You have a bit to learn about love

Well rio tried to be that "some site" and atm failed with the plan to start only with cash and there are no other "some sites" coming along. And I still believe that a rec playing some cash on the day off or few mtts couldn't care less about the rake. He wants the best playing experience ja and biggest selection of games and obv the biggest possible one time. Like if I go to a movie few times a year I will allways choose the theather with better seats, bigger screen and better audio over theather with cheaper tickets and bit worse everything else.

Agree with this. For cash hard to find a single reason to play there if you know the rules of the game. For mtts they really have the momentum now and it will be interesting to see how it developes in the fall.

No U!
There is nothing you can change about a real love you have.
You can only try to do your best for it. It's not an active choice, if it's real love. Not going on a rant now, but when you are ****ed, you are ****ed.
Simple as that. Gotta make the best of it.


What are you talking about? PS, right?
Next autumn (2021) will be more interesting, imo (new german laws, which allows PS to make the next meaningfull mistake to benefit others)

RIO has random rake-back beneficial for low-volume recs (splash the pot), as well as VIP-rakeback for regs with volume. They just cannot afford licenses in tricky countries/states yet, hence no big MTT's.

But RIO could join Vaikkus and win2day, only for the MTT-pools (EU laws are actually made for making this happen; free markets etc).
All you need to force PS to stop milking their former cash-cow on it's way to becoming bad hash is a collaboration of sites offering bigger MTT's than they do, with less than 12% rake at most busy stakes...
Cash-Games could still be seperated by site/country (free market in the EU = free choice, and anything less than that would break the EU-laws).
To attract most players, I think you simply need to offer the biggest MTT's online, somehow.

I must sober up, and NOW stop posting in NVG until then (Avoided that for a few months successfully already).

So you’re drunk ...that’s why you don’t makes any sense? I thought it was second language problems :/

Yeah ps vs gg my bad. And about rio I think they launched with something like 500 players (?) so they had the liquity to run small mtts and sngs / spins.Who knows if they did maybe the traffic would be 2k players instead of peak 200.

I bet your pardon for my english

Pro sports head coach and business executive. The only two highly paid professions where nobody has any idea what they’re doing.

You don't agree but you're wrong. Again, Stars is a multi billion dollar company with a huge amount of resources. They have hundred of data analysts whose full time jobs are to crunch numbers to help make educated business decisions. They're not just throwing darts at a board when they make fundamental shifts in strategy, such as overhauling the VIP program to reward net depositors and losing players, while pushing winning players aside.

Everything you're saying is just based on your own personal observations and opinions i.e. nothing tangible.

If the biggest winners leave the site, and the moderate winners become the big winners, guess what, they're still not as good as the winners who left, so the losing players will lose their money at a slower rate. That's *exactly* what Stars wants!

Majority of casual players don't frequent blogs and forums. They play poker online, and probably watch poker on YouTube and TV. That's it. Over the years there have been literally dozens of negative articles, blog posts, forum posts etc about Stars, and guess what, they're still the biggest poker site in the world.


What are your business credentials? Why do you think you understand how to operate a profitable poker site better than high priced executives with obviously more business experience and infinite more resources than you?

So now you're also an expert in gaming compliance, opening new markets and political lobbying? Got it.

And there you have it. In one single sentence you just blew up every single one of your aguments. You admit that you'll "probably still play on Stars", so why should they make a single change to what they're doing?

I'll ask you the same questions as the other poster - what are your business credentials? Why do you think you understand how to operate a profitable poker site better than high priced executives with obviously more business experience and infinite more resources than you?

What is better?

If you look at the stock exchange price from PokerStars, you surely see some very profitable swings, with, let's say, quite big variance, for reasons I just don't understand, or only even try to, yet.

Is it better to pump out a few dozen great quartely reports while legislation "could" hurt your business very soon (milk it hard then), or would it maybe be a better bet to keep offering a product like the old PS did, which could easily compete vs sites that have 3% cash-rake, or 5% rake on rebuy-MTT's, who will soon expand further in the EU?

What's worse?

Do you want one million $ now, or ~$13k every month until you die? (mean even money, for this example)

Reductio ad absurdum (misused here?), but these are the two ways, and I simply bet that the long-run would earn "old" PS way more than their current approach, which I thought was obvious already.

I think I'm right, but nevertheless they are right, too. It's just two different goals, where I think that it's not a flip for next +10 years, but that old PS would be the clear favourite to outperform new PS in any possible "run-out" on this planet over the next +10 years, starting right now (mostly mean legislations per each country, and given changes of traffic/pools, and ofc the rake and competetion. And I actually mean all online-gambling combined! Only for Poker, it should be pretty obvious for anyone by now, imo).


I'm fairly sure. But I'm definitely still open to change my opinion, when I get more information that "forces me to", at some point in time.

Just have to add that their game integrity/security is surely still best in business, and for 2$ or 100$+ stakes, I personally think that PS is most likely the best legal site that exists atm.

18.2k EUR player transfer between me and Fiilismies has been lost for over a month now. Finally after over a month of waiting I received totally unhelpful answer basically thanking me for contacting them. Now I'll probably have to wait over month again for next answer. Hopefully the answer will actually be useful or the transfer finally goes through. I certainly don't feel as secure about Stars as I used to.

I always like to read ideas from people who have put some work into it, even if somewhat misguided.

Re: 1 - you are suggesting giving money to a few thousand of the winningest players on PS. Setting the ethics and morality aside for one moment, that money would effectively vanish so would 100% be a cost to the business. There would of course be some brand / image upside though. 6/10

Re: 2 - the games would become more predatory, and the vast majority of losing players are not rake sensitive (and their balances generally last longer in a high, rather than a low, rake environment). There would be some brand / image upside, but if the losing players leave, then everybody is f*cked long term. However pricing is still something that can be approved, so I'll give you 4/10.

Re: 3 - a lot of players get a lot from that system. All of those rewards go to losing players and end up on the tables and help keep them around. It *might* be better for the games, but I think we can be confident that they've done the math on this. Your motivation seems to be "bad for regs". 3/10

Re: 4 - I tend to give companies in the teeth of a vicious M&A-fest a little break when it comes to CS, as right-sizing a team like that is not easy. However more CS people is never bad but has to be paid for. 7/10

Re: 5 - I don't think disincentivizing cashouts is good for the average player... it can lead to problematic outcomes. Also a lot of the balances held on sites are held by winners, so you'd just be paying regs to keep as much money on site as possible. There may be a little upside from this in the short term, but not in the long term. BTW this has been done before; there was a site who paid 9% interest on balances! 3/10

Is that anything like a president running the country like it's his business?

Must be tilting to have a billionaire live rent free in your head.

In many aspects...Countries need to be run like businesses, and the more you marginalise and control the drones the stronger the business and perhaps even the better the countries living standards for future generations

Not saying it’s right from a moral standpoint. That’s another discussion/derail. But China is smashing it for this reason. No one runs their country like a business better than they do