Did you fall asleep when we were making fun of the big game?

I dunno, people are making their livings at 100NL. I can see this being true for microstakes, but I think the 'integrity' concerns are legitimate at SSNL, inasmuch as they're legitimate at all...

They added tournament results inline with the hand histories. I don't think there were any (big) changes related to cash games.

this one

Earth to blackhole star. Are you there? Are you doing anything to improve full stack cash games at your site? General timeframes would be nice. Even saying "no we're happy with full stack poker and staying as is" would be better than nothing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1RTSjttbk8

Well Steve seems to be quite interested in delving into the details of how Cap games would best work in the HSNL thread on this subject.

Just an FYI - The survey was supposed to be completed by 5/26. How long do you think it will take before they can analyze the data?

Hhhhhhhmmmm, how long does it take to ignore a survey and do whatever you want. It took them many months with the 20-50 games.

Finally! I've been bemused by all the fullstackers complaining and all the shortstackers crowing as if they've won something.

As far as I can see, from micro through mid stakes there are always similar numbers of 20-50bb and 40-100bb tables running, and table selection isn't at all bad at 40-100bb.

If there has to be a shortstack game, I'd rather it was cap, but so far I don't think things are working out nearly as one-sidedly as this thread would have you believe!

Let me take a wild guess, you play microstakes? BUT, you have looked at the small-stakes and mid-stakes lobby a few times, which for some reason makes you feel qualified to speak about those games. Close?

The complaints don't look limited to small stakes+.

I certainly can't speak for game selection at all limits. Are you suggesting that every single time I've looked just happens to coincide with a rare time the number of tables is reasonably balanced?

Of course you can't speak for game selection at all limits, and that was my point. Since you play micro stakes, you should only be commenting on micro stakes.

Your experience with small/mid stakes is comprised of looking at the lobby now and again and counting tables. Game selection is a lot more than looking at the lobby and counting tables...how about leaving it to players that actually play those limits to comment on their games?

Yeah, anytime someone says something about the table selection being fine for 100bb max @ Stars @ small to mid-stakes, I always think they either don't play the games or they only played 50bb min before the change. It's painfully obvious that the game selection @ small to mid-stakes took a GIANT leap backwards in terms of table selection @ 100bb max now compared to 20bb to 100bb before - so much so that many of us are sacrificing better rakeback, customer support, and client software to play @ Tilt because the better games there outweigh all those three.

I intended to, but worded it poorly. (Note it was a response to a post by a 100NL player.)

Only the comments about table counts were meant over multiple stakes. If 100bb games got tougher at your stakes, then similarity of table counts and lack of complaints from the shortstackers does seem to make their interpretation pretty valid.

haha if all you guys are bailing for FTP, it looks like you are doing wonders!

This is the sickest downswing EVER!

http://www.pokerscout.com/SiteDetail...t&ab=130740144

and dont even say RUSH POKER - IT is tracked on poker scout.

FTP isnt stealing business. Stars has stayed the same since the changes. They had a jump because of promos and eased right back into the TOP OF TOP spots. Right where they were 6 months ago. Before the changes, before the depo bonuses, and wcoop. They are doing fine, with or without you apparently, quit trying to strong arm people, with your empty threats. You aren't leaving cause stars is the best END OF STORY

http://www.pokerscout.com/SiteDetail...s&ab=130740135

i might not be as intelligent as ur av short stacker but it looks like stars has lost around 10k players since the change.Thought u guys were gd at reading charts?

um no the chart is 6 months. Break the chart into 6, and the take the last little two pieces of the chart, and that is the time frame.

That would be right about the bottom of the dip.

But really more importantly it would be FTPs decline since the changes that is more epic imo. everyone sure ran for the hills huh?

You guys either A) never left B) didn't matter C) Both. I will go with C

Considering that according to pokerscout's graphs

a) Stars' peak is consistently 2.5x higher than FTP's peak and
b) Star's low is equal to FTP's peak
c) a and b are status quo

I don't really see the argument of people leaving en masse holding any water.

Mr. D, I only read this thread for your epic posts. Question how can you be such a Stars loyalist yet play the WSOP M.E in a Full Tilt outfit? Comon bro Stars has been good to you, do the right thing.

haha i would never do that. But that 10mil for the win was tempting, I was mainly just relaying the info from my friends and myself that we were unhappy and considering FTP. I never actually considered it, just weighed which was better and believe i like 10mil for first more, personally. long shot, but a lot of money, and who isn't playing to win?

But no, I am just not taking the package, I will spend 500-1k trying to satty in. If I don't I just wont play.

But yeah stars has been good to me, they are the best site for sure. I just have not liked their promos lately (still steaming about the 100k to the brits)

Rush poker may be counted, but you get 3-4x the number of hands per table at Rush. Considering how many tables on FTP are Rush, that's a considerable amount of data not accounted for. FTP has to be dealing more hands in total, and making more $ since the changes when Rush is accounted for.

Pokerstars, however, is down ~10k in the last 3-4 months. This happens to coincide with FTP's changes, whether that was the reason or not. I don't even think it's close, FTP seems to be doing much better than Pokerstars since both sites changes, even with Stars recent promo.

The reason Stars figures 'had' been staying solid was because of their bonus. They are now steadily declining again. You'll see a similar phenomenon at the end of this month when Full Tilt will get a substantial boost from their mid year bonus.

