I personally don't like the changes but no one has come up with a coherent reason as to why they are bad for Stars, ie less depositors, obviously stars doesn't GAF about consistent winners they are a boil on their profits and I would presume net deposits are pretty inelastic about this issue.

PT Lou winning at the moment due to a no show by the opposition COME ON team rake back think of some logic/ solid arguments as to why he is wrong.

Everyone needs to be objective here which I understand is difficult when it's your bottom line getting cut.

I've thrown some reasons why and I have no stake in this. It seems like you read what you want to.

ok ok lou and co were right, these are great changes.
Stars will grow and things are looking bright. Great move to screw these greedy regulars. No arguments here.
We`ll all have this new vip system in 2016 now.
You guys won.
happy now?

I have sent this question to stars support yesterday but still no respons. Does someone here knows more details about this?

"It's not quiet clear to me what will happen to supernova status in 2017. SNE elite will be discontinued but what about supernova in 2017? "

The thing is though according to the statistics posted here stars is already taking 95% of the money deposited on stars and players collect only 5%. Amaya is taking a risk here by going greedily for the last 5% at the same time severely damaging their to this point stellar brand and public image.

Amaya speaks of protecting the poker ecosystem but what they do they just hurt it even more by increasing their own share of the ecosystem money at the expense of all players, regs and recs.

It's pretty easy to see why reduced rewards will be worse for both Pokerstars and recreationals.

Let's say there are 30 tables running at a given stake. Plenty of those tables will be "reg-only" tables, where some of the players overestimate their advantage over the other regs, or simply don't care and can take that small -EV due to the points they collect and will get rewarded for later on.

What will happen is that those "reg-only" tables will die out, but don't believe for a second that the recreational players will stand a better chance at the tables due to a better rec/reg ratio. If you thought bum hunting was bad before, just wait and see what it will be like after those changes. It will also give players less incentive to start start tables, why would five regs sit and battle it out at a previous rather small -EV spot to attract fish now that it has turned into a massive -EV spot with less rewards?

This will obviously lead to less tables running -> worse for Pokerstars and strong regs playing less tables with more bum hunting -> worse for recs.

And at mid/high stakes ($200nl+) it's because they're chasing SNE. Whether they make it or not is a different story but lots of people start the year with that dream.

We can only speculate as to whether this will be good for Amaya long term. They have more information but that doesn't mean it will lead to them making the right conclusions. Party Poker came up with the ingenious idea of segregating players and it turned out to be a complete disaster.

They are making huge assumptions about how the market will develop and how much revenue they can generate from non traditional sources. An enormous amount of greed is leading Bazov and friends to take unnecessary risks.

We have a winner!

Party's ring-fencing fiasco is also an excellent point.

Baazov has explained away delayed start of non-poker revenue on operational issues. Analysts seemed to accept that for the time being. Those explanations will not be so easily accepted in 90-days as part of the Q4/2015FY report and conf call.

Decision makers at Blackstone and others that funded the acquisition will become increasingly restless. previous point about possible loan covenants also not being met was one of the better points in ITT. Along with another posters comment about AYA trying to hit on all these verticals at the same time and challenges with that lofty goal.

So, if AYA doesn't quickly establish a foothold with credible growth story in non-poker revenue, AND they simultaneously kill/damage the golden goose that Isai built, it will be problematic for current management team.

Thanks for your reply. I do get the point you make - that the player pool really really matters. I 100% accept that.

Now - how many of these super crushers are coming thanks to the VPP abolition? Indeed how many even exist? I suspect that those playing higher already play in your pool where the 20% rule matters to your playability.

I get that better players equals lower or no profitability. What I don't see is evidence that these crushers exist or will in their tiny numbers skew your game - not least as they already play there too because of this VPP change.

Your rule is a bit tight for me. I also worry about the data sample and how it is achieved and recognised to deliver a no play decision (live) but my main query is about the assumption that crushers are coming - the defining requirement for the "trickle down" disaster for all players.

I get the explanation that IF loads of crushers turn up that hurts - what I don't see is an army of new crushers, I see roughly the same player mix as most were already playing lower too anyway.

A bit of scepticism on my part but IF trickle down death is coming - how many players are coming down? Are they new to your pool? Is it a marginal time thing? Are they realy crushing you for 10bb at that stake - my sceptic says if they can do that to you then you would be there already anyway.

In short, you have explained the theoretical impact, I just don't see it though, the number of players (and their time at those stakes) is too low. The "crushing" difference is not a forgettabout it amount - they are not beating YOU 10bb/100.

In practice - the number of players affected are low - most already play lower most of the time anyway. The change, the delta is not likely to be that big.

Now it may still be a terrible decision - I just don't buy the trickle down hypothesis of disaster for all. It is about a small number of players, for a small amount of their time, at stakes where the VPP earnings have the least impact in terms of player behaviour.

I JUST DON'T BUY - trickle down of VPP abolition at the top hits micros. It might hit the level below the cut off marginally but I doubt it will be big. Smaller amounts of play, by fewer people...the top of the prramid just don't have the weight to dent the micros or mids. It is about how many, for how much time...and yes the skill gap. I doubt they crush one level down that much, I doubt their numbers are big enough and I doubt they will all quit because of VPP abolition anyway.

The trickle down disaster that we have had reams about may have a bit of truth about it but it is not the disaster some are claiming...the ripples just ain't that big.

Again, thank you for your reply. Very helpful, full of incites and little I actively disagree with - I just think the fear is overblown and that real numbers would show that.

