The moral of my story is that rake is easy to overlook. Most people don't even notice what is happening at the tables. I just don't think recreational players are aware of it, and even if they are, they don't understand the implications.

It sounds like you're saying you think losing players are too stupid to notice - ever. Like why wouldn't others notice eventually, if you did?

I don't see this convo going anywhere. Guess we just see things differently.

That's not what I think at all. People who don't notice rake aren't stupid. People who are bad at poker aren't stupid. Many people who are good at poker do not seem to be smart or wise in any way whatsoever.

Sure, some players will notice the rake. If someone plays a lot, I certainly hope they take the time to think about it.

I think the argument that Amaya will lose recreational players because of rake increases is silly. They are recreational players. They are not operating with the same mindstate as someone on 2p2 or DC who is trying to increase their EV of every single hand on a daily basis. Not caring about rake isn't stupid. Not caring about poker isn't stupid. People have different motivations for playing. You really think someone who plays 500 hands a month is looking up rake structures and considering how it's going to impact their bottom line?

The Amaya changes are bad for professional players, small winners, breakeven players, slightly losing players, and bonus grinders. The "exodus" of players from Stars probably has a lot to do with those players, and the general fluctuation of players around this time of year, than it does with recreational players fleeing because the rake structure is making them lose slightly more than they were already losing.

Isnt the main reason anyone notices rake 'tracking software', and fish usually/never have this.

After a month you check your stats, all looks good, then you look at rake and its 4 figures, thats gonna get your attention.

When you play HU and both stacks are below starting amounts, anyone will notice the rake.

We seem to have a problem and it is observable that it has perturbed the psychology of the players community. None of you know your own true winrates (or anothers') yet on the other hand we are complaining of the game being over raked.

I'll make a suggestion, and see if anyone feels they can produce evidence to the contrary.

The games are ALL over-effectively-raked. This suggests that most of the players in this thread, and in this community, are actually net depositors, losing players, RECREATIONAL players (by any reasonable and useful definition).

So what you have here is a bunch of recs, that understand rake and its effects very well arguing recs don't understand rake, but are simply not able to notice that the profitability line has moved...

We should also remember that when a lucky player comes to this community to give strategy advice, they should not also be considered a pro that thrives off skilled money.

wtf is this nonsense you just posted?

in before "solid first post"

Why do people gamble on slots, pit games or the lotto? They are not beatable long term so those games should be dead.

You'll have to answer your own question. I already said above that I don't have the answer to that question of why people continue to play if they're losing. That might not be how most people respond to losing though.

Also, not sure there's any evidence to show that net depositors don't realize that they're losing players or that the rake is high or that games are barely beatable necessarily.

Mine is they dont care and are just having some fun.

My internet lagged before I could add that maybe not every losing player continues to play.

And one difference of slots and lotto so is that they sell the long-shot hope of winning a jackpot for a small price tag. The same can't be said for cash games, or SNGs.

Actually to the contrary, there is plenty of evidence on this forum that breakeven and net depositors are well aware of rake policies and their relation to effective rake. These players DO understand the environment is over raked, but since winrate stats are opaque, they don't know themselves as such.

They just don't like to put 2 and 2 together.

PSFBIDOJITT

Sit and Go's no. Spin and Gos, yes, AFAICT.

This is true for Amaya and most of the winning online poker players.

Sure - I would agree. But Amaya crossed the line into blatant theft/advertising fraud to achieve their short term goal. I don't think a high percentage of full time players are guilty of that.

No. Amaya is a business and has customers. It is quite rational to suggest that the customers should have an opinion about the business and the service it offers. Amaya reneged on a deal they had with their customers. It's probably not illegal, or at least its grey, but the players are standing on rational grounds when they make their complaints.

Winning players taking money out of the ecosystem is exactly what all players SHOULD want. I qualify this by "skilled" players. We should all want the best players to win in the longer run. That means the game is fair, and there is incentive for smart people to pervade the population. Smart people by nature and my definition are moral. Moral has a relation to profitability and so these people keep a good healthy community that secures the games.

Recreational players should also want this as well. Even though they might not. It should not be that the rec player is tricked into thinking that they are actually a pro player, and wins skilled money. A rec player plays because of the luck and the fun, and some because they want to become a skilled player.

We want this division, and we want to put the emphasis on skilled players winning otherwise the game will degrade and with it the community.

It is another way of saying over raked games perturb the psychology of the players fields.

I came here to say that economics does not say that poker players contribute less to the world than a doctor. Capitalism also does not support these sentiments. Neither does any rational individual (nor Ayn Rand!). We are each to pursue our own passions, provided they do not encroach on the rights of others, and this is the very best we can contribute to society.

For some it is playing poker as a pro, for some it is playing poker as a rec. But there is nothing in science that suggest poker is a value-less contribution to society. There is not citation for this. It's simply a misunderstanding of the social (dismal) science.

Winning full time players are just following the rules that Pokerstars puts forth. If Pstars wanted to ban HUDS, Scripts, put a table cap, players would have to abide. But Pstars doesn't do this because they need regs. They just don't want to share the depositors money with them.

Players follow Pstars rules... Pstars switches the rules on the fly to serve themselves (SNE reduction)

Sect7G, we ever gonna chat? I have some significant urgent relevant info, but no lines to get it to you ;p

Asj Baaaf could tell you.

unregulated market --> get it regulated --> busted USA --> regulate it --> your ****ed --> what happened?


wake up

grow up

regulated market = 9 seated $5 buyin MTTs with 8 players regging, that's not even a SNG. WTF

Send me a PM.

Sort of been trying for like 2 years...

didnt read op (too big) .

i only see plo lobby, and the action is a lot worse this year. less tables running, the diference from last year is big and i think stars regret their decision. will explain why.

regs stop playing. some guys on this forum think stars dont like pros, its ridiculous, pros are the guys who pay the maximum rake, they are good customers .

see what happens in 2016, and why its bad for stars:

like many other regs , i used to play whatever game was running on my stake. in 2016 we stoped doing this, we only play good tables. results ? we pay less rake and our winrate is higher than before because on 8tables we play better than on 20. we not playing only reg tables for sne or just because ''lol lets play'' . by the way, that doenst means we regs are making more money, its worse for us, just saying that for stars is probably worse too.

im almost sure the same thing happenned at nl holdem tables too . i have no idea about sng/spin/mtts, but seems from the little i see, some people are not playing this anymore stars stop making moneyt there too.

rake is bigger, but i dont think the rake increase is big enough to win more w/ less tables running . so i think stars regret their decision . they made an agressive bet, which is fine, they can do whatever they want , could work, but seems didn't work how they wanted, and now they are realizing they made a wrong bet because it was way too agressive.

i think in 1-2 years stars will make changes, idk what, maybe a semi-sne program, not easy like was, this never will be back, but they might give some bonus to induce regs to play reg tables and more tables run .

i dont have any database/numbers , just my impression from seeing lobby every week , but honeslty, this can't be good for stars. theres a LOT LESS tables running . MANY people stop playing in 2016, or people who used to have 500k hands on stars in may, now have 50k hands.

and a bonus for stars decision: in 2015 many people (regs and fishs) were doing free add on every social media about how much they love stars, how awesome the site is etc etc.. nowadays everyone says on social media they hate stars. dont know the efect this have, maybe dont change much if neymar and nadal say they love stars, but im sure stars didnt want this to happen .

ps: stars dont care about poker, if grow or die... they want money, obv. but if poker die too fast, they lose money, so they actually care a little for the game.