Stars has employees posting in riggie threads with passion yet can't answer simple question about spin and goes or comment on the gong show that is the " players" meetings.

Pokerstars, why do u not provide a payout audtil daily weekly or monthly of what you ACTUALLY pay out in spin and goes. This is not an unrealistic request at all. Even basic lotteries provide this transparent info yet you feel the need to hide it.

They likely have some employees posting in this thread as well from shill accounts? Otherwise its hard to see why players would post so much bull****. Seems like the thread was bombed with such posts in the beginning.

Good questions Wacka, full disclosure on spin and goes please.

Good thread OP.

I support this

I will be putting half of my poker time to nlh next year, working it further, that is a major work for years, but as the lh and plo situation is dangerous, i need to put half of my efforts to where it sure matters for life as i cant just hope that things will stay good at plo, much less at lh.

Will have more sites to play also, when i am mopping some donks at random sites, that is one additional plus here, but going through major education now the third time, is not what i wanted to do, but i feel this is the way to make sure i dont get rake killed, have enough games, many sites, many forms of nlh, though needing additional study, and finally i probably add 8game as i know about all those games then well enough and can as well mop them up also.

Funny how sunny i am about this new change as it costs me years of effort, but it gets me out of the narrow trap and i feel like taking the challenge of moving up at nlh and mopping up the goods it gives and be covered for life. If i fail, i have lots of nlh options, random sites and the 8game if it runs.

Do you understand that the ultimate source of players profits and the rake is the same, the losing player? This means that winning players are in competition with the site to get the losing players money.

If players withdraw more money then there is less money for PS. If players withdraw less money then there is more money for PS. It's pretty simple, just follow the money. If you're not depositing you're not helping Amaya.

Losing players don't play more hands because of the pros. Pro's "paying rake" is a technicality and a phrase that doesn't tell the whole story which needs to include what happens to the pot after it's won. If a loser wins it it goes back into play and eventually to rake. If a pro wins it it gets withdrawn to pay his rent.

If it becomes known that the games simply can't be beaten long term and if that fact causes people to stop depositing(some wont), that is a significant consideration but don't think that withdrawing/winning players are good for Amaya. Amaya rightly looks at your withdrawal as lost potential rake/profit.

If I were Amaya I would massively increase rake at higher limits then force winning regs to move up limits until they lose all their money or get to the highest limit then either ban them outright or let them play but pay that much higher rake. If a reg starts whining, "I can't win up there" I would suggest he redeposit so he can keep trying.

Zica, I would rather use the word "symbiosis" to describe the relationship between a room and a very active player (either addicted losing gambler or winning players), rather than "competition" because they need each other.

The room revenue is not dependant on 1 variable but on 2 variables.
It is not: (rake%) -> room profit
but:
(rake%, player activity) -> room profit

They need a certain level of activity at the table to turn players' money into revenue. So if Amaya make enough players unhappy and they leave their site, their overall revenue will be affected if the decrease in activity offsets the increase of the rake%.

So if they increase the rake by 10% but ~9.5% fewer hands are played then they are losing revenue.

Donk, deposited money can only go 2 places, to rake or to player withdrawals. If the player pool were miniscule then winners may be useful but player pool is massive. Fish don't play more hands because of winning regs presence obviously. If you claim that they do then explain how and why. The more winning regs play the more money the fish lose and faster because some of their money is going to the winning reg.

The site benefits when bad players run hot move up limits and run hot some more before losing it all back because they had an exciting time and will have a story for the water cooler. How likely is this in the presence of 6 winning regs vs all bad gamblers? The answer is clear, Amaya needs winners like a hole in the head.

If all the grinding regs left the fish would have a more exciting experience. Some would run hot, move up and pay higher rake before running cold and losing it back again. They wouldn't lose their money as quickly and so may play more.

This seems so clear to me that I suspect some in this thread are intentionally misleading.

"if Amaya make enough players unhappy and they leave their site, their overall revenue will be affected if the decrease in activity offsets the increase of the rake%."

You need to recognize that there are two types of player, one who deposits and one who withdraws. If withdrawers leave it's fine because they are taking. If depositers leave it's death because they are giving.

There is one point I agree with: it is important that the fish doesn't lose too quickly else he has a bad experience and leaves the site never to be seen again.

But I disagree on the fact that the focus on losing players is the end. It is a means to an end, the end being high revenue. To that end, a room has to strike a difficult balance: make sure the fish doesn't lose too quickly (else he leaves) but also that the pro doesn't win too little (else he leaves): 100 players are playing 10 times more hands and generating 10 times more rake (aka revenue for the room) than 10 players.

