolling (particularly in the riggie thread). I also realize you are not doing it with that in mind in this case, however, yes, it still comes off as exclusionary and arrogant.



That is because in a riot with lots of people screaming, what usually happens is those with opposing viewpoints walk away and let the rioters do their rioting. These threads never provide a platform for proper debate. When Stars did the change to how exchange rates happened I posted often about how most players could avoid the charges (and many were paying them without knowing it beforehand). While I got several thank yous via PM, what I got on the threads were people saying I was simply a shill/pawn/sheeple of the Stars machine or whatever. So even I just thought "whatever - go ahead and whine and pay the costs" and I left the threads alone.



The "against" side is not properly represented, as many players are likely indifferent to the whole thing, and the ones who are posting against the mob tend to be the trolls. The fact you think that they represent a whole position is incorrect.


Well, I am sure the strike leaders will come out with some report that the strike cost billions of dollars somehow, and anytime the share price goes down we will hear calls of "see, I told you so," however what will likely happen is what has happened every other time the online world was going to come to an end - it keeps going and by the end of this year there will simply be a new change that will be the end of the world on NVG.

With all of that said, I certainly understand and respect those that are protesting and voicing their opinions, and if they truly believe that Pokerstars is not a proper place to play they should follow your lead and stop giving them any business. If "intelligent" players toss a blog or two about how they do not agree with the changes, but then continue to support the site with their play - then realistically how much are they against what the company is doing?

Regarding segregated countries...
Some players playing on .it reported NL100 zoom doesn't start anymore

Any arrogant sounding posts are addressing the "rigtard" posters responding to a point of mine. My posting history on this topic in the main consists of many long, fair, precise and detailed reports of my view of the subject.

SNGs > 25 euros do not start anymore!

Bulls***. Every single time somebody posts something that contradicts your own ideas you call them stupid and uninformed. Or does this mean that if we disagree with you, we must be a "rigtard"?

Kudos. This is the correct way to handle a mistake when it's identified. Apologize and make it right.

You trolls don't even have a point. The only thing you accomplish is disturbing the discussion while nobody (most likely not even pokerstars) is profiting off these newly introduced changes. To refer to melea as being arrogant is really low. He just tries repeatedly to explain facts and some guys here don't like it, so he defends his views.

I know most of his critics couldn't care less if theres any online poker action going on, because neither do they love the game nor do they depend financially on the action. Please melea, don't listen to these clowns.

Don't be silly now. I don't recall calling anyone stupid, let alone responding every time with that remark. (I made a comment sometime ago that one would have to be stupid and gullible to believe Stars' PR machine, and I questioned PS Matthew whether he was stupid.)

Neither am I arrogant, nor do I believe my posts are arrogant, except perhaps in responding to a sloppy, lazy, inaccurate and emotional post such as yours, in which case I'm an omniscient genius.

what about eating multiple times at a restaurant?

You can probably rationalize comparisons between many different types of businesses and the way in which they reward their frequent customers. Bottom line is that in those comparisons you are very often not competing against the other customers and put at direct disadvantage as a result of it.

I meant to post this earlier in this thread but accidentally linked it to another VIP related thread(lol, too many of these threads) I think LektorAJ's quoted post sums up one major unfairness in this model very well.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=1967

For those peddling this bollocks about a volume discount...

How much discount do you get per litre of petrol when you fill your car up rather than just put $20 in?

How much discount do you get at the supermarket for buying 10 bags of apples rather than 1?

Oh yeah that's right, **** all.

No doubt MeleaB will be back soon to point out how SNE's oppose their rakeback getting cut, and that somehow proves they're enlightened and intelligent (rather than just not happy about taking a pay cut).

No answer to the real life examples I gave that show high rakeback leads to more reg filled games either.

I agree that the "bulk buying" scenario isn't a great, or even valid, example (although it used to be) but again, people are getting caught up in this whole volume/rewards fallacy.

It's not about whether high volume players "deserve" to pay less rake- I don't think they do. Civil war between high volume and casual players over how much rake the other group pays is misplaced.

The best players (usual also in the higher volume group) do however "deserve" to pay effective rake that isn't so high that there are virtually no winning players. I don't see how that is debatable if we want an environment that has winning players! Lower volume players also "deserve" the same service, however poker sites can get away without giving them that (as it doesn't prevent winning players from existing.)

Hi, i read the post, and I agree with what is being said, however I would argue that isn't the point of the old system to encourage those part timers to increase their volume such that they can enjoy the benefit of a lower effective rake? i don't think it is particularly "unfair" in the sense that as long as you put in the same volume there is nothing preventing you from enjoying the benefits.

if anything this post further highlights how absurd the changes were made with 2 month "notice", many first time SNEs played in negative EV games expecting that they can enjoy a lower effective rake in the following year

----------------------------------

that being said, I don't think many of us are arguing against a flat rakeback structure(i don't think ether is particularly "unfair", they are just different business models). the problem is that because the effective rake is so high by simply cutting the rakeback for SN/SNEs it will create a situation where the number of winning players as a proportion of the player population will decrease. and if that is the direction that amaya wants to go, in a few years time they might create a situation where there are no winning players and everyone simply recycles rake around. so if amaya was truly doing this "for the benefit and long term health of the poker ecology" then if they wish to implement a flat rb structure they should lower their effective rake

(i assumed that we want winners to exist in OLP although this is another discussion)

1) Its not a SNE strike (Im not SNE myself for starters)...

2) There have been several SNE's talking the PLO micro stake cause in the PokerStars meetings and several threads here.

Check out GGARJ's work for starters and the threads found here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...reads-1273095/

Its actually mostly the players not playing those stake who have been fussing about it.

3) Saying 888 is softer then iPoker is just statement esp for PLO.

I actually first thought this was an analogy for the SN / SNE mistake for 2016 PokerStars have made.

Based on this principle PokerStars senior management should fix that error as well even its more dollar.

Easy to do the right thing when its 500 bucks..?

Agreed.

this is a much bigger reduction in value/rakeback then I expected.

I mean from the impression I had it was a mild small reduction would be made for low volume players. and a big one for high volume players as a player that usually fitted into gold star I thought i might see a 2% reduction in total RB. well no my RB has been more then halved unless I am missing something.

I just dont see how stars is viable going forward.

buy buy greedy f*ck*rs

Cashout was inadvisable at this time since there was another mega bonus next week and making a cashout beforehand would forfeit your eligibility for the bonus (according to their terms and conditions). That's $7.19 EV down the drain

Was the $10 VIP Cash Rebate seriously removed? This looks like funneling recs into Spin & Go's because that is the only thing they can afford in a reasonable time frame.

For reference: someone making it through Step 10 Chrome Star every month (530 Starscoin) used to be able to cash in $10 every 2 months.

Now they can:
a) Cash in for a ****ty T-Shirt every 2 months.
b) Wait 5 months to receive $25.
c) Play a $0.25 Spin every two out of three days.

interesting about PLO microrake.

I don't normally play cash games anymore, but I played ~16,000 hands in micro plo in December (2PLO and 5PLO) and I paid $335 rake. That's an insane amount when you think about it.

Yes, the minimum cash rebate is now $25. The lowest tournament ticket used to be $11 for SilverStar+ players. We now have a variety of different rewards with low buy-ins for MTTs, Spin&Gos, and SitnGos that all statuses can buy:
- $.55, $1.10, and $2.20 MTT tickets
- $1.50 and $3.50 SitnGo tickets
- $.25 and $1 Spin&Go tickets

tx, Matthew