this all reminds me of the times when dnegs and josem were selling to the players the idea that higher rake is better for the games and more profitable for the players of 2p2. There were a lot of angry players back then. I distinctly remember ansky's furred eyebrow interview with CJ:



But then something strange happened. Ansky and a few other influential leaders in the community got flown out to pokerstars headquarters. The were allowed to see something but only under NDA and when they came back they explained they legally weren't allowed to explain what they saw (I have this all documented).

Josem, are you allowed to explain to us what they were shown and the significance of it? I feel like it's relevant to Mason's point and I'm worried he won't admit it for fear of the bad guys catching on.

More importantly will this independent group be signing NDAs (or do I not understand the arrangement)? (important leadership/influence was lost to that pokerstars wine and dine)

That's sure not something I recall, and I hope you have something to back that up with.

Always

1) I certainly don't remember in 2022 what they were shown 6 or 8 or however many years ago.

2) I don't think I even knew at the time what they were shown.

3) I don't think I've ever thought that higher rake is better for the games, except insofar as such rake is used to attract more players. For example, a game with zero rake is unlikely to be able to market itself (and thus attract any players) and this is why the no rake and trivial rake poker operators have failed repeatedly. I think there's probably a function like a Laffer-curve that applies here. What DN said many years ago (and what I think you're referring to) is different to what I thought many years ago.

Any ideas or guesses, seems like you had a very good vantage point and a lot of relevant experience. Or just no clue?

Any clues?

Its unclear here whether or not you agree DN was part of a campaign that sold to the players that higher rake makes the games more profitable for them. I think by now the vast majority of the players see through the marketing ploy. And so furthermore its unclear whether or not you agree with the campaign or our interpretation of it. I happen to have some insight and knowledge on the subject of economics and I actually used the laffer-curve concept to show the exact opposite of what it seems you are alluding to supporting.

I have no idea, I left the company more than half a decade ago, and forum discussions from that time do not occupy a large part of my mind.
I neither care about what Daniel Negreanu said eight years ago, or your interpretation of it. I don't agree with his comments that more rake is better, I didn't agree at the time (except as described above) and I don't agree now. Although I've met Daniel on a handful of occasions, we are different people, and I have no association with him.
Obviously, the impact on revenue (for taxation and rake) is dependent upon where you are located in the Laffer-curve, and the shape of it. It is obvious and uncontroversial that at some stages you can increase the tax rate (or rake rate) to increase revenue, and at some stages you can decrease the tax rate (or rake rate) to increase revenue.

Thus, of course there are some situations where you could use "the laffer-curve (sic) concept to show the exact opposite of what it seems [I] am alluding to supporting".

well it wasn't a forum post I cited iirc u were tasked as the communications rep to sell to the players, what dnegs was promoting. I guess u didn't agree with the letter u signed?

This is what was published on behalf of PokerStars at the time: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...anges-1485671/

Nowhere does it say that more rake is better. I can only refer you to my posts above which explain further.

I'm still confused.

1)Everyone knows that daniel negs sold the players a lie that higher rake makes the games more profitable because it makes the more skilled players leave. This was poker stars marketing policy he was explaining to the players as the main ambassador for the site.

2)You were the communications rep for pokerstars iirc.

3) You sold the players the SAME POLICY, at the same time.


4)You told me publically (ie referenceable as a post/dm etc) that you were just doing your job and that you didn't agree with it.


I'm not sure if you are denying one of these numbered points but 4 doesn't agree with denying any of 1 to 3.

Is one or more of these numbered points untrue? did I frame them unfairly?

Maybe asking Josem is a conflict of interest. i posted what I was referencing. Did I back up my claim that josem sold the same policy dnegs did to the players?

Step aside Woodward and Bernstein, this is Pulitzer Prize work

This is true.
I don't know how else to write this, but I don't think that high rake is generally better. I didn't think or say that at the time, and I haven't said or thought that recently.
I most certainly have not done this. This quote #4 here is just a pure lie, it is fabricated, it is false, and you should withdraw this. I have not said this at all.
I disagree with #3, but that is a matter of subjectivity. I can understand how it could be true if interpreted in some ways.

