well known nit/bumhunter ^^

about time the nits were docked a bit, im sure anyone masively affected by this change in rake will already be doing well for themselves anyways. get the fpps to the lagfish who accumulate more fpps win more sats to majors and create weaker mtt fields - everyone benefits

Rake isnt good for the game? FYI you can play rake free, go find the people you want to play with, set up a game, set up a system where you can pay and collect with them.

Paying rake is paying someone to do the above.

From the start when the sites started listening to the forums i have protested, i was against the instant hand history future when it first came out and still am. The affect of that has continued to hurt games, Do you think the casual player cares about what you called him with? No the greedy players that want to maximize there advantaage do and they are the ones protesting, yet they get upset when the site tries to do the same thing!!

Quit catering to the winning players and cater to the people that make the games go, take away pokertracker, take away instant hand histories, take away rake back.

Lol whatever

PS grinders move to Merge.. now will you say Merge has the monopoly?

There's nothing at all stopping all these pissed off nits changing site. They just would rather blather all over 2p2 than put their money where their mouth is.

Hate to agree with Viffer, I am a winning player at live poker nl 1-2 or 2-5 in soft games, but online people stat bang me to hard. Why I quit nl online 4 years ago and only play PLO online when I am snowed in or bored to death bc its more gamble and the less stats mean... NL is dead online to many nits and hud stars for a decent player who has no plans on being a fantastic, a super star player or break even player. Showing a losing hand to all who want to click on it or for hud to pick up is way to much info, and I think killed the game.

The best part about poker when I first started was the unknown, at a 1-2 nl game I had some kid ask to see a losing hand after I called him, and was like WTF really. I showed him and asked why he said he needed more info. So every hand he lost for the next 4 hours I asked the same. I played with him a few days later and he won a pot off me (very small like 60 buck pot), I asked do you still need more info and would you like me to ask to see the next 10-30 hands you play and lose also? He said NO I don't need to see it, and sorry about that the other day. Point is no one will play for money if you act like that.

Operating a Poker Site is a business. Some businesses aren't well run, as we learned with FTP. Players are not employees, they are customers. Reg Mid-level grind pros are some of their best customers. Not only do they keep tables in action day and night, but they they depend on the company's service for subsistence. In the end, Pokerstars is making a business decision that they can make more money based upon the anticipated customer response.

I understand people who feel like "employees" being upset, but if that were true you could just quit and get a new job. But you won't, and they know it.

It's like the price of gas going up or food at the grocery store; the only alternatives to just paying more aren't any fun. Meanwhile when gas prices go up and food prices go up, people increasingly get desperate. They make everyone pay inside and you can't just use your card to get your gas and go. Then at the grocery store with the high prices people start stealing. At first it is simple stuff, but once the store notices they start putting extra security guards. But as the prices get higher people get desperate and they devise elaborate schemes using a series of distractions to steal a bunch of food.

That was an allegory for the effect PokerStars' economically correct decision will have on it's own environment. With the available profit being limited, there will be increased desperation to manipulate the process by both familiar (collusion) and new methods.

However, I can't blame a business for making a price adjustment based on a more profitable economic model. Isn't sucking as a company and having no money why FTP failed?

FTP failed because they used player funds for dividends and leveraged the company with debt way beyond an acceptable level. Which would be theft if it was a bank, or a financial institution. But since FTP was neither a bank or a Financial Institution they face no criminal charges towards theft or misappropriated funds. The only charges are from/about the UEIGA and the Wire Act of 1960-something are there current problem.

It was a Ponzi Scheme the first day, they used player funds for operating expenses. And ever since has been a Ponzi Scheme collecting new deposits to pay out old players wishing to cash out.

If it was like prepaid insurance, your money is not collected until you use the service. They hold the liability towards the money until it is used and using said money until used is a crime. But hey its online poker ran by and ran for degenerates so no one cares except the guy holding the bag of empty money.

only read the OP, but definetly agree. But in the end- what it comes down to is poker players are rational thinkers and act in their self interest to earn as much money as possible, irrelevant of if it is good for poker or not- which in most players case is to sit out when the fish is gone.

i only read the first 3 pages of this but some people are amazingly stupid.
to the players hoping ftp gets back up so they can switch: ftp changed to contributed rake before they want down, did they not ? haven't most other sites done the same ? has stars not been one of the few that held on to the current standard ?
to the people who are saying stars pockets all the profits and the person who says "that's why the sites like rakeback": stars has been pretty much the only site that didn't allow rakeback.... their VIP program is the same for everyone. you're new to poker, you deposit $20 on stars, and you already get the same deal as the SNE players. you can get higher VIP level and make more money from bonuses. on ftp/cake/anything you were just screwed if you didn't know about rakeback before opening an account.
to the people saying stars will just pocket the difference (implying there's nothing that will be invested in the poker community): you guys are just ******ed. do you want things being handled like they are at stars or do you want things to be handled like they were at ftp (where they DID pocket money).

I'm not thinking about the future here, but in the past stars has been the most fair poker site. I sure hope they continue that. as long as there's no indicators for the contrary (and the rake change definitely is not as this link will make clear http://www.daleroxxu.co.uk/2012/01/p...thod.html#more ) i wouldn't talk about switching to a different site or protesting the whole thing.

also i appreciate that you can make a living playing breakeven poker (on stars, because their rakeback is very generous), if you can't beat the bad players, especially after they get more money from stars, that you are so opposed to the bad players getting more money, you might want to consider trying to improve your game.
which kinda brings up another point....
to the people who think that the mass multitabling nits attract the fish to the games: you're just so far off it's not even funny. what value are you to them exactly ? you don't chat, you don't play a hand unless you have the nuts, they rarely win money off of you without sucking out.... you think they log on stars to play with you ? really ?

