Of course I don't think they had access beforehand. Even so, that doesn't relinquish them of their own responsibility to prepare something with substance themselves.

I figured it was a nod to this 60 Minutes report (go to 3:00):

If there was another round of meetings in 3 months time would you spend your time going to another meeting, or do you think they are essentially useless?

I really feel for all three of you guys having to do this, especially around this time of year when Aussie millions/PCA is on and you're all playing huge schedules whilst trying to spend brain power on this.

We all massively respect all three of you and thank you for your efforts.

We prepared, we spent many hours planning. My point is that the meeting fundamentally was centered around data that PokerStars was showing us, which we didn't have access to until the meeting. If that seems disingenuous to you, I'm not really sure what you expected of us. We ran through various scenarios of the types of data we'd be shown, other than that I don't know what we could have done to prepare for dealing with PokerStars prepared data. We really had no idea what info they were going to show us.

As far as the rest of your point, feel free to offer the solution.

THIS! (ldo!)

We did that of course. Like I said though the majority of the substance of the meeting was centered around a presentation that Amaya/PokerStars prepared for us.

Here's a perspective from a moderately competent low stakes MTT player.

PokerStars have a monopoly in the online poker market. We the players gave them that monopoly, because the whole package offered is in general much better than what the competition has to offer.

The thing about a monopoly, you can treat your customers like trash if you want, because they have nowhere else to go. During the cold war, in the Soviet Union, if you wanted to buy a washing machine you had to buy the state manufactured washing machine. These were produced in factories where there was very little quality control, screws were hammered in (because using a screwdriver takes far more time). The demanding quotas were met and despite the product being terrible and liable to fall apart after a few uses, people bought them. The substandard manufacturing didn't matter, the monopoly ensured steady sales, dissatisfied customers had no choice but to put up with it.

Similarly, PokerStars can treat its very best customers like trash. It can act without integrity, without ethics, it can lie and steal from its customers. They can only do this because they have an effective monopoly. If a competitor could give an equal service, without doubt a large proportion of the players would leave PokerStars immediately, but in the current online poker marketplace, a decent competitor seems to be absent.

I had very little optimism that PokerStars would budge from these changes. Why would they, they've just found a way to add tens of millions to the profit column. Their domination of the market allows them to do this and it seems we're powerless to stop them. All the whining on social media, all the meetings and all the reasoned logical debate isn't going to achieve a reversal, this is the new reality, PokerStars will abuse its market position and treat its loyal customers like trash whenever it wants.

So what do we do? Just carry on as normal? I get that pros need to make a living, not playing isn't an option.

What I think needs to happen:

Players need to unite and actively work together to reduce PokerStars market share.
Why? Because as bad as the VIP changes are, having a monopoly in the market is the real problem.

This group of player needs to choose and negotiate with a competitor, become king-makers and work to promote and improve that competitors software, games, rake, charges, T&Cs, rewards, etc.

If we can bring the thousands of SN/SNE players, with the volume they played on stars, have that increased rake and profit shared to the mutual benefit of the players and the site (in a formal and legally binding way), the recs will follow. We want to play with the big names, you are the star attraction. Aspiring poker player want to say "I played with Ike Haxton".

The big name pros working to promote the site, twitch stream, engage with recs on social media & at live events, do everything possible to get that site attracting players and creating a rival to Stars, shill the hell out of it, get players playing there and break the current monopoly. In creating a healthier market place, the rival competing sites will have to treat customers well or risk losing them to the opposition.

In this 'normal' market place, PokerStars will still exist, but it will have had its wings clipped, not as a punishment or for revenge, but just so the online poker market can be healthier for its own long term sustainable future.

Player power gave PokerStars its position and for long enough its was responsible with its dominant position, a benevolent force, treating customers well and it was well respected for it. Since Amaya took over its obvious that this is no longer a company that cares about the players. Player power needs to work again to break the monopoly. I trust Dani, Ike & Daniel. Negotiate better terms & conditions at another site and I'll follow you there and so will thousands of others.

When you say shorthanded cash games can you define this 6max or hu? And did you talk about heads up cash games and if so what what did you take away from the discussion and pokerstars overall thinking about them?

This is the tl;dr of his post. Along with explaining how Stars is a monopoly and abusing their power.

I've long wondered why online poker players just don't bankroll and create their own site. Hire dudes from Google to build the software. Decide on the best operators either somebody like Dani or Ike or hiring somebody. There is enough money, there is enough brainpower, they have the connections and they have the star power to promote the site. WTF? Why do these team pros need to promote Stars instead of their own site? It worked for Full Tilt. Unfortunately they were a bunch of live pro degens and ran it horribly. Online players I don't think would make that same mistake.

