Borg as I said before I bailed this sinking ship in 2012, just play micros for fun.

I think you view online and live as the same game with the same players, but they are massively different, and to approach them with the same business model is a huge mistake for 3 reasons:

1. Software - A huge amount of players now track and can clearly see their wins/losses and expected value. Variance and heaters are a must.

2. No atmosphere - Casinos rely on atmosphere and table talk as well as heaters to retain customers. Online is about strategy and money.

3. Better players and more hands - The tougher games and faster hands means long heaters lasting weeks/months are impossible for fish. They just all lose all the time and talk about it (rigged). See my 2012 thread for fish heater graphs.

Degenerate gamblers were not part of online poker's evolutionary plan, they've naturally gone the way of the dodo. Online poker is now HUDs, its graphs, its strategy talk and reading books, its an advanced form of its live counterpart, so to say these things killed online poker is not seeing the wood for the trees. The advantage is now we have a game that has all these extra edges and information which makes online poker so interesting and yields a life time of discussion, study and entertainment.

Now considering the new strategic and social customer base of online poker which has the potential to grow massive interest and retain life-long customers, what do you suppose happens if the games are PROVEN unbeatable, fish NEVER go on heaters and 90% of players have graphs showing them how much they are ALWAYS losing after a lot of effort in their game?

Staying silent while a company buys and destroys a game we built, we're enjoying and put a lot of work into, just doesn't seem like a good option. We need to protest these changes and make our voices heard. With some convincing arguments and unity we might see a migration away from high-raking sites over the next few years.

honest question for you borg, no trolling, no baiting...

ill preface by saying, i realized that surely there must be something about how your stance is informed and motivated that i must not be seeing and taking into account because icompletely dont get how an inteligent person spends their time defending an entity that in diferent borders (us and chosen game selection), would have just done something to hurt them (or customers like them)


so why are you both so sure, and so passionate that amaya needs to be defended and anyone critical of amaya needs to be attacked?


im a big picture kind of guy and i see this situation pretty well, why cant i see whats making you tick/type?

But let's be realistic nobody here is doing any damage no matter what they do.

Unless 2+2 can convince 10 or 20 thousand regs to quit Pokerstars for good the impact is nothing more than a needle in a haystack.

A one day protest is all anybody is prepared to commit to because any longer and they'll suffer withdrawal symptoms.

on the contrary, the silver lining in all of this is that stars likely overstepped their bounds in regards to some communitys (and if they havent yet, they likely will in the near future) and other networks will pick up some of the slack generated

not saying its going to work out smoothly for people who mass table fullring but if an entire community/game is rendered unbeatable on stars, id assume someone on another network would modify their offerings and that community moves to the other network


in the games hardest hit, that arent 100% reliant on stars (hu cash id assume, wheras hyper sats are pretty dependant on COOPs so theyre at stars mercy) shouldnt there be a significant diversion of traffic on Jan1?

Could you please rephrase your question? You were leading up to something interesting, but it somehow came out garbled, and it doesn't make any sense.

Probably going against the grain here, but I think if these rake adjustments have the effect of thinning out the ranks of bumhunting rakeback nits thereby allowing the rec players money to remain in the poker ecosystem for a longer period of time, it will be better for the overall health of the game.

PokerStars probably realizes that rec players losing their money more slowly, which means more rake being paid as more hands are played, is better for Stars bottom line, rather than bumhunting rakeback nits taking rec players rolls more quickly and withdrawing the cash.

If the net effect of all this is to have PokerStars be a more rec-friendly site with rec players lasting longer in the ecosystem at the expense of lowered profits for the bumhunting rakeback nits, then I'm ok with that.

I guess we'll see. I just think in the end, despite all the ranting and raving, the majority of regs will stay with Stars because it's the best.

Increasing rake will definitely INCREASE bum-hunting as reg-waring becomes obviously futile for both partys.

The recs money will also last LESS time in the ecosystem for 2 reasons. Firstly the site is charging more per hand aswell as regs winning their money, and secondly you will find the breakeven regs turned losing regs will now leave the game leaving a polarised field of sharks and weak players, therefore the weak players get obliterated. This already happened at high stakes. Guess what happens when the fish get obliterated....

