Anyone who has a level of intelligence can see that changes need to be made, and indeed perhaps deep cuts to the VIP system would be the best thing long term overall. I don't necessarily agree with that myself but it is clear something has to be done.

You don't have to agree with the vast majority of these changes but Stars are well within their rights to make all of them (bar the reneging on SNE 2nd year).

However what you say Richas is this

That is not the main point. The main point for the players, as has already been pointed out, is the fraudulent advertising of SNE benefits for 2016 then reneging on them. Reading this report that is what the player reps placed as the highest priority and deservedly so.

Any other changes are fair game by Stars and only debateable in how and where, I don't think its debateable there has to be change.

Richas how long are the UKGC going to allow Amaya to operate in Russia? Exposing UK players to botrings and potential legal issues? I thought the UKGC said black markets were explicitly not allowed? Seems they don't care. Grey markets "arguable" or something.

They massaged the landscape into this unsustainable environment and continue to rake >75% for a fact (based on previous posts in here) and still don't think they need to adjust the rake at say the micros or small stakes. See below,

no money plo, everyone is raked (March 2013)
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...raked-1315665/

PLO100 Rake Analysis -- Part I (May 2013)
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...art-i-1336479/

PokerStars June 2013 PLO meeting – Report Joeri / L0ve2playU (July 2013)
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...playu-1347678/

Rake analysis between PLO & NLHE incl. Zoom (July 2014)
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...-zoom-1461881/

If an element of this rake remained in the pool and they policed the games slightly better, ie bots and script abusers the position wouldn't be as bad as it currently is. I would say much healthier. Not going to get in a tit for tat with you bro, pm me if you want to discuss in detail.

Richas,
Pokerstars has given only vague explanations of what "ecosystem" means. So how can anyone fairly judge from the outside what needs to be done. If they really wanted players input for a solution they'd at least identify the problem.

No way that 95% of deposits at 1/2 NL go down the hole as rake

Let me play the devil's advocate in here....

90%/10% spilt rake/winning, once you added RB it gives a different result as 30/70 circa rake profit in specific case of SNE?


LOL at 95% of deposits in rake

I expect the changes will result in a decrease in the amount of volume played at these stakes during 2016. (I haven't played on Stars this year so others would have to comment on how many tables are running on average compared to last year.)

It wouldn't be fair to attribute any such decrease, should it happen, solely on the changes, but I find it hard to see how they won't have a significant effect. It's hard to accurately model exactly which games/stakes will be most effected, and I suppose there could even be a stake where there is an increase in volume despite a site-wide decrease(?) (Not because of more players being brought in, but because of players trickling down, resulting in a higher concentration at one particular stake. I wouldn't expect to see this, but I'm just guessing/speculating on what could possibly happen. E.g. If we say 100NL is the lowest stake at which a "somewhat reasonable" monthly profit can be made then I guess enough players who previously played 200NL+ could start to put in volume at 100NL that exceeds the volume of ex-100NL players having left/moved down(?))

"Effective rake" already accounts for RB.

It seems to be universally accepted on this forum that recs and/or fish don't care about rake. I emphatically disagree that this is true.

I've asked a couple different times ITT about exactly this issue (e.g. above), but to this point the attendees haven't addressed it, even though I think it should be possible to do so without violating the NDA.

Thanks. The concentration/overall volume reduction part makes interesting reading to me -- maybe i just think too hard about the cash only economics / and forget about mtt revenue. But yeah, your thoughts here do make a lot of sense and that culling of the high stake pool, causes a reg influx at small stakes like 0.50/1.

I still don't quite grasp how the influx of these players continue to have a "desire to grind" given they aren't guaranteed significant mandatory rewards to make the volume, hours and breakeven winrates (for some) worth the effort.

Anyway, i've harped on about pseudo ****ing rake enough now... and the chain of events that leads to it from a cash only mindset. Going to stop now. and just see what happens.

Would still like to know if volumes were discussed at great length as well as "desire to grind" kill and the fake rake implications for THEM as a business.

