If OP is not a rec player doesnt even matter. He is way more valuable to the site than what some of you consider a truly rec player that logs a couple of hours a month.

Very good post OP. Its really annoying how some posters paint a picture of rec players as people that want to lose and have single digit IQ.

I don't think Dutch owned it and I can't remember the name off hand but I'm pretty sure they had a subscription model. You paid something like $15 a month and could play as much as you want.

I think such a site would do a bit better these days, but probably still fail unless they were incredibly well-funded, because it's difficult to attract players unless you have a USP besides low rake.

I'd categorise such a player as an 'improver'. For me this is undoubtedly the most valuable category of player. At this point the player is at the peak of their interest in the game, is telling their friends about it, reading poker magazines and forums, probably having some success to brag about, and so on. In my experience it's pretty common for such players to use tracking software to track their results. However I think a lot of players get disillusioned at this point in their career due to the extreme difficulty of reaching the next level. It would be a bit like getting into bodybuilding in the early 80s, getting pretty competitive at it, and then finding out that to reach the very top, you have to be taking steroids.

Responses:
Nerdsuperfly-san:
Surely there must be some smaller amount of rake that would allow enough people to win (and please note, I am not saying "ME....I MUST WIN"....it`s possible I will never win if I don`t stop playing 3/6 Badugi) that would allow the general public to believe it was possible to win at online poker? Or changes to multi-tabling? Or a player-run non-profit site? Or something?

Your attitude to the rake seems to be "Hey, It`s Siberia, of course it`s cold" like rake is the weather or something. Every 1bb/100 they reduce rake would increase the number of people who could win in a smooth curve. Wouldn`t having more winning players out there increase the attractiveness of the game as a whole? Is it Poker Stars duty to make the games finally impossible? Is Poker the same as Roulette?

Please note: I`m coming from this NOT as a pro. I don`t depend on any money I can make at this game. For a rec player, I truly believe it`s binary. "Yeah, I win at online poker" or "No, I lose". The first one come with bragging rights, a sense of accomplishment and a desire to encourage others to play the game. The second one doesn`t.

And you can definitely see it in the PG&C forum. So many threads start with the OP running well, setting really high goals, thinking they have what it takes, all geed up about being successful, making it to higher limits and making lots of money. Then so many of these threads disappear into nothingness, as the OPs hit a bad run and realise the game is FAR tougher than they had first imagined.

@Mentality.
Re Not hearing of the changes.
That`s exactly what I mean.

Amaya-> "Rec players don`t care about rake->so we don`t have to tell them we are raising it->people who DO care about rake are all regs-> and it`s their fault the games suck->because they win->rec players should never ever win-> that`s not what they want".

**** that noise. They don`t even tell me they are charging an extra 2.5% on my deposits because......"Recs gotta gamble"? They make damm sure I know about Micro Millions and the latest All-in Shootouts.....but don`t seem to be able to shoot me a line about how they are gonna charge me extra to deposit next week.

"hey it's the grocery store, of course bread costs money."

"hey it's a bar, of course they're charging for drinks."

"hey it's a gas station, of course the gas isn't free."

ad infinitum

shane536 for rep to the next Pokerstars meeting.

I don't think they're complete dumb gamblers either. I think the majority of recreational players don't care about poker nearly as much as OP does and aren't paying attention to things like rake or HUDs or books or forums.

Most players do care about strategy and make an effort to play well/ improve. Many recreational players aspire to be winners. I guess the one area where I disagree with op is that I don't think many recs aspire to be 2bb/100 winners grinding cash games. I could be wrong, but I think more of them dream of hitting the big score - making the new spin and go appealing. I guess I should say I'm speaking for myself here as a recreational player - I like the strategic aspects of the game, but there's no appeal to me of grinding a small profit. When I deposit, I'll deposit $100 or $200 and try to run it up. (fwiw, the main turn off for me is the level of douchebagginess I encounter online, it's like whenever I, or anyone else, makes a bad play some yahoo is berating them)

Anyhow the fact that players improve over time necessarily means that the game will get tougher, without an inflow of new (losing) players. The higher the rake the faster the game will become unbeatable, but in any case it's an inexorable process.

And the bottom line is that Stars provides a service and charges a fee. You can choose to play or not.

good post shane I like the fact that you are honest about it and not just a brag donk.
By the way, bet365 is way better than pokerstars in their own service.

@flyingguru
I put bets on rugby (All Blacks!) so that`s why I had a Bet365 a/c. And thats when I saw poker and gave it a go. Their poker site is a joke. Endless disconnects and freezes, Zoom tables with 2, then 5, then 3 players on there, and a browser based mobile game. I spent half the time logging back in from my Iphone hoping my KK was still there when I got back. For rugby bets though it`s great!