If Pokerstars plan was to 'Robin hood' the site and give the top tier rakeback to losing players in the form of bonuses, then happy days...but they won't, they will just pocket the cash as quick as possible dooming poker while lining their own pockets. In their defense its the best way to make money for their business, but it will kill online poker very quickly.

What if like 2500 people would get together and not play the next Sunday Million? They would have to pay 500k$ of their own money. Forget about the value, just punish them!!!

I can sort of loosely see the logic of your post up until the last part. If they wanted a rec friendly site they would be giving the extra rake to recreationals through promotions. The reality is the extra rake is taken for themselves and has no positive change for any players.

As an example:

The last change I saw for rec players was a "VIP 5fpp satellite" to the weekly 50fpp sat. This in theory doesn't sound like a bad idea until you do the numbers. Prior to this new "VIP super sat" which runs 4 times a day, the weekly 2k guarantee 50fpp sat had less than 2k players... now it has 2400 or so. So in exchange for this 2k given out Pokerstars now collects 2400X50fpp + it collects 5fpp from every runner in the 28 supersats.

Combined this (in fpp) is 2400X50 + 28X5X400 (avg runners). Based on those numbers Pokerstars collects 176kfpp while giving out 2k when before they were only collecting 85k fpp (1700 players) while giving out 2k.

Please remind me how rake changes are helping rec players?

Would just like to post and apologize for my fuzzy maths as I was counting the target tourney fpp buy ins twice. This offering is not as bad as good as it was but it's still in line with fair value. My bad.

You really think a bunch of greedy poker players will see 500K in overlay and not late reg?

the misinformation that a player has a 1/100,000 "chance of winning"

while only one of the 3 players wins the 3,000x multiplier, so thats worded deceptively

On the UK site, I think the info is pretty good. Not only does it say "...when your Spin & Go hits one of the three highest prize tiers... the second and third-place finishers will also receive 10% of the first-place prize", the page also says exactly how much of the pool goes to rake. Other companies wouldn't be this transparent.

[IMG][/IMG]

is the probability of winning the first place prize in a 25x multiplier any given game 100/100.000?

thats what it says right?

how else would someone read it?

if so there are 300 spun per 100,000 games changing the payouts in players favor and maybe we should all be playing these as stars has miscalculated their 5% rake

Oh I see what you mean... I think.

The "probability of winning" column should probably say something like "frequency of this prize".

online and live are absolutely different games but if the rec players don't have fun they stop playing in both forms of poker.

it's complexly disingenuous to say something like"Degenerate gamblers were not part of online poker's evolutionary plan, they've naturally gone the way of the dodo. " you want to ignore all of the things poker players have done to destroy the games but then get on your high horse about what scumbags the poker sites are. if huds seat scripting etc were all part of online poker's evolutionary plan as you say then why can't part of that evolutionary plan include a business trying to maximize it's revenue even if that means hurting some poker players?

it's hilarious how so many threads focus on rake (even before these changes) acting as though that's the only thing that matters. i've said it before and i'll say it again- effective rake was lowered and win rates still plummeted.you want your seat scripting huds games with drastically distorted shark to fish ratio games and then say "the damb rake is the reason winrates suck" it's a load of **** pure and simple.

pokerstars isn't selling medicine or food to third world countries. they're offering a ****ing game on the internet.if players want to be greedy and short sighted then don't claim the sites are pigs if and when they do the same.

if you actually think that what online poker has become is remotely sustainable you're insane.you need fish money coming in to keep the games going. as you said if fish don't go on heaters they lose and stop playing. this is already happening. fish go online, play a game with all regs and them and have no shot of winning, and the games are super tight so they don't even have fun.

the fact you actually think most fish play poker purely because it's a beatable game shows how out of touch you are with how they think. just because that's why you or a few friends got into poker does not mean that's how most people think.casinos are filled with people swearing they can beat unbeatable games as well as people who know they can't win but want to have fun.

life long customers are great but there are a lot more things wrong with online poker than just the increased rake.i remember 2-3 years ago i was teaching my ex gf to play poker and put her in the 10 dollar room. i couldnt believe how rediculously tight those games were, people timing out , taking forever to fold bc they're on too many tables.a full stack is 10 ****ing dollars and these people are playing like it's all the money in the world. and this was a few years ago so im sure it's even worse now. why the hell would any new player find this fun?

just a few years prior when i was starting out these games were filled with action, funny table banter etc. it was fun even if you lost.you are correct in saying online poker has evolved over the years- it's evolved into a boring game that has serious trouble attracting new players. even without the increased rake this is a huge problem that people like you want to ignore because god forbid the players ever blamed themselves or thought about where the money the win really comes from.