But #4 is completely untrue, I have not said that in any way, shape or form.

I don't know precisely what policy dnegs sold, only what you believe he did (although I am familiar with the common "more rake is better" message that is often attributed to him). This is the claim I asked if you had some backup for:

So did you back up the claim that josem was selling to the players the idea that higher rake is better for the games and more profitable for the players of 2p2? I'd say that's a pretty big stretch from what you posted. In fact, early in the passage you quoted, he mentioned that lowering rake in the past was done to increase player's ROI. The obvious corollary is that increasing rake would decrease their ROI. Seems rather the opposite of your claim. Of course the remainder of the passage talks about improvements they are making to the games which should help them become softer, and that one of the ways they funded that was by increasing the rake. Justification of a rake increase as part of a program to improve the games? Sure. But turning that into "higher rake is better for the games and more profitable for players" seems to me to be, as I said, a pretty big stretch.

Oddly enough tho you left out #1 and it seems to me that you were part of this campaign. So its unclear whether or not you believe what you put your name behind was the same campaign that dnegs extended and which is alluded to previously in this thread. Or whether you think what you were supporting is different than what dnegs said.

To be clear if (A) dnegs was acting against the betterment of the players, and (B)you were supporting the same policies, then (C) it stands to reason that you were acting against the betterment of the players. I feel like you accept A, and B, but not C.

Your sentiments don't seem to acknowledge the times, and context helps I think (these are general sentiments and not quotes from me):


Well I think you would have a better complaint if you didn't add "any way, shape or form"....(keeping in mind the CONTEXT of the players shitting on lee because he sold bad policies to the players ALSO)



Beyond that I do think I remember a more personal dialogue, but I concede it's not readily available. (probably deleted by 2p2 mods at the time.). But of course I could retract it and just ask if you feel its ok that someone's personal morals aren't inline with their employment duties. And I think you already explained in the quote above. Thats the point I meant to make.

(I will bring this back on topic.)

yes dnegs blatantly sold the new policy and literally told the players that more rake is better for them and makes the games more profitable.

Josem was also part of the marketing team, and was apart of the direction and the communication of it the whole time.


It mentions that lowering the rake in the past was done for that. But the actual action was to increase it, and tell the players it was for the betterment of the game. I think the only argument is whether or not it was better or not.

Dnegs explicitly and directly said and explained that higher rake makes the games more profitable. He used a metaphor of two different venues etc. on Joey's show. What are we saying that josem was selling/communicating? An opposite policy on the same site? They were the same policies/directions.

Did Josem and Dnegs not sell the same policies? Weren't the players upset with both of them? And Lee? And the poker stars pros that also supported them? Why were Ansky's eyebrows so furred?

Before I get flagged for derail...

We have mason's special detection strategy...
and we have Josem's experience and knowledge notably including proving beyond reasonable doubt that nio nio was cheating:



We have the idea that 3 players saw something that they had to swear they would never tell players they saw. It's gotta be something that isn't publicly available on data tracker sites. I claim (in another thread) there is a new line for observation to be realized. I think we should be able to put our brains together and reveal publicly mason's technique so that we can brainstorm the counter to the counter of it.

What is it we are missing that allows sites to police and rake the game more optimally than the players could if they had it? Does the proposed committee have access to the advantage or will they be fooled into NDA like situations like the previous group?

I didn't include #1 because I don't have any view on Daniel's comments from eight years ago. If you have questions about Daniel's comments, you can and should ask him.

I am not Daniel, and Daniel is not me. I think we met a handful of occasions, he would likely have recognised me at that time, but I doubt he would remember me most of a decade later. I cannot speak for Daniel.

It was, I think, useful for players to understand what the company (PokerStars) was thinking in their rake changes eight years ago. That's why I worked in that job for several years: to communicate and explain that to the poker community.
I don't know if (a) or (b) or (c) are true. I don't even understand the relevance of this bizarre divergence from almost a decade ago to this thread.
Many people work for companies that they have moral quandries about. I am very pleased with the non-gambling companies I've worked with in recent years, and have enjoyed working to help empower low paid building workers to earn more money on building sites, and various other businesses. Everyone who works for an online gambling site needs to confront a whole series of very serious moral challenges, and I enjoy not needing to confront such issues today.

