How difficult is to comprehend that dropping the rake is going to attract ZERO recreational players???

If the games are easier I don't see how its not going to attract recreational players compared to them paying crazy rake fees which comes out of their deposits.

need this chap to come back and continue with more juicy details.

paging deilegend

So let's say they remove the rake completely from the microstakes. I will use the snapshot from the comment above:



Do you REALLY think that a one-tabler like jppcabral now has a better shot to win more frequently at that table with no rake? He will not. It will just make it more profitable for the multitablers to continue what thet are doing for a little longer until there's no fish coming.

I have also seen other comments that the occasional fish that plays higher stakes will be also impacted as that occasional fish will not get any RB. He is not in that game for RB, never was and never will be.

Then why does the Aria have Mlife cards?

What about that with his deposit he plays more hands overall because of less rake and enjoys the game more then busting quickly?


When I first played online (total noob) $2/4 to $3/6 and rakeback was paid weekly, I often received on average >$1200 in rakeback. If you think fun players think nothing of $1200 rakeback then hmm.

He made most / all of that up.

Does not at all align with reality. Traffic is *not* "down 30-40%" -- please cite some source for that.

Same goes for "Amaya almost failed on their first payments on the loans to buy Pokerstars". Poppycock. The loan agreement explicitly calls for a big tranche of revenues each quarter to first go toward loan repayment, and that's exactly what's been happening, with the balance steadily decreasing. There was one refinancing at some pt, but nothing like the "near failure" he suggested. Overall company performance hasn't lived up to expectations, but the lenders are still getting paid back apace.

Traffic "evaporating almost overnight"? Please.

I invite deilegend to return and provide some evidence. Seems like mostly fabrication and unsupported exaggerations.

totally agree their was a bit of hyperbole but he did allege to have some working knowledge with the tone of his post… if he does have any working knowledge, would be nice to learn more.

this was a very complicated, largely unprecedented deal in the M&A space.

Even Richas had trouble deciphering the details after researching and he is pretty smart in these matters.

if deilegend was just pulling that stuff out of his arse then good riddance, if not he should come on here and explain more.

First of all, No ONE is in it for the rakeback, the high rake makes it necessary for some to take that into account though. I agree that the screenshot is terrible though and something obviously has to be done about that. I'm not sure if what Stars are doing is the correct thing, I would think a limit of the amount of tables one could play would be more efficient.

it's not close to 5 pros to 1 Rec players overall but 5 spots at a table to 1 rec makes more sense since obviously pros play way more tables on average

bye

why dont they just lower the max amount of tables? Never understood that. If 1 reg is 10 tabling and 10 fish are 1 tabling, the ratio is 1:1. Bovada caps tables and it doesnt affect recs since basically no recs are playing over 4 tables. If regs want to make money they have to play higher stakes

Why not cut rake-back, ban tools AND cap tables?

They aren't exclusive solutions, and the first is much better value.

lol you showed them! im sure PS is calling urgent meeting of the board and Bazov is looking for his shotty to blow his brains out.

It will not attract them, but it will make their deposit last longer and they will be more likely to continue depositing if they win at least every once in a while as opposed to never

The problem with a rake decrease (alone) is that it increases win-rates for both recs and regs, which will mean the reg-concentration will increase, which is net worse for fish variance.

To make a sustainable ecosystem any changes need to add to the rec win-rates without improving reg hourly's. The best changes reduce reg hourly's (without reducing rec hourly's) in order to reduce the concentration as regs fill fewer seats, increasing the whole tables' bb/100s.

They could completely change the charging system by taking a fee for every hand dealt for example 1/10th of a SB. This charge could then be increased when sitting in more than "x" tables.

This would mean that multi-tabling tight players would pay far more rake per flop than loose recreationals.

The relationship to the small blind would also stop the over raking of micros.

alexdb lol, being a 2p2 member for over a decade and this much clueless with regards to poker.
no wonder the game is so profitable.

Mostly because of casino games. The more you play the more you lose so incentivizing volume makes a lot of sense. Not the same with poker. Look at Aria casino floor, I like the card room there but it is tiny compared to the casino floor and quite small compared to a lot non-Vegas card rooms.

Huh?

What specially did he say above that you don't agree with. Sounded more like simple facts vs his opinion .

Cap tables and ban player to player transfers. Makes it hard for people to run stables. Recs don't use player to player transfers. Problem solved. Oh and make tourneys non reentry.

Table caps will just cause people to multi-site which isn't good for Poker Stars.

Bovada players don't have much alternative.

You'll get one third of what you want. Which one do you think?

Degen

https://medium.com/@skolsuper/pokers...c9c#.zc2byyfa7

+1