If stars is pissing off hacky Russian rakeback pros they are likely doing something right.

+1... Stars gives you a safe site with great support to play on. If you hate paying more in rake play on a another site. I can tell you right now 99% of U.S. players would gladly pay the extra rake to have stars back.

They did...to 4.5% then put it back up to 5% as they've got no idea what they're doing.

I want to know why in a $30 pot at $0.02/0.05 we're paying over $1 in rake and Mr Galfond/Blom/Davin play $50k pots at $50/100 get raked less than the $30 pot. This really needs to be addressed how punitive the rake is to the micro/small stakes games.

Ban hem + pt,lower the rake and remove all bonusses, and screw all bumhunting RB pros.

what the hell is this? coherent paragraphs from viffer?

The problem with these types of discussions is that everyone will support whatever improves their bottom line.

I am not 100% clear on how the new rake changes will affect me, but if it makes nitting it up on 24 tables less profitable, i'm all for it. A 6-max table at MSNL these days usually consists of 2 solid /aggro regs, 2 nits and 2 shortstacks playing 24 tables.. It's not even poker at that point imo.

I'm not looking at this from a winning players perspective. Those who want WC are making claims that it will make games better.

Making games better means games are more profitable for winning players right?

I can't play on stars, but it frustrates me that everyone isn't against this.

If you want to make games better you should be encouraging stars to do things that make the games better. You shouldn't get behind a proposed money grab, just because it has keywords you like.

Until pokerstars presents a plan that keeps effective rake at the same levels it was at before everyone should be grabbing their pitchforks. Regardless of how you feel about dealt or WC.

Regardless, I think anyone who plays poker to make money and is behind this change overestimates the effect it will have on the games and underestimates how much rakeback pokerstars will be taking from them.

THIS

Also if I could only play poker against NVGers, I would be very happy

Who cares.. let em protest or strike or whatever you want to call it.

2p2 overestimates its significance to pokerstars.

You all make up a very small percentage of the online poker world. Even if you all did sit out I doubt it would have any impact on pokerstars. Not to mention it sounds like all of you sitting out wouldn't be much different than a regular day anyway lol.

This is my view. With a growing number of profitable players, how many can the system support? Lets say you need (for example) 1,000 24-tablers to keep the games running 24/7, if you have 2,000 of these players, is this a good thing? What about 10,000? Overcapacity is a waste, you don't open 20 Starbucks in one street and you don't need thousands of mass tablers. Decent VIP rewards encourage players to try for SNE but if you have too many SNE's compared to depositing players, where's the money coming from? By discouraging SNE's this is a step towards maintaining that ratio. I understand Pokerstars makes obscene profits but bear in mind that it doesn't mean it will stay that way if more and more players become good enough to earn a iving from it.

FWIW though, I fully understand why SNE's who have spent the last year getting to SNE would be angry as Stars should have given at lot more notice (although a years notice would be impracticle of course). I just think the decision itself is correct, even if rake isn't reduced.

The way the decision was handled, terrible.

Happy New year all by the way.

P.S. As for games becoming unbeatable if rake isn't reduced (CAP etc) then if the games do dry up (which is probable, not certain), stars can always reduce rake caps individually on these games at a later date.

P.P.S. I don't agree with the protest, but I do respect the grinder's right to protest.

actually they sort of do

well like a few, not 20, but a few is fine, point is, the amount that's required to serve the customers (in pokerstars sense, customers's being depositing recreational players)

they would if they could charge more rake and not give rakeback. things are out of balance right now. you may not have remembered a little site called party poker, their biz plan: high rake, little to no multitabling or rakeback. they did ok iirc. my logic is undeniable, doubling the tables and halving the rake through multitabling nits is a bad shortsighted plan, it only benefits the winning players not the site (in the long run) or the losing players at any time. you think these companies work for you...loooooool. when poker comes back in america a lot of you micro grinderrs are gonna be very unpleasantly surprised at how they are set up, visit your local card barn for a clue.

Just had a thought - the strike would be a perfect time for someone to make a quick note on (and colour-code) everyone who was sitting out...

PTR killed poker

would like to see a Stars representative to show their POV

Regs have been screaming "ZOMG, so unfair!" since Stars made the change regarding a roughly 20% decrease in rake when the lower stakes have been getting raped for 100%-500% more than the higher stakes for years.

i think .01/.02 players should pay less than a cent in rake.

Id like to see the new poker world also have no HUDs. Less tables allowed. Back to real poker and chatting while you play. Would move more people to the higher stakes also.

Really sad when a semi-well known poker players admits their extreme ignorance and act with total arrogance towards other poker players. Try and understand another viewpoint, imagine a world where 'the greater good' isn't so cut and dry.




GL defending yourself in this thread Viffer, I'm sure you've lost the respect of many.

Agree 75%

Seriously doubt this is Viffer

Viffer loves to slag off 2+2 with Howard Lederer (the thief) on telly, so why does he come on here making semi-literate posts?

I'd really like to see nosebleed pots where they're playing for 5-6 fig sums get raked more. 50c rake on $40k pots is just stupid and not in the interests of the majority of their customers who get raked a lot more than the few people who play in the biggest games which run infrequently.

there's really no such thing as the "greater good" of poker. viff, just like people who are complaining about the changes, is only concerned with his bottom line. i.e. he wants to keep fish very very happy, as his livelihood is determined by an extremely small handful of whales.

however, i would argue what viff really wants is for online poker to stay extremely profitable for nitty multitablers, because he should want strong online players to stay there instead of infiltrating the live scene, where, realistically, he makes a lot more money than his skill level dictates