Please guys, he has an opinion, don't ridicule it with logic

New page, new try:

The people that will be forced to leave will be the most unskilled current winners. If these players are forced to leave because they cannot profit, then players who are currently losers - and are therefore of lower skill - will not suddenly become winners.


This will very likely be true given the upcoming changes on Stars and I have not said anything to the contrary. I am not saying that the changes will mean that all current winning players will leave, or that the site will suddenly become unbeatable. In fact I have not been talking about these current changes at all. I have only been trying to make the point of why winning/withdrawing players are undesirable for the sites beyond the facility that they provide of getting games running. Once the site has enough winning players to keep games running 24/7, any extra net withdrawers start to become undesirable.

Just cos it's the internet doesn't mean you have to act like a child. Tell me what you don't agree with and why or stfu. As I've said a couple of times now, I'm not 100% sure whether my argument is correct or not, and I'm happy to have people point out why it's wrong. If you would like to try and do that, then great, I'm all ears. If you just want to post pictures then sure, whatever, I guess you're having fun.

So if our rakeback is cut by up to 85% you think any reg will stay? i have a hard time believing people will remain on the site after this change if it affects most of us in such a manner.

85% is the "most extreme case" - it looks like different people get different reductions

I guess it will depend on a) how much your personal rakeback is cut, and b) how much you rely on rakeback. If you're a high winrate, low volume player then your profits probably won't be significantly impacted. If you're a mass grinder rb pro that breaks even on the tables, you're ****ed.

Dude, u hijack a thread about a serious matter, spamming ridiculous reasoning in favor of amaya changes that hurt most ppl in here. Could u just not? U seem to have trouble understanding some things, so I'm glad to help you out via PM if u stop that, deal?

888 cut rakeback by 99% and they still have regs.

how hard is it to get 1 million star coins playing 200PLO zoom?

A more sustainable case might be that the new winning recs won't withdraw, they'll just play higher. Obviously that might be the case for some though not all.

sry, then i didn't read the post in context (didn't go through all posts) - mea culpa

Que?

(and obviously we all agree that winning players/net withdrawers aren't exactly welcomed , but we all know that without your parroting)

How is that even going to work? they going to reduce your rakeback for playing alot of hands per day? i don't even get what's going on. Why can't stars just reduce the # of tables regs can play rather than trying to increase profits by increasing rake under the guise of anything but a money grab.

Any threads on this? i just searched both 2+2 and google and couldn't find much threads on this topic. Want to know how this impacted the games there, i never do any of stars challenges & if they change their rakeback structure to that i probably will get zero rakeback ehh. Would love to see a thread on the impact to the games there & why some people still play if 888 gives zero rakeback, their software is alrdy pretty poor.

i saw that stars cut the multitabling 'seat me' option few months ago, so now its a pain in the ass to manage 24 cashgame tables open.

i cant multitabling anymore because of that so i have reduced my hands played by like 1800%. i think i was the worst consumer for the company cuz i was a micro cashgame winning player who irritatingly destroy the brand new fishes in their first poker experience.

on top of that, i exploited so much of their good promos during the years that my bonuses and rakeback almost cover my rake paid for the last 8 years.

and i know theres a lotttttt of players just like me in russia, romania, etc... who still take the pain in the ass to keep that 24 tables open

Don't be a div, he hasn't hijacked the thread, he's put across a reasoned response as to why Amaya doesn't really care for regs and why they believe in changes like this. He doesn't like the changes, no more than any other reg here, but he's got half a brain to try and understand them. The better understanding of these and future changes, the better a reg can decide how profitable stars/online poker is for them in future. Hint, stars is eventually going to make things far worse than just RB cuts.

This^

I honestly cannot believe people are still commenting in this thread. Bottom line is Amaya has shown they don't give two ****s about what regs think. Crying about it in this thread won't solve anything. If you aren't profiting at stars, switch sites or quit poker. If amaya decides they need regs again, I'm sure dnegs will be the first one to tell you how terrible high rake is for the poker ecosystem and how we should all come back to stars.

Edit: dnegs being the PR puppet that he has always been

After they remove rakeback, what's next? Increasing rake, withdrawal fees, banning winning players altogether. FFS for people to want to deposit in the first place especially in cash game formats there have to be people who make money.

I don't think that's going to be the case. From what I understand, players who were breakeven didn't even get the email. I would guess the more you withdraw the more ****ed you are.

Ok, well I'm getting in above my pay grade but that sounds a leeetle suspicious. You're saying they hooked up the cash cow directly to a latrine and are piping the profits straight down the shi**er? Any public company that's reached that level of incompetence would be snap targeted by activists. Why hasn't management been tossed five times over by now and the problem corrected?

Is it that perhaps the overhead related to play money poker or the debt load that was required to scale to where they're at is eating all the crazy amounts of money in poker? If not, why hasn't the poker unit been targeted and spun off?

I get your point and don't disagree (although Stan James is kinda slick), but I was attempting to invoke a deeper meaning of "aesthetically gross". For some, turning poker into a carnival scam is a sort of sacrilege. Poker, done right is a real game. It's a test of skill, wits and worth in a way that no cheap lotto variant could ever be. It's a mind sport, a hustle, a way for gentleman to indulge their competitive bent and be recognized by worthy peers on merit.

I remember when people were playing losing poker and still making about 100K from supernova stuff. I don't know if that's still happening.

That sounds like a vote for fair rake and no rakeback. Just pure poker, no losing players living off loyalty rewards.

The problem, of course, is that there's no way to successfully play pure poker online; it's a battle of software and databases. Human/AI hybrid grinders are just auto-raping the fish.

It's gone, over. No way to get it back without a radically different model.

when i started 'back then', limit holdem was the game to begin with. then nlhe became so popular, that lhe pretty much died. a lot of limit guys couldn't/didn't make the transition and said stuff like "oh, the fish will die too fast". all those cocky new guys said "adapt or die, u dinosaur" (btw ... anyone remember limit omaha FR ). long story short, the game changes and today operators focus heavily on the mobile market. and for this sector you want to offer the fastest action possible. we're talking about customers having only a limited time to play a quick game.

So we have the depositors (providing the money) with demands and the operators (providing the environment) with the task to offer different kind of games. in this equation i don't see any gentleman robber / witty hustler or whatever.

if you want crumbs from the table, adapt and don't reminisce in nostalgia. besides that, even with all the new formats (zoom, Spins, beat the clock ...), i don't see 'classical' games dying completely. PLUS live games can't/won't changed and have a different kind of (paying) clientele.

Unreal how so many people dont understand how rakeback works. In a Zero rake enviroment, all the winning"rakeback grinders" would be profitable. Its not not like they are nett losers after rake and are getting some sort of magical stimulus.