Sure you can say it is better if all players are fish and the rake is extremely high but then it makes poker a bad, unbeatable casino game where only gambling addicts are playing. Not sure it is a good long term approach but I am willing to be convinced otherwise.

Regarding the OP, I think it lacks focus. It should focus on Amaya's potential loss of revenue.
For cash games:
annual revenue (per stake) = %rake x number of hands per annum x average pot size
For tournaments:
annual revenue (per stake) = %rake x number of tournaments per annum x number of players per tournament

That's the only language Amaya understand. Items like the poker dreams, or the ethos being "we are poker" will be too abstract values for their analysts.

Also the OP is too focused on us, the players. It should be focused on how we, the players, will lower Amaya's revenue.

Amaya's revenue, Amaya's revenue, Amaya's revenue... the be-all, end-all of all discussions with Amaya.

I'm sure Amaya is really happy that they all these financial wizards to help them out with their business.

Wait you mean Pokerstars wasnt set up to make PLO $50 multi tablers money? Im getting so fed up of people complaining about the rake and how a 5% increase makes the games unbeatable. Theres millions of people that are registered on Stars and that play their games The micro cash game grinders do not make up the majority. Pokerstars is not in business to make the low limit grinders money. Grinders are able to make money as a function of Stars being in business. The great thing about free enterprise is that the public will ultimately show if Stars moves are sustainable or not by if they continue playing there. If in 6 months Stars no longer has the traffic they have now and profits have fallen then they will be forced to reverse back to old rake and business model. As to the casino games and sports betting. How can this surprise anyone. This may come as a surprise but poker is gambling. Its just like sports betting. If you put in the work (which most wont) a few can beat the lines maker. Most just bet to make a game more enjoyable to watch. Pokers the same. Most people deposit a couple hundred to play some tournys or cash games and the rake means nothing as their deposit will probably be lost within a few sessions anyway. You think after the fish gets felted with his 9-6 off suit he thinks about how much rake he contributed? Introducing casino and sports is not about making short term profits. Its completely the opposite. Its building a long term profitable business model. If you own a shirt store would you not introduce ties and cuff links? as those are products that will be bought by your same customer. Well think about it. How many poker players on Stars also have a sports betting account elsewhere? I'm going to guess at least 60% or more. Ill go a step further and also say Amaya was probably only able to secure the financing to buy Stars based on the pitch of introducing casino and sports. Without that in the pitch I doubt they would of secured financing.
My advice to everyone thats worried would be move to LA and play live. Theres games here in LA that you can make $500 a day at with your eyes closed. Playing 15 tables of PLO $50 and grinding $7 pots all day is an insane waste of time.

Do you think poker would be the same if all the players realized that the site takes 99+% of the cash game money out? Your points on free enterprise are off too, Stars has, and will likely always have, a monopoly. The barriers to entry are so high no one is going to come and try and compete. They will drag online to it's death with their model and there is nothing we can feasibly do about it (quite possibly would die at any level the rake could be set at that would allow a company to survive).

You say that like being a monopoly is a crime. It is not. It is not necessarily even a bad thing since a monopoly can be efficient. It's not their fault they have become a monopoly. Some businesses actually have a desire to succeed. And poker, by it's nature, leads to monopolies.

I just laugh at the outrage that a company that provides gambling in the form of poker has decided to offer their customers gambling in the form of casino and sports betting. Also there are hundreds of posts on 2+2 about poker sites attached to sportsbooks having tons of rec players and players trying to get back what they lost at sports. If Stars becomes a giant Bovada Mmmmmmm bring that on pleeeeze.

How exactly are the barriers to entry for an online poker site so high that nobody can or will possibly compete with Stars?

Perfect username

its not so much that the costs of entry are so high its just a company would need a ton of working capital as it would take years to become any kind of threat to Stars and so the kind of money that would need to be spent over those years would make it hard.

so what?

Ya it's better for the amount of games if everyone is playing in the same client. But it also gives them a huge amount of control over the fee's taken from the games. The large barriers to entry are due to the extreme uncertainty in the future of online poker. It has changed a lot in the past 10 years, and looks like it will continue changing for the next 10 years (maybe some bot comes out or it drops another 14% over the next year).

Signed, 2,851,000 vpps

You can't trust this company or the shady people who work for it.

I just wish the fish would stay away. I play on another site and I'm so happy about that. There are other sites that are beatable, just avoid the ones with superusers in their past.

jesus alsk, u seem to try to bad mouth the company everywhere.

Why are you still playing on PS?

Quoted for bafflement.

A lot of people for some reason will not accept this. I've been having this argument with people for a year. What Zica has said here is clearly correct and understanding this will lead you to understanding how little power we have