I think we need to bear in mind the large (increasing?) number of "break even" (or close to it, pre RB) regs from countries with low average salaries. There's a whole bunch of Eastern European/ex-Soviet countries plus China and others whose mean monthly salary is between $200 - $500 and for whom the ability to make $1k+ from grinding must be very attractive.

That's a pretty solid shout tbh. I guess they continue to grind away with the same ethos unless a better alternative becomes available

I understand you guys are young, and likely don't have much business or political experience. But I think you know enough to know how to handle this. You need to stop justifying that these are the only games you can play in order to meet your financial poker goals, and just go elsewhere. Even if that means you will take a hit to your bottom line in the short term, in the long term you'll find other opportunities. Use this clue life has provided you to find something else in poker, or business that can create other financial opportunities for you.

Because the bottom line is they have completely different interest than yours, and Amaya has very short sighted goals. I can tell you from having a lot of business experience, these kinds of companies don't last.

So everyone, just move. Don't put up with this crap. There are still plenty of sites you can make enough on if you put some effort into it (even if that means dropping down for available games and more tables), and / or you play more live. Don't give people your money who don't respect you. Just don't.

Just because I decided to move doesn't mean Amaya should be able to get away with this, the players needs to get together and hold them accountable, at the very least for not providing the benefits that were promised to the SN/SNEs

And also to expose their lies about "the long term health and benefit of the poker ecosystem"

Ansky should schedule a followup meeting. Bring Raidalot and OPR instead this time.

Please don't include me in the people who think that - my position is "I don't know" what recreational players at PokerStars think re rake, rakeback etc.

But you don't say anything about what recreationals DO feel about it nor do you supply evidence. Is your emphatic statement based on evidence? If so - what is it?

I feel there is some incorrect logic here, as you're implying that 100% of losing players money ends up as rake. Now obviously this can't be the case, as a proportion of losing players' money ends up in the hands of winning players. A quick database analysis at 10nl full ring zoom for 25%+ VPIP yielded an average loss rate of -25bb/100. These players produced rake at an average of around half this. So for this group of players, 50% of their deposits go to rake and the other 50% goes to winning players.

I also researched average winrates for a winning player at 10nl, turns out it's roughly 3bb/100. An average 10nl full ring winning player will rake about 5bb/100 (give or take). At least 1bb/100 they'll typically get back as rakeback, so for an average winner at 10nl the distribution will be more like 50% effective rake; 50% winnings.

Now I may have made a mistake somewhere along the line with my analysis, but it gives an indication that perhaps the suggestion that 95% of net deposits at the microstakes end up as rake for the site is an overestimate. I'm not saying you're definitely wrong, but if my rough calculations are anything to go by then it seems the split would be closer to 50:50 between winning players and Amaya.

So an avg NL10 player pays exactly teh same rake as an avg NL100 player?
Please do us all a favour for once and stay out of a discussion u dont even have teh slightest clue about.

Thanks bro

No dude you misunderstand. I wasn't referring to the average 10nl player, i was referring to the average winning full ring 10nl player. Meleab mentioned this to be around 3bb/100 effective for 100nl which is less than what i said for 10nl. Fwiw I'm raking 5.5bb/100 and my VPIP is 15 which is roughly average for a winning reg at the micros.

Yea, I probably shouldn't have made such a blanket statement. It probably was imprudent to lump all members of this forum into a broad category. When I wrote that post I was in a big hurry, so I didn't have the chance to elaborate, but I have a few minutes now.

Disclaimer: i am by no means claiming to be some big bawler of the internet poker world. I have some experience with organizing charity poker tournaments, running some small stakes games, friends in the live poker industry, friends that run small time games, friends that are dealers, stuff like that...but most of my experience is with live poker. I do believe that many or even most of the people I know from the poker world have varying experiences playing online, but I'm not an expert in how involved they are/were. iow- take this for what its worth.

Some observations:

1. I've seen high rake games fail in poker rooms.
Off the top of my head this has happened with mix games, plo limit games, and holdem limit games. The poker room that I most frequent these days usually has 15+ tables of 1-2nl, a few 2-4 nl, and struggles to fill any of the limit games due to high rake. The limit games used to very popular, then someone figured out that they were almost unbeatable and now they've vanished.