@lkasigh
Yeah, I dunno. I`m talking about myself of course, but the appeal of poker to me has always been that losing/winning money focusses the mind so poker must be a pure skill game where everyone is honestly trying their best. So winning must be a great accomplishment.

I`m not trying to "grind 2bb/100"...that`s a winning reg or pro player you are thinking of. I`m trying to "win" and I think that the more recreational players that were able to do that (even being positive is winning) the more popular poker would be. It feels though, as Pokers Stars is completely discounting this aspect of the game and ascribing a "jackpot" mentality to all non-regs. Honestly, if I won a Spin`n`Go, I`d probably just lose it trying to learn Razz or something. It`s not going to change my life or make me feel satisfied. It`s not the money.

@MonsterJM
"aren't paying attention to things like rake"
Maybe not specifically. I would liken it to a restaurant saying "Our customers are not paying attention to us watering our drinks" or a jazz band saying "nobody notices the bass isn`t in tune". Maybe you can`t explain why, but you sure know there is some reason it`s not so much fun. For you, or anyone that you know.

I think you're right. I am a rec player and play for fun albeit quite often and have a decent understanding of HUD / win-rates and have spent enough time researching the game and played hundreds of thousands of hands. However I don't approach the game as a professional or expect to make a living from online poker.

I think there are many others out there like OP and myself who enjoy the challenge of playing poker and aim to make money but are content to invest time and money learning the game in the hope that one day we can win some money from it. The people who play regularly for fun, don't win but continue to deposit are the ones stars should be trying to keep happy, and it expect they are more important to stars than the 'gambler' who will deposit $500 occasionally when drunk and blast it off in a night and not deposit again for months.

I have played plenty of spin n go's and do feel they are trying to turn the online poker experience at stars into more of a gamble.

I'm sure there are lots of 'rec' players out there who are fully aware of the tools available for online poker such as PT/HEM/sharkscope/OPR even of they choose not to use them.

It doesn't really matter in the long run - ultimately, the general skill level will rise and no one will be able to win without losing players contributing new money.

The higher the variance, the more rec players will come out ahead in the short term due to pure luck. And if some of them put their winnings back into learning other games, that could be a positive thing. I think that's part of what Stars is banking on with the format.

I kind of agree with you about the "jackpot" aspect, it doesn't appeal to me and it seems to be targeted to compulsive gambler types.. something that I find ethically questionable. But they also have marketing focusing on the skill aspects of poker, the youtube videos with pros talking strategy, etc. Maybe they would do better to stress this aspect more, but who really knows? Ultimately their marketing strategy and rake are their own business decisions - the players will vote with their wallets by either choosing to play or not.

This is a good point, except the part about watering drinks - I would notice that FOR SURE!!!

+1 on this post. I'm in the same boat. On PED, I'm not sure such a figure is readily available. HMRC lumped Poker in with remote gaming in general. I should think stars does its own analysis internally, prior to making these changes.

Great post.

This applies to 90% of 2p2 "regs" as well. Listen up PokerStars!

Yeah, bad example. I would surely notice them watering drinks as well

shane536

@Ikasigh
Re: Voting with their wallets.
Well, that`s it really isn`t it? All this hue and cry about attracting new "rec" players....it seems to me that by their own self released data they had 50 million people signed up at some point. So it seems that about 45 million people have already voted with their wallets and left the building.

But again.....it`s not Poker Stars fault they quit. Oh no, because Poker Stars are the unparalleled leaders in the field. Poker Stars says so. Poker Stars knows what is best for the game. Losing. Dnegs agrees. It`s anyone who has the temerity to want to win at a game they describe as skill-based that`s to blame. If all of you would just STFU and start losing more, then we could all enjoy depositing week in, week out together and enjoy poker as it`s meant to be played. The Poker Stars way. Like video blackjack.

Mods, please ban poster for realistic post in NVG.

Wow. So you interpreted the moneymaker marketing to mean you could be a winner that grinds supernova Elite, not bink a huge win?

The lotto markets on the idea of winning too. Exclusively. Are they obligated to make powerball grindable?

Raising the rake to make grinding less profitable does not change any part of the imagery you describe in their commercials.

Now if they were showing 24 tables on three monitors you may have a point.

Where did Negreanu say this?

The only thing I know of that he has written about this is here ...

My Two Cents On The Pokerstars Changes

... where he talks about Amaya wanting to attract new "casual" players, but nothing specifically about winning players.

Maybe I missed some other pearls of wisdom from him?

My guess — and I'll let him answer this himself — is that the OP would agree with this statement, too. But the minority of recreational players who do care about those things is still probably larger than the entire population of "regs," and that's where Shane's frustration lies.



All kidding aside, it wouldn't be the worse thing in the world to have an experienced, serious recreational player (and no, this is not an oxymoron) have a representative voice in said meetings.