And though they track rush, it is incredibly inaccurate and rush is also hugely popular making up 25-30% of all ring games. I get about 1100 hands an hour 4 tabling rush - how many tables would I need to play to get a comparable number of hands/hour at Stars? Unless things have changed, it'd be somewhere around 13 or 14. If you look at the number of cash hands being played, I would not be surprised if Full Tilt has already overtaken Stars. They definitely will next month, although again that would be for artificial reasons.

I said it before, but every time someone brings it up, I'll politely bring it up again, but Full Tilt's numbers have nothing to do with Stars numbers. You can't say with any certainty that if Stars games start suffering that Full Tilt will start doing well. Two separate companies can both do well, both do poorly, or one do well and one not, and vice versa. There are too many variables at play to make any direct correlations.

The bottom line is that I am playing @ Full Tilt now FOR SURE. I didn't make any idle threats beforehand and was very level headed and even optimistic. I WANTED to stay @ Stars and I would still like to come back. I followed Stars' advice and gave these changes a chance before I passed judgment. I played the 100bb tables first. I tried the 50bb tables next. My third move was to play @ Tilt and I've been playing there ever since and the games by comparison are GREAT and haven't yet thought that moving to Tilt was a mistake. In theory at some point, I'll pop back onto Stars for a bit just to get 7500 VIP points, but that will be a small portion of the once Double Nova pace I was after.

Lastly, REVENUE is not counted in any of those graphs, only TRAFFIC. You can have 10 players on a site that make you more money than a 1000 players if the 10 players are playing $50/$100 blinds and the 1000 players are playing $0.01/$0.02 blinds. This type of comparison is much more appropriate as it is the small to mid-stakes games in particular that seem to be heavily affected. Every one player who defects at these stakes is much more pronounced than the one player @ micro stakes who DOESN'T. I personally believe that Stars has lost a lot of money from players either leaving or dropping stakes PLUS players who stayed and put in the same volume @ 50bb instead of 100bb which would generate more rake.

Like I said, I LOVE Stars and constantly sang their praises when it came to great games, structures, customer support, and software interface. I would help recreational players in my area get started up and playing there making money transfers for them. But, these changes quickly took their game structures from first to worst and given a choice, I'll probably steer them toward Tilt now. I can ignore and deal with a lot, but poor games, when other good games are available elsewhere, is one area many of us can't ignore. But, if Stars fixes this, I will definitely give them another shot, come back, and hope that no irreversible damage has done long-term.

Nothing to do with it? I'll give you two scenarios:

a) Stars's numbers stay exactly the same, and FT's rise 30%.
b) Stars's numbers stay exactly the same, and FT's drop 30%.

Do you honestly believe that the success of Stars's changes should be considered exactly the same in both cases? Now, of course there are many other factors. But speaking about this broadly, how Stars does in comparison to its competitors is in fact MORE relevant, in assaying the success of the changes, then how it does in a bubble. DUCY?

Also, there have been a few posts from 100bb grinders in the SuperNova Elite thread over the last day or two pointing out that you get more vpp's/hr at the 50bb tables. Just, like, as a fact. You keep saying Stars makes more at the 100bb tables. I think that is incorrect (although it seems to me like it would be true at microstakes).

Unless you know all the variables and even if you did, it is very difficult to draw correlations. Posting PokerScout graphs no matter what they say will not definitively prove anything either way, but ESPECIALLy looking @ Tilt's graph. That's why I think the only worthwhile place to look is at Stars and even traffic numbers, as I said, don't prove anything because you can generate the same or more traffic and possibly bring in less revenue.

For your two scenarios, it is possible Stars numbers could stay the same because they ran a promotion to make up for the players they lost or they lost 100 players in the 100NL to 600NL range but gained 100 players in the 2NL to 50NL range. Then, Tilt could have gained players because they offered 30% of players who didn't have rakeback a chance to get it or they lost 30% because they stopped accepting eChecks from a payment processor or closed an affiliate program or a million other reasons. The point is no one knows exactly what specific variables move traffic or revenue in any direction nor do we know with what degree it moves them. The sites have more access to those variables and they make their best guesses and try to position themselves to reach whatever goals they set for themselves.

All the opinions I've stated have been very specific in nature based on MY specific observations. They are that Stars is losing money in the 100NL FR to 200NL FR games NOW relative to BEFORE. Another way to say it: X = Summation of profit from 100NL FR to 200NL FR under current system from day 1 and Y = Summation of FR profit from 100NL FR to 200NL FR they WOULD have received under the old system. I think Y would be greater than X and the longer the new system goes on unabated, the more I think that gap will grow in absolute dollars. Now, F is Full Tilt's same profit during that time. Just because Y>X doesn't mean F>Y or F>X or any other correlation ratholers would like to make. And even if I am wrong about the dollar equation, there is still the quality of game and future of the game proponent that I think will hurt Stars in the future with these new changes.

For my limited case study of ONE person, I know they have LOST ~$1000 of rake from me since I left and I know that Tilt has gained ~$1000 of rake from me creating a ~$2k swing. This does not factor in other indirect benefits Stars loses from me because I am a player that starts games and keeps good games going. When my games get bad, I start new ones. I DO NOT believe you get more VIP's in 20bb to 50bb games compared to the same 20bb to 100bb games. This is based on MY actual results combined with common sense. Your results and path to common sense may vary