I don't think anyone will disagree that HUDs killed online poker

You level?

Serious noob question but why is it not possible for poker sites to completely ban them and only allow the tracking portion of the software?

One reason is that it would be almost impossible to enforce this.

These days its not even taking advantage of the system, its keeping up with the system

Online games in general have tried for years futilely to thwart cheaters using various methods not worth digging into here but simply put - if it displays on the screen I can get the data it into a database.

Live high stakes games must not be running very frequently as it seems Viffer has found the time to learn how to type.

Let me preface this post by stating that I neither agree or disagree with PokerStars recent changes. There CAN be greater good that comes from these changes if implemented correctly. In the same token no one likes to take a pay cut and if the changes are not done properly it can be bad for everyone -- grinders and fish alike. Surprisingly to me, I do think that PokerStars has handled this situation poorly on many fronts (i.e. Announcing such widespread and swooping changes only three days before the changes were to go into effect)

I am noticing a recurring theme from people that are supporting PokerStars changes -- they are labeling everyone on the other side as 24 tabling, HUD using nits (or in the OPs case he labels them as the general 2p2 crowd). This is wrong and misguided on several levels:

1. I think stereotyping any group of people in such a wide net is wrong. Not everyone against the PokerStars changes plays 24 tables. In fact, I would wager that the majority of people against the PokerStars changes do not play 24 tables.

2. If playing 24 tables was so bad for the game as the OP and many pro-PokerStars camp suggests then why wouldn't PokerStars simply lower the limit on the number of tables a player can play? In fact, history has suggested that 24 tablers are in fact good for the game. Remember the day when the max tables you could open was only 4? Sites have significantly increased that number over the years for good reason. These players provide liquidity for the game which is good for the game and often overlooked. The key here is balance. You must balance the players providing liquidity with new players.

3. Often when stereotyping the mass multi-tabler they use the phrase "HUD using". My issue with this is not that all *mass* multi-tablers use HUDs. Maybe they do or maybe they don't. If I had to guess, I would say that the majority of them do but I doubt they all do. My biggest issue is the implied reverse logic that all HUD users multi-table which might be the biggest fallacy throughout the poker community. The majority of HUD users do not mass multi-table and the majority of HUD users are not winning players. In fact, the HUD user group might be the best cross section of online poker players. Simply using a HUD does not suddenly make you a winning player. It takes A LOT of skill to be able to interpret the data and apply it successfully. (The information provided in this bullet point is not my opinion but a fact that I can back up with statistics and may be one of the few people who can do that)

Now that I've stated where I think that the OP is wrong; I would like to point out where they are correct:

1. The greater good of the game of poker is always more important than a single player or even community. If PokerStars is making these changes for the "greater good of the game" then my hat goes off to them. I think for that to happen then at least 80% of the increased revenue must be put back into the poker economy either by obtaining new players and/or putting the money back into the fish's pockets.

2. Bum hunting is bad -- very bad for the game. There simply is no greater good that can come from it and I would like to see sites put procedures into place to prevent this from happening. It is one thing to properly table select and find a good game, it is entirely another thing to find a single player and only sit in while they are playing then immediately sit out. I think proper table selection is fine, it is the latter that needs to be eliminated.

To close, I would like to reiterate that my thoughts above were not directed towards the OP per se; however, I chose to reply in this thread (other than the various others) because I thought the OP shared several recurring themes that I have noticed which I felt needed addressed.

Best regards,

Derek

If thats what you want go play Southpoints free site. The new change allowing you to build up a Pts bankroll (which goes into effect Thur morning after the 24hr blackout upgrade).. Your hopes for fun poker playing is more designed for Zynga poker not a real poker site playing cash. No rake back and you can win cash and prizes (Southpoints big changes will actually allow for some cashouts but seems to be ideal for rec players like you).

I dont think HUDS make much of a difference the big cheating on Poker Edge has been shutdown which to me was cheating (it was datamining outright andsharing HHs) but PT and HM are nothing more then automatically registering data of hands you actually played. Canning HUDs doesnt make that much a difference if you've ever read some of the early IPoker books they advocated "taking notes" on players anyway.. PT and HM arent a threat the only plus Ive seen of them is its ability to analyze your own HH and playing habits to plug leaks which I think is a valuable commodity to improve self-play pretty much. Now as for chatting.. GL you cant force people to chat and honestly some I wish would just STFU at the tables because they just are annoying mouth/chat typer runners

PT and HM do not need a HUD. You can analyze hand history without a HUD.

You know you can ignore the chatting player at the table.

Valid point about the HUD but I still think people complaining about them (other htem PE) fear people collecting info on them which people can still do without HUDS so unless your going to take away the whole note insert options on the software too (which many sites have). As for Chat true. My point I was making was this person was wanting people chatting at the tables and my point was some people you dont want chatting and forcing people to chat which is what it bordered on in his statement was stupid.. Most people dont talk online period at least in my experience anymore

Viff, random question, do you respect the games of players like Durr/Galfond/Nanonoko?

I pretty much agree. And even though we are taking a bit of a pay cut I agree with WC rake because it'll give rec players a bit more incentive to keep playing and depositing because of little perks they get for their time at the tables. Plus the game will loosen up a bit and make it more interesting for these guys to play.

PS: i used to profitably play 24 tables HUDless on cake

this is taken from the mass sitout thread (NVG) someone quoted this post by Livb


this may have some insight as to what the sites beleive is the greater good

liv didn't seem to mention that they're raking the micros at ~10bb/100 so these players who dump $100 on stars not only lose it because the games are supposedly tougher but they're giving away tons to the site whilst getting nothing back.