It will most likely be huge. You need to account for a HUGE % of $30+ sng regs finding a new game next year as those will all but die with these changes. Now at the same time some regs will quit so hard to say what the balance will be which is why I use the word likely. At the same time Amaya basically eliminates a huge rake machine in SNGs to contract the number of regs on the site it literally makes 0 sense when looked at from that angle. The only way that it makes sense is if they deemed SNG recreationals were losing too fast and that they were more likely to dump $ in casino/spins. However when you take away their favorite offering who knows if they even deposit at the same frequency as before.


At the end of the day I have to use phrases like most likely and who knows which is why stars/recreationals can "claim" that these changes might be good. But I can't see it being anything other than an absolute disaster (which is silly to even risk I might add).

These threads often times become unreadable, so if this topic was discussed I apologize in advance for bringing it up.

The whole theory about a flood of SNEs rushing into other games to crush them does not necessarily make sense to me. Many SNEs are not winning before rakeback, and their games are usually filled with SNEs, and the source of money at the tables are from the rare casual or the people who try for SNE and fail. Much of the money is made from the extreme rakeback advantage in games that eventually have little edge.

I know that when I played DoNs I would joke (though I was serious) that I would not back any of the other regs for 1/2 cent cash or even micro tournaments or SnGs, because while many had become great DoN players (to the point where some could likely win even if they did not see their cards) - those skills did not fully translate to crushing other games, in fact many times they hurt that ability to adapt to the specific game conditions of that grind.

While I worked with several SNEs years ago, I have not done so for the past couple of years, so I have no idea if most are still playing SNE niche games.

I have always been impressed with a person who has the discipline and fortitude to do a SNE grind, as I always looked at it as extreme bonus whoring, but if indeed all of these SNEs now have diverse skills that can crush other games that would be interesting to hear. I know when I look up nearly ever DoN reg from years ago - most basically quit when that game type was removed, so I do wonder how much of a "trickle down" effect will be had by basically chopping off SNE.

regarding the high-stakes decision and the likely impact: I can't speak for PLO, but for NL at least, most of the regulars that play $1k and $2k ring games also play 500z, usually as their main game actually. I'm not even sure if there's such a thing as $1knl ring game reg any more. So, since reg battles rarely occur and most of the time they're waiting for a fish, then nothing should really change. nosebleed guys still aren't going to have much incentive to play 500z, and the lower high stakes guys are already playing 500z or 600 ring. This was obviously stars' thought process, along with the high transaction costs, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense.

I think you're off base here a bit Monteroy. Of course the SNE regs who were barely getting by will quit but those making 6 figure annual salaries will not give up so easily. The closest to a niche SNG right now is fifty50s where most regs have already diversified into other games as volume has dwindled (or quit as you said). Games have consistently gotten harder so SNG regs have gotten much better, given they might be a step behind their Cash game counterparts. That being said Spins/MTTs at least are a natural change for so many SNG regs and there will surely be some lower % that will switch to cash. There are plenty of non SNE sng grinders that will be forced to move as well. The skill level of 2012 SNG regs is really a joke compared to now (outside of the worst regs)

Well of course it's motivated by money, but if you'd borrowed $5 billion, wouldn't you try and pay it back quickly at 7% interest instead of slowly at 10%? I doubt Baazov is in this for life. I expect he just wants want to clear the debt in a hurry, sell the company, and move on to his next project.

Would tend to think there can't be that many people who play real money games purely for the fun of it, rather than because they hope to win money? Because otherwise, wouldn't they just play zynga?

Also, why would people mind losing money faster, but be happy to lose money slowly? Is it maybe more likely that people who are only mildly losing still have hopes of winning – because it's hard to tell with variance how things are going in the long-run, based on the short-term?

Having winners matters - with everything in life. And having hope of winning is important too – not sure 'unbeatable poker' will work?


PS. Am not responding to anybody in particular - guess am still in the process of reading peoples's thoughts, and am trying to figure out where online poker might be headed in the next year, and stuff?

Ding ding ding.

Even if Stars is a Party Poker-like shell of it's former self, if/when all (or most all) of that debt is cleared.

Blackrock & Baazov win, on the the next.

What? The fun is winning money or at least the chance of it.

Exactly!

spot on lol. The chance of it is very key.

.

I lost track on this thread, can someone please add some cliffs? Has anything actually changed from pokerstars side or heard any news?

Also has Negreanu released his blog post about it yet (and link if so) which he promised after 2 days?

Yes, I'm to lazy to read through 84pages or random people moaning.

nope. Pokerstars rep was on 2+2 podcast, you can go listen to that

nope

yup, lots of moaning with brief moments of interesting debate

Indeed a lot of moaning, speculations and conspiracy theories but no one seems to know some real facts about this?

We seem to be on the same page - guess it's just a bit hard to tell, because my writing's a bit awkward More generally, was maybe also kind of wondering if there's just certain realities of the market that can't be changed?

Like another thing that might just be a reality of the poker market, is that when the average annual income in a lot of peoples' countries is $6k-$8k, maybe it's not realistic these days to expect a lot of new depositors to be willing to repeat deposit, without the hope of it turning into more?

Especially with rake rates remaining unchanged from when the US was the largest market. Apparently over at Unibet, after putting in place a rec friendly room with full rake, they wound up eventually lowering their rake and offering players the chance to win back some of their losses and stuff - and now their numbers are growing? Like helping out recs seems to have helped - but in an environment where people also win?

Maybe Stars might be trying to squeeze more $ out of the market than it can sustain?