If they were going to use the 5% decrease in 2015 as a predictor of further changes, it would point to the removal of tournament entry rewards since the 5% was made up entirely of free entries. If that was the case, I would expect that drop would have been more severe to provide a more reliable result. Interesting point about the trickle effect of moving down stakes.

Taking the argument of regs being good or bad for business out of the equation, I think that it is the progressive multipliers that don't make business sense to them anymore. I say that because at the moment, people are putting in the high volume to reach target multipliers for the rakeback. After drastic changes to that system, earnings would be modest at the same volume, but doesn't this just incentivise more volume (and for them more rake). On the other side of the coin, they would lose players that go on volume 'runs' and don't make it because of drops in EV or tiredness etc.. So the rake generated by effectively losing players that fail to make it would have to be considered. It would be interesting to know what the stats are for that rake relationship.

That's irrelevant for recs. A single tabling rec playing SnG's doesn't need hundreds of games running, they just need one and there will always be s game running for them....always.

There are 400 SNE's. Do you think this minuscule number of players make any difference to Stars bottom line?

You do realize that 400 SNEs pay like 70 million in rake every year? Id say that's a large difference to Stars bottom line.

Dear god, clueless people everywhere.

You do realize that thousands of players' main goal is to reach SNE?

Stars would never be as strong without such a rewarding program.

I'm one of those who will wait until potential changes are officialy announced and then decide if I still want to pursuit my goals on Stars or not.

Amaya, you better don't screw this one up.

what Amaya should be focusing on is bring DFS to the world. I'm sure there are people in other countries that wanna play DFS with American Sports they could be the first one to do it on a global scale.

+ thousand of players rake a ton a year trying to reach sne and fail

There's more to it than a simple calculation.

What percentage of SNG SNEs do you think will get into a different game instead of just quitting?

the thing is recs dont like waiting for games, if they have to wait 5-10 minutes for an sng to start or longer they will likely unregister.

I have seen time and time again when regs quit games run less and in some cases do not run at all. To be clear I do not think that recs go you know what I want to play better players and lose my money.

They think I want to get action now, not in 10 minutes. However even if this was not the case with regs gone that is much less rake for the sites.

also as already mentioned its more then SNE, many players hope to rise to a standard where they can attain SNE numerous SNS who would just quit if the thing is tampered with to much.

seriously Sq why don't you just play blackjack? with simple formulars for drawing and betting you can reduce the house edge to just 0.75% which is much better odds then you will get against opponents in poker. instead of wasting so much energy into trying to get rid of regs for an easier and slower ride down?

I feel like SNE should be reduced to the point that you have to actually win the games to make money, not just volume grind a -bb/100 game. Although on the other hand everyone seems to win.. grinder makes $ from RB, stars make $$$ from rake and villains make $ from his **** game

Math is not your friend eh? Cause in order to achieve what you're proposing SNE rewards should be decreased to exactly $0.

I was Supernova for like two years straight.

What if you play a -4bb/100 game but get the equivalent to 2bb/100 RB?

-4bb/100 game could actually be +6bb/100 game in actuality DUCY?

poker is not a zero sum game with rake

Let's say we have two sites, site A and site B. Both sites have exactly the same player pool size/ability/games/software etc. The difference is site A charges 3% rake uncapped and site B charges 6% rake and then gives every player 50% RB.

The same player will have different pre-rb winrates on the two sites, but the same post-rb winrate. Surely that's a sufficient indicator that post-rb winrate is a better indicator of a poker player's ability?

They'll probably get rid of SNE and reduce rake across the board, right?

Players A and B play heads-up against each other. Because of the rake, both players lose at the table, but player A loses only half as much as player B. Since player B gets 60% rakeback and player A only gets 5%, player B lost less post-rb than player A did. Is post-rb winrate a better indicator than pre-rb winrate here?

Table/game selection is a component of a player's ability.

I just want to remind you that SNEs ,and any winner after RB is taking, are taking out money from poker economy. What do you think about that?
Just to add another component in the equation....

I say let the highest rewards stay put...those that want to play redic amounts of volume should have a LARGE carrot dangled in front of them. We are talking maybe less then 1000 folks out of 000,000's that will make a strong push at it..let em be.

i dont see why stars would want to eliminate or reduce a program that encourages people to rake a huge volume.

The big problem with what they are doing is that they spent so much time before advertising in the past encouraging people to go for SNE. Talk about bait and switch.

they scrap SNE and I move sites or quit. many like me will take the same attitude.