Anyone else get the Spin and Go bonus for up to $150? Or is just me because I've quit all cash games on Stars.

Yes, I received the e-mail as well. The bonus to be released in $5 increments for every 100 fpp's earned. I believe you have 17 days to earn the full bonus. Not particularly rec friendly.

I think the most outrageous part of this Is that two players enter a tournament and get charged different amounts to play ludicrous

I do well in rebuy sats. This change favours me a lot (Canadian) as there are lots of good UK regs who also play these. I'd like the extra rebuy rake to be spread out over all players if need be, rather then UK players having to take the full brunt of it. It's fair and that's why I'm in favour of it.

Problem is that if they make it so that .uk or other players in regulated areas pay for same amount but with additional rake which just get removed from the prize pool, it would mean that those players would get VPPs(bonuses and non-regulated players not while every player is evenly affected by smaller prize pool. If it can be spread out evenly (but not like let's rake everyone so that Amaya can get more cash to their bottomless pockets) it's little better, but I think that it really should show that you should move to non-regulated country and get rid of taxes if possible. By sharing the costs this incentive disappears.

Doubling, tripling, quadrupling the fee charged, depending on the number of rebuys, to play a tournament just to cover taxes is pretty outrageous too.

Raked rebuys alone are a terrible idea from amaya, but to rake their customers unevenly is just sad. For sure anyone with unraked rebuys is at a huge advantage.

Just a matter of time until no matter what platform you are playing on, rake will be the same as it will be under the Amaya brand. Amaya bidding for party Poker

http://www.ft.com/intl/fastft/235342...talks-underway

Party is a pile anyhooot

So Amaya is going to take even on more debt. It was one thing to buy PS but PP doesnt seem to have much value to add to what they already have. They cant be afraid of PP can they?....

...unless they just want players and entice them to gamble it up.

has there been in rake changes at stakes below 25c/50c NL? can't say anything listed or mentioned in few posts i've read

So what site is the best to play at if you think about the rake?

party has to be the best value as far a name reckognition

its a total pile of ****, but people remember the "party poker days"

**** us all, we will all be at amayas mercy and they will destroy completely and irreperably the game we all love

never forget
10-30-14


what's with the regs saying 6m sats are dead today? did they change the rake before january 1st on this ones?

Making money....

If this **** goes on I'm gonna buy Amaya and change everything back

well I am sure many here would be very grateful if you did do that.

However do you have a few billion spare?

Better hurry. The stock is up 13% since the op.

I'm one of those "recreational players" Amaya is targeting and I'm moving to another site with a rakeback deal. I've steadily moved up in stakes 1- and 2-tabling at max, but the new management at Amayastars and their changes made me lose all trust in the site - I want to be informed by the site I play on when withdrawal fees get added and changes to the rake structures are being made, and their current actions don't bode well for the future.

And Daniel Negreanu ****ing disgusts me - Just because I'm a recreational player doesn't mean that I like to gamble and enjoy throwing money out the window: Poker is a skill game and I play because I want to get good at it and win, even though I'm not a professional and I don't play Poker for a living.

I'll keep a few bucks on Amayastars for MTTs until they get around to **** those up to, then I'm gone for good.

Could write much more but I think everything has been stated already.

fyp

Probably right. I mean the mass sit outs, Union organized Grinder strikez, (after the union is created and stuff of course), 2p2 created non profit, co-op poker site with free rake is up and running, SEO geniuses crash Google with negative stories about dnegs, the rest of the activists take a portion of their roll off the site, people who are blowing up the spin and goes realize nobody wants to play that format, and 10 more threads are started here it will have to counteract the record profits in the eyes of investors.

What's your short position again exactly?

if negraneau accepts the profit in ev from spin and go challenge he loses it,

maybe at 4% rake at the highest limit he had a slim chance, not 5% imo

hey, i cant believe it took this long to occur to me, but isnt 4.9b absurdly low for stars to be valued?

isnt it something like material assets (0 in this case basically) plus 10 years projected profits for a business?

Well to be honest I dont have a very formulated opinion. In a more balanced perspective, id say introducing casino-like games in a site like Pokerstars will be bad in the long term for poker players and poker itself. However corporations are like any other business and they compete in a 'free' market, so they are entitled to change their business policies anytime they want, and dealing with the respective consequences (bad or good) of those decisions.
What pains me the most is people saying regs are entitled, and they are bad for poker aka 'killin the game', since its totally the opposite, without the winning players nobody would have came to play this game, I wouldn't of course if it was like roulette or slots, nobody likes the idea of losing money to a unbeatable system. So the day poker became close to those unbeatable games then its only a matter of time until its death.

Also what a lot of people seems to be missing is the fact that all poker players winnings combined are not even close to the site winnings (not saying a company should donate money, but the ratio is huge); I dont have the numbers, but there's plenty smart posters out there that could come up with it.

Allow me to ease your pain a little. The elimination of "winning" players is echoing through the posts of people on your side of the argument. Daniel made an off the cuff remark about winning players taking more out of the game than rake that was either just wrong or not well thought out and opponents to the rake increase amplified it and inflated its relevance and for that matter, his. I give him the benefit of the doubt in that he was saying a losing player will give more of their roll to winning players than to rake, but honestly I don't know or care what he meant anymore than I care about any other spokesperson's personal opinion.

Amaya did not ever say they want to eliminate winning players. The posters here, myself included who said something similar to that were not saying that no one should ever win. Speaking for myself I was saying that the current dynamic of the way people are winning and behaving is killing the health of the game and not optimally sustainable. I also said that many casual rec players do not care about the rake. This gets exaggerated to "eliminate winners" and "all rec players want to gamble and lose". Sorry but there is a very, very minimal amount of nuance required beyond identifying and abolishing a villain or making everything an exaggerated black and white to get the point .

And if the rake hike is a big mistake the company won't die. They will lower the rake. Netflix did it. Lots of companies do. If you guys are wrong it will stay where it is or get raised again. This isn't their all in river decision on the bubble. Relax a little.