That was a general statement to indicate where the thread isn't supposed to go. If I had an issue with a specific post, it would have been deleted.

Here's the appropriate thread to discuss issues with moderation:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...hread-1285169/

That's beyond shortsighted. GG leveraging their dominant market position to squeeze even more money from HS players should concern everyone. If GG turns a profit on this increase, do you think they will stop there?

Is it possible they just wanna push the action towards midstakes?

Most of the highstakes regs won't move down to 1k, but the recs will.
I see many of the recs who play 500/1k also play 5k+. If they make those games unplayable for the pro's the recs will just play lower and more money will be raked there as a rec will last longer at 1k than at 10k.

they are so weird if they actually see it this way, if they don't like people making money why don't they run ggpoker as a non profit then

Hope you guys succeed.

From my point of view GG is successful because they have a global player pool through different skins, and the software is more fun for recs to play on.

What’s stopping a site like pokerstars who understands the games have to be beatable from copying both of these things?

15+ years micro/low stakes winning player here. Always disliked GG's widely known opinion of hating winning players and openly trying to drive them away with their silly rules and bs. Not that I think they'd give a decent sized winning micro/low stakes player a problem(I'd like to think they wouldn't) as I wouldn't be taking that much outta the poker economy yearly....but they're so scummy who knows? So just found no reason to bother staying some place winners obviously aren't wanted and take any chances when it came to withdrawing. Never a problem at Pokerstars.

Good luck on the boycott really hope it works out for you guys. I don't see them backing down though.


Cheers!!!

I agree with this, also easier the get money on GG and they have the monopoly on the Asian market while Stars is struggling with all those regulations (more focussed on Europe market where deposit limits for example make it harder for recs to play certain limits).

don't agree with this tho. The rake is so insane on GG and from my experience the guys that make a good living on a lot of these 50-200NL pools there are the autopilot guys who just put in insane amount of volume. You can check for yourself, everyone is losing pre-rb and the rakeback is pretty underwelming imo - but then leaderboard ev can be quite high on monthly basis. Not saying it's not beatable (zoompools for marginal winrate). But imo if you just want to think while playing and focus on winrate + don't want to burn yourself out to the max stars much better option

Ps. Took jackpot ev out of consideration (but not the jackpot rake), which is insane variance but also there on gg, fair enough. And adding extra gambling elements to the game will always be appealing for recreational players

Stars had the recs. They thought they could do essentially whatever they want… and look what happened.

The most bizarre comments are “sites don’t want winning players”

Sites want everyone who pay rake. There’s not infinite amount of poker players so yes they do want winning players too.

Don’t you think stars miss the sharks ? Ofc they do !

The people who pay the most rake are the pros. It’s so obv that I can’t believe I need to explain this.

This is like the time a bunch of Russians demanded a seat on PokerStars board.

Stars I think did make a calculation error thinking that the eco system could still thrive with way less winning regs.

I think GG's eco system will survive and thrive without as many winning regs because they have the huge SE Asian market to tap into and because they are smarter than Stars generally.

And there isn't an infinite amount of money the fish are able/willing to lose. Every dollar the winning players remove from the fish and take offsite is a dollar the site in the long run doesn't get. So obvious I can't believe I need to explain this.

From the point of view of the site the only benefit winning players have is they provide games for the fish. As bots have improved a site is much better off using minimally winning bots to provide the games and having as little of the fishes money as possible leave the eco-system.

Now we have ppl suggesting that breakeven bots provided by the website to substitute regs is the best solution for a site.
What the actual **** are you talking about?
Someone plz time portal me out of 2023.

You talk about long run and obvious things and then you mention site using bots? Do you know what happens to the site both in the short and the long run once this is discovered?

I stand with you boycotters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! not touching shitshow until they fix rake

In simple terms, two fish who exchange pots with each other over and over, GG (or any site), rakes and rakes over and over again.

Shark stacks fish in one hand and withdraws money to pay bills, etc. that’s a ton of lost “opportunity rake”. Most fish aren’t in a position to reload unlimitedly.

Fish quickly losing their rolls to sharks is bad for “rake management”. I can see why some sites have been perceived to be more rec-friendly and less pro-friendly.

The bots break even and the rest of the table who are recs and whales just move money around between each other and rake each other to death.

Why would you play an unbeatable game ? Its not a boycott its just common sense.

but who would believe you?

I think the naysayers and GGPoker are underestimating how quickly poker players will migrate to a new site. The biggest sites often follow around where the big games are played as well. That was basically Full Tilt's business model. All the high stakes players have the biggest reach when talking to the poker community at large. If you get known as a crappy poker site with unbeatable rake, it won't take too long before everyone leaves, imo.

The failed PS boycott was different, because they didn't cross the threshold to some sort of unbeatable territory. If there's no incentive to defect from the boycott because the rake is that unbeatable, that means the poker site really screwed up.

anyone have a link to the rake increases? im in a segregated market

What happens when the games become beatable though? 8bb rake with 3 or even 2 whales playing on a table and some regs will crumble and sit for the ev spot and then it will snowball from there, you just need to hope GG changes their tune before this happens.

According to my estimations its even worse, 7.95bb/100, depends on your 3bet lmao

This is a flat out scam.

Haha, even worse. With 0.1 PVI (bottom PVI) and highest VIP Status (60%) you get whooping 6% rb on you 8bb/100 rake.

This will make the crushers (at best) win like 1bb net and all bad regs are priced out now.

I call it: high stakes poker is dead from now on.

This and only this

Some very smart posters in this thread are missing a key fundamental point. Sites do NOT make money based on rake. Sites make money based on the "hold" of deposits. That is, how much of each deposit goes to the site vs. gets withdrawn by winning players. Rake is only the method by which sites get their share of a deposit.

From that "hold", the site then has to pay their running costs: payment providers, game integrity, security, legal, compliance, software development, marketing acquisition, marketing retention, affiliates, promotions and on and on.

Many players seem to think that by sitting at games and contributing to rake, they are making sites money. Well they do provide some value to the site in terms of liquidity (keeping a game going or having a seat available for a casual player to sit at when they want) but it's not good for the site if that value provided is less than what they as winning players remove from the ecosystem.

Remember, if that seat isn't available for the casual player, some percentage of the time they will play a different game, such as Spins or RNC or AIOF. In those cases, the site wins and will keep a much higher percentage of the deposit vs a HS cash game. It's all about an ecosystem analysis. It's exceedingly likely they will make more money NET from this move than they did yesterday.

It's really HARD for sites to get large amounts of money deposited onto them, especially in regulated markets which all the deposit limits and checks players have to go through. Of course they want to keep as much of that money for themselves as they can, just like the players who are striking want to get as much of that money as THEY can. It's a balance and right now GG seems to think it's imbalanced in favor of the players.

TL: DR; Winning HS Cash Game players aren't as valuable to a site as they think they are.