"Online poker is now HUDs, its graphs, its strategy talk and reading books, its an advanced form of its live counterpart, so to say these things killed online poker is not seeing the wood for the trees. The advantage is now we have a game that has all these extra edges and information which makes online poker so interesting and yields a life time of discussion, study and entertainment."

That's just it. ONLINE POKER IS NOT INTERESTING anymore to the players you want to be interested in it.You might find how to push razor thin edges fascinating but most people don't.online poker needs to be interesting to the masses for it to have a healthy future- being interesting to poker nerds and grinders doesnt mean anything.poker could be boring as **** to them and they're mostly still going to play if they're making money. the key is to make it interesting to casual and new players and regulars have done a deplorable job of that.

It's not that I'm glad amaya is making the changes they are making as a poker player.I actually never liked what pokerstars did to online poker. I think the hole catering to mass multitablers (including for years using the deal rakeback method) was absolutely terrible for the health of online poker.

There are several reasons I'll defend what amaya is doing (which is different than agreeing with it) To start with im watching the same people who have been nothing but short sighted and greedy who have sent online poker into the toilet complaining about how greedy and short sighted stars is being. It's pure hypocrisy.

I've never said people don't have the right to be upset or take their business elsewhere. Not with this and not with other changes to stars (switching to contrinuted method, spin and gos etc.) However the prevailing attitude has always been "how can stars do this- this is outrageous, they're ****ing me over. greedy pigs." when all of that means absolutely nothing to them and means nothing in the real world. the only thing that does and should matter to them is making as much money as possible in the long run.

I don't have to like or agree with something a business does but that doesn't mean they shouldnt do it.

I'll give you a perfect example. I play in Vegas a lot. If you don't know a lot of hotels now charge resort fees out there of about 20-25 dollars a day.
They are generally mandatory and include nothing of use to me. Such as internet access and phone access (it's 2014 who the hell needs this from a hotel) and sometimes a free newspaper (but as I'm not 93 years old bfd)

Cesars had waived the fee if you have a platinum card which i do but as of a day or 2 ago they are no longer waiving it.I've easily spent 200 nights in their hotels the last 3-4 years.Hell up until a few years ago they were actually advertising their hotels as "no resort fees" because their competition, MGM was charging them.

I think the fee is an absolute ripoff, total bull**** and I hope it ends up costing them tons of money. now with that said if the fee ends up making them money in the long run, even though I hate it and it is going to cost me money (and i intend on taking my business elsewhere whenever possible) then they absolutely should charge it.

The vast majority of people on here have the attitude that even if stars is going to make more money doing something they shouldnt do it. I can understand not liking or wanting something that hurts your bottom line but that is an absurd viewpoint.

Another reason I have defended amaya as you put it is because I think the ways people have tried to fight it have no chance of working and are in some cases idiotic (which i really don't think is defending amaya) For example a one day strike is a joke. All that shows them is you aren't commited to a real strike. When workers go on strike they don't sit out on Monday and tell their boss I'm working Tuesday.

Even worse was the idea of "educating" people in the chat.Almost nobody read the chat, those who do don't give a **** as it is (if anything you might get them thinkiing about how much money they lose at poker)
To top it off people were actually surprised and mad stars then banned them or banned them from being able to chat. A 3rd grader could have told you that would happen.


If i went to a cesars hotel and walked around telling people waiting to check in what a scam resort fees are and tried to prevent them from checking in of course i would be kicked out and banned.

Finally a lot of poker players are spoiled and self entitled. Nobody owes you anything in life. No business in the world owes me a game I can make money at.Yet you have people saying "stars can't do this" or "they have no right to turn themselves into a casino" etc. These people are very easy to root against.their attitude sickens me.