^^

I think you massively underestimate the task of building a poker-client able to handle traffic of thousands of players and the necessary money to get everything up and running.

Interesting to see players fighting against a company that use their "freedom" and capitalistic "values" when they are directly concerned with the changes.

Next time a factory or a business close it's doors in your area Daniel, we will see you stand for it and try to help ?

Did they consider in any way that they were stiffing SNE's or was their attitude just 'who cares'?

The TL : DR cliffs should be "they made it clear to us they were essentially aware they were ethically and morally wrong for shafting SNE's but had no choice but to not care because money".

From my point of view - Removing the intricacies of this debacle - This is all about one thing. Greed. And really really really shortsighted.

Wow, lots of <50 post shills with 1month+ accounts in thread imo.

Seeing as mostly shills are asking questions in the form 1,2,3,4,5 I think i'll do that as well.

1) What advice do you have for anyone attending future meetings regarding this topic? even though I guess its fair to say reward changes are dead in the water
2) Based on the mechanism they use to present skewed data in their favor - how can players attending future meetings counter this in your opinion?
3) Has the meeting changed your position on organised striking as a way to get their attention?
4) Were the PLO bots discussed? If not, why not?
5) With hindsight, would you still attend the meeting?


Think your totally wide of the mark here, we've seen how stars operate via these meetings. The reps are basically playing the equivalent of 6card PLO for the first time but only being dealt a single card over a sample of 10 hands. i.e They don't have access to all the information they need + time to brainstorm and counter effectively.

+1

Thank you to the three of you for trying your best.

As Ansky said it's very difficult to prepare for something when you have no idea what's going to be thrown on your lap. In courts we have a thing called discoveries so lawyers can prepare ahead of time to pick apart details of a witness prior to the court date. For these meetings there is none of that and it's solely on a rep to think on the fly when he's shown data that is obviously skewed to further an agenda. Statistics can be used to show any truth you want.
The NDA is just another part of the issue... if Pokerstars adamantly doesn't want you saying something they could enforce that as well... I don't think they've abused this authority... but if the right rep had the right questions on an issue I have no doubt they would as these meetings from Amaya's side of things is not to find a compromise that all parties can agree on but on how to justify their actions that further enhance their profits at the expense of players.

ummm no its doesnt. These guys are there to represent the professionals point of view.

All this "well done guys" bs is laughable as well, they went there, 3 boys with no clue how the world works (beyond being good at a card game), predictably got put in their place by astute businessmen, and came back with nothing. But hats off right. This thread is a like a bizarre mural of sincere golf claps

The screwing of the supernovas is unfortunate but just a part of business that happens all the time when companies realise that some high volume customers are taking up too much resources . Stars should be applauded for even taking the time to show them the data they based their decisions on.

A poker room started by pros is doomed to failure and will never happen.

This shocking news deserves a thread of its own imo.

someone fyp please

Yea, I want to express my gratitude for you all going out there. There are multiple threads on these topics, and lots of posts, but this brings it home to me that there were actual people going out to them in person to try and fight this.

Very commendable and admirable.

Question for all three. After the meeting, did any of the views you held before the meeting change as a result of the meeting?

If you are able to discuss what that was please provide some details on what that view was and what changed your opinion.

If you can't provide any details can you at least provide some insight into how important that view and change was in relation to the other issues you had coming into the meeting?

This is the first I've heard of this, but wow, it's a really good idea.

Dani, I asked this in the VIP changes thread but I'd like to seriously ask. Do you think this was worth your time in any way whatsoever? Open to Ike and DD as well.

Way to only take part of the original quote, so you can take it out of context.

Think of an old, dying forest. Leaves and branches fall off. The trunks of trees begin to rot. The sun cannot reach the soil and allow for new growth. The current structure is choking any opportunity for new life to develop.

One can let nature take its course and let the forest slowly fade away into oblivion, allowing for new growth to occur on its own. However, that can take many years to occur if left alone. All people will do during that time is look at that dying forest and complain about how ugly it is and how it hurts their property value to live next to such a disgusting thing.

A way to expedite the process would be for humans who live next to the forest to take things into their hands and burn the forest down to the ground. The ashes will regenerate the soil and allow for the growth of a new, beautiful forest full of life. It may be barren for a short time but the growth will be much greater in the long run. The lives of its nearby residents will be much greater and more fulfilling. Property value will rise and the eyesore that once existed will be nothing more than a distant memory. Such complaints will be a thing of the past. All the people will think about is what the future of a new forest can bring them.

Did you point out that these other initiatives ought to be happening anyway if they're profitable to the business? Like, surely any money spent on advertising is expected to be made back by the additional business that results from the advertising, otherwise why spend it at all?

Unless the company has serious cash flow problems this makes no sense.