I am not inclined to judge how other people reconcile such issues. They are complicated, they are hard, and they apply at different levels. All that I can say on that is in the 4/5 years since I ceased working in the online gambling world, I am deeply happy to be absolutely certain that no one has committed suicide as a result of my work. When I worked in the online gambling world, I did not have such certainty.

Lmao at “Why were Ansky’s eyebrows so furred?!”

Dnegs and Josem both worked at a company that decided to raise their prices, BFD. They weren’t employed by a company knowingly subjecting their employees to radiation or something. Not sure where moral quandary comes in, everyone should quit if they work somewhere during a price increase?

Poker players need to get over themselves sometimes

It's not the only argument. In fact, it's not the argument at all. What I responded to was your claim about what Josem was "selling", not how effective it was or wasn't.

No one's suggesting an opposite policy was being sold. I am simply disputing your assertion that Josem was "selling to the players the idea that higher rake is better for the games and more profitable for the players of 2p2." Because it appears that he wasn't.

OK. But you've still failed to show that Josem was "selling to the players the idea that higher rake is better for the games and more profitable for the players of 2p2."

No, which is why your claim struck me is odd. I can't recall anyone being upset with Josem, although I'm sure there may be a few people that were in addition to yourself. But if there were, I'd suggest they were an extremely small minority.

I, um...

This.

But dude, that's clearly a part of a vast conspiracy meant to drain hard-working people of their money rather than the company absorbing their fair share of the costs of playing poker!

This was some huge coverup, I want to know who knew what and when they knew it. This is like an onion, the more we peel, the more it stinks!

I was pointing out how he was 'selling' the same policies Daniel was. They were all part of the same marketing team/initiative. I don't think that's in dispute. I'm suggesting that Daniel was blatantly and explicitly selling to the players that increasing rake will increase the profitability (we agree on this correct?). And then if the first point is true and the 2nd point as well, then it stands to reason that Josem also pushed the same agenda Daniel did.

I'm legit not understanding which of these 3 points you are disagreeing with. Daniel sold to the players A, as a part of the marketing initiative of the site, Josem also sold A, and what Daniel sold was that higher rake increases the profitability.



I posted two examples, I do remember, players were pissed at everyone that was pushing the changes. Josem included. It was the general sentiment (or you mean they like him just not his actions?):

Thats a strawman. Nobody is complaining about higher rake. Dnegs told the players that higher rake makes the games more profitable. The players were sold that changes that make the games lower skill increase the profitability over time. This is a lie. And its worse coming from an influential "player" that is pretending to speak on behalf of the betterment of the 2p2 players.

Yes businesses lie all the time. But that doesn't make lying morally correct.

^^thats what I mean by 'sell'

The Laffer curve is relevant, but as a napkin type observation we have to understand its only a general view that asserts there is some optimal amount of rake but this isn't from the players view. Obviously the players should want less rake and the sites should want more. To apply the Laffer curve is to invoke the principle that the government will spend its extra revenue for the greater good of its citizens.

But its those citizens the additional revenue was taken from in the first place. I'm not sure anyone believes it goes back into the game in order to foster its profitability.

Lol sure everyone was just peachy with higher rake but were just offended because a couple of guys who worked for Stars were pretending to speak on behalf of 2+2

The “more rake is better” line was a mistake and bad way to put it as it literally ended up on a T shirt. But it’s also not a blatant lie

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with any of them. If you want to talk about other things now, that's fine, just say so, but don't try to reframe our discussion as something it never was. I've restated my point numerous times:

That's it. Nothing more. I don't care if they were or weren't part of the same marketing team. I don't care what Daniel was or wasn't "blatantly and explicitly selling to the players". You said that Josem was "selling to the players the idea that higher rake is better for the games and more profitable for the players of 2p2.", but have yet to show him doing so. Someone else at Stars doing so doesn't mean that Josem was.

If you want to argue that because Daniel was promoting something in a certain way, then because Josem also worked at/with Stars, he was also promoting it in the same way simply by association, you can have that debate with someone else. I think it's ridiculous, and won't waste my time with it.