Any action which doesn't help Amaya's business competition will not help a ton. To get Amaya think about its action one must help its competition.

Today's news:

Time to Buy AMAYA INC After Reaching 52-Week Low?

The 52-week low event is an important milestone for every stock because it shows very negative momentum and is time when sellers come in. During such technical setups, fundamental investors usually stay away and are careful buying the stock. The stock decreased 6.52% or $0.94 on December 8, hitting $13.47. AMAYA INC (NASDAQ:AYA) has declined 44.15% since May 6, 2015 and is downtrending. It has underperformed by 43.36% the S&P500.

https://www.pokerstars.com/en/blog/c...1-159457.shtml

"... The recent three-day boycott by some players that disagree with our announced VIP changes did not have a significant impact on PokerStars, as traffic actually spiked through the period as a result of the start of our long-planned holiday promotion.

... We will not alter those plans.

... we can tell you that we did see effects from the recent boycott that give us even greater confidence that our strategy is on the right track to improve the health of the ecosystem. During the three-day boycott we recorded the healthiest consecutive three-day ecosystem results of the year with steady net gaming revenue ..."

http://fullcontactpoker.com/poker-jo...t_from=&ucat=&

Obviously the professional players will benefit most from these free rolls as they are most likely to cash, but it also offers the entire player base some value.

lol

attaching the free roll thing is meant to distract you from whats happening =P

"We are happy to announce plans to hold four $1 million freeroll tournaments in 2016 on PokerStars."

So they take away the 4 $1mill SN freerolls and give us 4 $1mill freerolls.

uh thanks, i guess..?

Now that both PokerStars & Negreanu have basically told the poker community to #GFY, what are the next steps besides more cashouts from PokerStars?

It's irrelevant that traffic spiked during those three days, that was a given, but it would have been higher but for the boycott.

If they truly don't alter the plans at all then they have been intentionally duplicitous in their actions, as they confirm they have known the changes that were happening in 2016 in 2014. They could have made this announcement up to a year earlier.

The statement about this being the healthiest three day ecosystem is so wishy washy it could mean any number of things.

Eric Hollreiser is a scumbag. His job is PR and he would spin any bad news story in a positive light. That said, he did throw in a joke about something Pokerstars did recently being innovative, so at least he has a sense of humour.

I think that maybe a lot of people are getting a little too hung up about how much money PokerStars might have lost during the boycott. Regardless of how much money they lost, it isn't really enough to cause PokerStars any concerns.

PokerStars' biggest asset is its name. Signing on to PokerStars has always been a no-brainer for most poker players. It's the tarnishing of that name through a well publicized boycott that, I think, would cause PokerStars the most consternation.

This man is smart^^ id follow his advice on anything poker related

Would there be any effect (positive or negative from the players' perspective) if an effort was made by players to post in Stock Market forums where Amaya stock was being discussed, or contact financial websites (e.g. Motley Fool) and educate them on the current changes (via linking to 2+2 posts, podcasts) and explain how many of us predict their business model will suffer as a consequence? Would getting word out to their shareholders on how badly we feel this will affect the company be a good thing for us?

My own opinion is that any possible reduction in Amaya's stock value due to boycotts is going to be a natural consequence of players expressing their legitimate grievances. To purposely try to hurt the company's value, though, could alienate a lot of players and could make it a lot less clear about what the players are actually trying to accomplish. A tactic like that could possibly backfire.

Cant we just do a hostile takeover? If everyone chips in we should have some money to buy 51%, no?

brilliant!

Would have been epic to get Juanda on board^^

PS promotions were always a joke , always made to suit broke people that play freerols , never was there any decent promotion for people that care for more then 10$ giveaway. And now they turn 1m quarterly for SN+ into broke people giveaway. I am disgusted once more.

Got given a T-shirt today. Will wear it at least for a bit.

And obv +1 to all Santa Cruz said.
**** this article is so tilting to read. Just lots of PR-spin bollocks from Eric, who does indeed seem like a scumbag.
E.g. this is just a terrible apology: "We sincerely apologise to players who did not expect cuts as significant in 2016 as we announced on..."
- That's not actually apologising about his/their **** up at all, but just putting it on the players who didn't expect it.

"we can make changes that we believe will improve retention of such players by lengthening the time they will be able to play, allowing them to have more fun at poker and hopefully becoming a lifetime player."
- How's that? By not reducing rake and lowering/cutting their rakeback? Yeah wp.

I think the regs fighting this should just give up. Spend all that energy you are putting in to this on getting your CV and qualifications in order and go back in to the real world. Online poker is on a one way path and has been for several years now. I'm happy I got out and 2 years later I'm earning more than I ever did from poker. If you have to play because you think you have no options, continue for a few months but get your exit strategy in place.

Even my recreational site of choice isn't Pokerstars....

Would it not be more productive, instead of organizing strikes, for regs to just flood the formats and levels that recreationals are most likely to play?

PokerStars is trying to reduce the amount, and effectiveness, of regs so as to provide recreationals with an experience that will enable their money last longer. Thus enabling PokerStars to rake them more often over a longer period of time, while providing a system where their money lasts somewhat longer, instead of winning players soaking up the amount of $ in the ecosystem and subsequently cashing out.

A strike plays right into what PokerStars wants. Instead of running another strike at the beginning of the year, I personally think it would be more productive to flood high recreational games at lower stakes. This will do exactly what PokerStars doesn't want: recreationals feeling like they're getting destroyed. Thus making them lose their money faster and creating a feeling of not wanting to deposit more.

EDIT: On top of that, it also achieves exactly what a strike does. Mid/high-stakes players not playing their formats, and thus not generating as much rake as they normally do.

Galfond tweeted about the corporate blog

^ . Well said. Agree with everything.

How many players are predicting the business will suffer as a result of the attacks on regs? And what planet do they live on?
The cutbacks have been universally described as a "money grab". It will be a pretty weird money grab if it means the company ends up with less money.