2. I've seen high rake home games fail.
Nobody likes a game that can't be beaten. Now you may say "how do I know the games failed because of high rake?" Well, because I know the guys that used to go to the games, and they've told me they won't play in a game that can't be beaten. I acknowledge this is anecdotal evidence, btw.

3. I've seen tons of players complain about rake in games that I've been involved in organizing or running. This is something that you probably don't notice so much when you aren't the one that has to deal with the complaints. However, it's been my experience that players in general tend to be much more aware of the rake than you would think. I've seen guys with very little experience ask for rake reductions in short handed games. I've seen inexperienced players threaten to take their action elsewhere, complain about rake in split pots, ask for free stuff due to the rake they've paid, etc etc.

In general, poker players, even losing players, are NOT stupid.

4. (anecdotal) Many of the people I know in the poker community, the vast majority of them losing players (and some of them BIG losers), talk about rake in common conversation.


I believe that this industry is eating itself alive. I also believe that the jacked rake at the micros is problem #1 that is killing our game. To take the position that amateur poker players are too stupid to recognize an unbeatable game is a losing proposition, imo.

I may well be wrong, and I'm questioning whether I'm incorrectly trying to simplify things, but of course I'm not implying that 100% of losing players' money ends up as rake.

I doubt your calculations that an "average" winner at 10NL has a bb/100 winrate only slightly less than the bb/100 rake that they pay. If you're going off of your database alone, then that isn't going to produce an accurate set of results. I'd also guess that you may not have weighted that average- i.e. you're going to have a lot of players with tiny samples and double-digit winrates. You can PM me your data if you like to save us going back and forth here.

I didn't actually come up with those winrates myself since as you say, it would be pretty difficult to produce an accurate set of results from my database alone. I actually achieved the winrates from this article http://www.blackrain79.com/2014/06/g...d-small_6.html which compares the top winrates with the average winrates of winning microstakes and small stakes regs. Now I don't know how accurate Blackrain's estimations are or how he calculated them, but I thought the winrates he gave made sense and seemed to be in roughly the same ballpark as what you'd expect (I used the "Average win rates for 9-17 tables" section to get my 3bb/100 estimated average wr for 10nl)

Now my effective rake for 10nl was 4.5bb/100 (5.5 - 1bb/100) and I believe this will be pretty close to average for a winning reg (given my stats are quite average) so this equates to roughly 60% rake, 40% winnings for the average winning reg at 10nl. In my case, I was winning at 8bb/100 at 10nlz over a decent sample so it worked out more like 35% rake, 65% winnings for me. I believe double digit winrates at 10nl are attainable by some of the better winning micro players (especially at regular tables). The presence of these bigger winners in the games should balance out the more marginal 1-2bb/100 winners, so overall an estimate of an average winning 10nl player winrate of 3bb/100 seems pretty reasonable imo.

Overall I do agree effective rake is much higher at microstakes, but you mustn't forget that winrates have the potential to be much higher as well. I feel overall these two factors will cancel out a bit. I may be wrong about a lot of this, but my guess is that you might have oversimplified things a bit with your approach. I'm not saying my approach is right either, but I'm decent at maths so I thought I might just throw my 2 cents out there after doing a bit of research.

If PS is concerned with Rec money being lost too quickly and thus not raked enough, consider lowering rake and apply a % withdrawal tax for winners withdrawals.

The one thing this meeting did accomplish was that it switched the active "ecosystem" NVG thread to one who's title isn't calling out Negreanu specifically. No wonder he wanted this meeting to happen.

I think that you are absolutely right. A number of years ago I worked on a website that catered almost exclusively to rec players. If anything, many of them were obsessed with rake. They didn't want some poker site taking advantage of them and also they often felt that they needed all the help they could get.

For some reason a lot of people think that people who are new to poker or who just aren't very good at poker are also bad consumers. But really, I doubt that there is much of a correlation between a person's poker abilities and a person's ability to shop around.