Going back to switching from the dealt method to contributed- that was perfectly fair. the fairest thing to do would be to charge time instead of rake. it's absurd fish games are built around pay more to play at the same table as a bunch of nits.for years these people got rakeback on rake they never payed. they should have been happy for those years of free loading. but instead they whine like self entitled brats when it ends. that **** was bad for the games and when i saw the spoiled entitled attitude people had about it I was glad they were losing money.

Way too many poker players are self entitled and if we had less of that poker would be a lot healthier and enjoyable for everyone.

Don't tell a site they can't do something or tell them it's costing you more money. they don't give a ****.
Tell them a move they are making hurts their bottom line as well. Then you might actually get somewhere.


fwiw- i think contributed method, spin and gos and adding a casino/sportsbook will all be good smart business decisions for stars in the long run. so will cutting back on some of the rewards program.
i think the recent rake increases are too high and going to hurt them in the long run but they have every right to charge them.

it's not just purely a fish will lose x dollars and then not play anymore.
if instead of a fish playing against 5 nitty break even players living off of rakeback they played against 3 good regs and 2 fish they may lose more money, but they would have a lot more fun and go on heaters more often.everything doesn't happen in a vaccum. many of them will now be willing to lose more than x dollars because of the more enjoyable experience and being delusional because of more frequent hot streaks.

This is going too far now. If you don't like what amaya is doing with stars, then don't play there. The opinions have been put out and they have decided to do it their way. People talking about going on social medial to talk fish out of playing at stars is just shooting themselves in the foot. What do you think will happen if you are successful in hitting amaya where it hurts? Fish won't play there so won't deposit and they shut down. Do you really think all these new players will play in some magical pool for you to feed on? They will just try something else instead of poker. Making the poker world more reg infested and margins even slimmer. If you want your margins to become slimmer then go ahead. If you want more fish then as a community we should entice them to play, rather than scare them off. Anyway, rant over.

You are right. But right now players feel to be the only ones hurt. By dishing a bit back might slow down even further negative changes.

How much more should players get stung before you too would agree that some form of protest is in order? Why should players endure cutbacks to service Amaya's debts and shareholders pockets?

i agree it would be futile to launch a campaign without knowing your goals

with no way of hurting stars without hurting yourself it would be a bad idea to make a bad situation worse (assuming stars hasnt already rendered your game unbeatable, in which case scorched earth makes sense, and might be the only way to get change)

but lets say for instance that some other 2-5 networks with some brand recognition says, ok, we will do x, x, and x to get our site functioning better, drastically reduce microstakes rake, but we will cap tables (or some sort of countermeasure to offset the negative effects of regs migrating to their sit/poker economy)


suddenly, education both punishes stars, and diverts traffic to an arena where existing players can find some volume, recs dont have to overcome absurd rake to avoid losing, the network grows their base and builds their brand (and their tournament guarantees) these are all good things


but they require someone to step up and play ball

Wow, I wrote that rant quickly this morning and did not expect it to get more than one quick sarcastic reply. I like a good thought out discussion. The main problem I am seeing is that a lot of players here think they are owed something (which in a way they are as they helped build the brand). However they are not part of the company and just feed off of it. They also did not help amaya in any way as amaya bought a product. If anything it is the origional owners who owe the players for helping them grow the site into something they can sell for a ridiculous amount of money. The rake is still better than most international sites and so is the rakeback, so in comparison they are actually not being greedy. Personally I have switched sites to somewhere I can play microstakes cash HU (something ps doesn't do), pay a decent rake and rakeback is paid monthly. This all on top of a soft field. If they care about repeat business from me then they will offer me something better to come back , if not I will stay where I am in a smaller but safer environment. I got more to say (believe it or not) but gtg.

QFT/end of thread. Hey pots have you met my friend kettle? Poker players are arguably the most greedy people on the earth.

Everyone has this notion that Pokerstars owes them something. They don't owe you ****.

Cashing out my roll but a maybe 1k or so, never playing another cash game at Pokerstars, never playing a rebuy with that **** rake, never keeping more than 2k on that **** site. Other sites are way softer for cash anyways and have some pretty good and lower variance mtts. I'm not even mad, I have zero attachment towards Pokerstars and esp Amaya. They can do whatever they want and so can I.