The rake increase is **** disgusting.

introducing a minimum cashout of $50,-

"rec friendly"

I'm pretty sure this was the case in 2009 when I played on old FTP, and yes, there were so many recs

Would the poker ecology be better or worse with or without HU poker? that's the real question. (the question isn't "what are we used to?")

Just figured I would bold the above because it's the important part you seem to be missing.

If that's directed at me I'm not missing his point, I just don't necessarily agree with it.

I think online poker is better off with the basic ability to play one on one, yes.

Just combat the bumhunting in any of a myriad of ways without removing it entirely.

If removing entire game types in which fish lose faster, to favor ones in which they lose slower, is a good move, what's next, have 100% full ring tables?

We're used to HU being toxic but the root cause of that could be addressed instead of removing it entirely.

We're used to seeing rooms fail most times they take drastic measures in the name of 'poker ecology' (e.g. PartyPoker). As someone posted the proof is in the pudding because FTP traffic is down.

I would imagine fixing the root cause would either be prohibitively expensive or largely impossible to implement.

The problem is the direction the online poker ecology is heading (many would say it's already gone Cecil the Lion on us) and I'm all for anything that would make it healthier. All full ring is drastic but who knows, maybe it would be a creative solution to curb the parasites and cultivate longer "fish life".

Ofc regs will leave FTP, as they should. It's on FTP to market to rec players now and rebuild the player base. We'll see if that happens..Amaya kinda sucks overall so i doubt if they'll handle that right. lol gl

They got rid of mixed games, high stakes, and heads-up. The three things that have the highest money won/lost to rake collected ratio. What do you think their goal is in all of this?

Where does your info come from?

I could agree that per hourly per table, it might be true, but bb/100 wise I don't think so. In 2015 in 6-max table at any reasonable stake it's always going to be 5 professionals and 1 recreational. Difference for the site is, in heads-up it's up to $0.50 per hand, in 6-max it's $3 per hand (at most stakes I guess?) and average pot is much bigger. Biggest losers aka crazy LAG-s will lose with much worse bb/100 in 6-max games, nit recreationals will probably lose slower. But the obvious HUGE winner will be the site when the recreational chooses 6-max table over heads-up one.

what is the average winrate now at say 100NL 6max? assume its 1.0-2.5bb/100? If so, multiply that x4.5 (4.5 regs per table-assuming these are the normal circumstances of play with a standard competition level) gets you 4.5-11.25bb/100 or a median of 7.875bb/100 BALLPARK FIGURE

Do you really think a fish playing HU vs a reg has a smaller loss rate than that? i'd say its at least double depending on how bad he is. Plus way more hands HU per hr, right? (not an expert on hands/hr)

What's the ballpark figure, it doesn't seem to include rake? Isn't a commonly accepted number that bad fish lose 50-60bb/100 at smaller stakes 6 max where all regs at the table are winners?

FTP's goal is to make as much money as possible, for as long as possible. That's a given. I think it's a bit drastic of them to completely remove whole formats and stake levels, and I can understand the regs from those games are extremely pissed off. FTP is effectively saying to some regs "Kindly **** off".
But look at the wider situation. Online poker as a whole has reportedly lost 12% of its liquidity in the last 12 months and FTP was apparently losing customers even faster than the industry average. Something had to give. If it means the weaker professional poker players have to get "proper jobs", that's bad for them, but it's what happens when industries decline rapidly. You don't have a job for life.

It's certainly possible that FTP management have overreacted and/or they've actually made things worse for themselves. Maybe they will bring back HU or high stakes at some point if it turns out this reboot is a failure. I don't know what their gameplan is. I think they just saw the success of Bovada and Unibet or noticed the steadying of 888 (which only declined about 1.8% despite the high rake and woeful disconnection issues) and thought "We're doing it wrong".

i've never heard that number 50-60bb/100. if that is true i'd say HU is still higher. I was just approximating what a fish would be up against and compare it to a what he'd be up against HU. I'm done posting here now because my (math) method is possibly wrong (lol) and i can sense bumhunters are getting annoyed at me

Well, I've decided to take my business elsewhere, since I've only grinded on stars and ftp my whole life, can any1 recommend some sites? (Game is 6max or HU cash) really need a site that's not a 6max rake trap. Also preferably no major cash out issues <3

You forgot rake, which is biggest winner.

I'm not sure about 6-max rake, but couple years back when I reviewed it I think it was about same on Stars per player in 6-max and heads-up. Lets assume it still is (you can check from PTR if you have subscription or someone with database can confirm if you don't believe me).

At $1/$2 HU my rake this year has been 5bb/100, so it's 10bb/100 per table. Absolute best bumhunters have historically won 40bb/100, pretty good I would say is around 20bb/100. So if a regular wins at 20bb/100 at $1/$2 HU, fish has to lose 30bb/100 with rake included.

In 6-max at $1/$2, if there are 5 regulars at the table, everyone wins at 2bb/100 and there is 1 fish who has to cover it all, and everyone pays 5bb/100 rake it means that 5 regs win 10bb/100 combined and rake is 30bb/100, so fish has to lose 40bb/100.

And I was generous towards you and gave HU reg pretty good winrate and 6-max regs probably lousy one. Difference is huge for Amaya though - in this HU scenario they make 10bb per 100 hands, in 6-max they make 30bb.

The thing is it's hard to acquire Bitcoin. You still have to go thru the banks.

This post really makes it clear that these changes have nothing to do with the health of the games or improving rec experience. It's all about transferring more of the money that has gone to winning players back into Amaya's pocket.


They know exactly what they're doing. They didn't make things worse for themselves, just worse for us. Even better, they've successfully dressed it up in such a way as to make many pros support it.

Hourly win-rates are probably fixed by entry into the poker pro market by residents of the country with the least attractive substitute professions.

So irrespective of rake or fish, you can't win more long term else more Bulgarian graduates enter the market and eliminate the edge. There is no significant barrier to entry now everyone has the internet and training sites.

There will probably be a short term improvement in bb/100 and reduction in bb/hour (I think that's probably good for the games) due to your seats per fish ratio (the fish pool lose slightly less per hour and all games are slightly less tough for everyone), unless the rake nets off the former.

I don't think there is any market intervention that can make poker pros earn more money every again.

Just looking at the tournament lobby now and seeing the field size is making me miss the good old days. Tilt is definitely completely withered now, sighhh

I get what you're saying and I support it. But most people prefer dealing with fiat. Maybe 2 years ago I'd be optimistic that it could happen, but now not so much.

Anyway, I am also active at Bitcointalk as well, using the same screenname.

Isnt this utterly simple ? Big reason bumhunting goes on is because serious players know their edge vs other pros doesnt exceed the rake, and its just burning cash to play each other. Amaya: drop the rake --> see more volume --> profit.

Greed as usual screwing up everything. take 5 minutes to read the goose that laid the golden egg parable again, then consider if this is what you're doing.

Your logic is somewhat flawed. A site's profits and regs' profits come from the same source which is finite. Your utterly simple model- all else being equal- would result in less profit for the site.

In reality, the site wants to find the optimum amount of rake it can charge. Too high, and not enough people will play- in which case your suggestion would be sensible. Too low, and their profits are lower than they could be.

He is saying at lower rake more games would run, which in turn would make more money for the site.

Where are the statistics showing fish lose more at heads up than 6max/full ring? They undoubtedly lose more for every $ of rake generated, but iirc it takes about the same loss rate for 1 fish to make 5 6max regs win at 1.5 bb/100 as it does to make 1 heads up reg win at 20 bb/100.