http://www.pokernews.com/news/2014/1...ease-19706.htm

Nice to see a lot of people, Galfond included, giving their opinion about the rake issues. Daniel Neg is a sell out. His statement was 100% expected. He doesn't appear to care about online poker, but he's a washed up tourney pro "lol celeb" past his sell by date with a Stars contract, what do you expect?

There was a post on 2+2 where he said something along those lines. It was the thread on Spin & Gos. I think what he meant is that losing players lose more money to regs than they do to the rake.

Ultimately, the fact is it's a skill game and people get better with practice. Without new players coming in, the games will die and poker will be a tiny niche market like chess or backgammon.

For a very bad player, poker is much more -EV than other gambling games. Most people lose, losing is not fun, so they quit. The only way a player will be a long-term depositer is if they get to a level where they are only slightly -EV. The situation now is that there are so many good players that it's very hard for a beginner to even get to that level. So maybe the Spin&Go is something of an equalizer in that respect. More new players will hit big scores, giving them enough money to play with until they catch "the poker bug" and start studying strategy and trying to improve. But then again who knows?

I think it might actually have been a post on 2+2, but it was reported by multiple sources. e.g. http://www.highstakesdb.com/5184-dan...ing-poker.aspx

Negreanu: "I've seen a lot of talk about the poker ecosystem and what kills games, etc. Do you know what kills games and destroys the poker ecosystem above and beyond all the things mentioned? Winning players. Yup, you guys lol. The winning players as a whole win a lot more money than the company makes each and every year. Yet, oddly, they still offer VIP programs to the very people who are essentially "killing the games."

Could you define washed up please?

Judging by his past 12 months results, it appears he's running toward the top of the heap.. While some may not like him for whatever reason, his success rate looks to be top notch.

OP has some great points as far as rec players are concerned. Most of us would like to be in the winning column, but game improvement is what we're after since most aren't multi-tabling for hours on end trying to break every fish in sight.

I'm forever amazed at the table banter of small stakes cash, sng and tournies.. The cards come, the chips go, and there's a never ending chain of complaints about how lucky bad players are, how rigged the hands are, and how this site or that site is a joke. All the while people can't wait to get their deposits through to play another one...

Found the source post from DNegs ...

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29.../#post44883447

Thanks Arty

Thanks for the laugh.

This is what a rec player sounds like.

extremely good OP, really don't see anything to add. pokersites should read it and take a minute(or much longer) to think about it.

The fact that someone posts on 2+2 and feels the need to comment on rake changes puts them in front of 99% of rec players in terms of poker insight.

You can argue all you like about this guy being a rec player but he's only a true representation of one small minority of what most people would consider a rec player.

The majority of rec players would have little interest in this website.

Washed up on the shore of yesterdays poker landscape. Evident from the BS he comes out with about it.

As for his winnings (not that I actually give a care to debate it- jus throwin it out there ) How do you know how much winnings he's had in the last few years? does he buy in 100% of himself, do his winnings state how much he buys in for every tourney and include the times he doesn't cash?

suggestion: pokerstars polls all their net loser players, asking them if they are trying to beat poker or just want to gamble it up

(there are lots of options for the exact phrasing of this question(or similar questions), which is very important)

Haven't you seen Mig's graph (310 BI under ev in 1.1M hands in PLO in a year) ?
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...76&postcount=1

Maybe you're the rec player on here if you underestimate variance.
Or maybe you're a LOL Live player that whines being in a "100 hours downswing"

Are you saying but how much did he lose?

This isn't 2002. Even back before black friday when I was playing more, the majority of recreational players had some sort of clue. The stakes I mostly played everyone was a recreational player since you can't make a living at those stakes.

By definition I'm a recreational player. I played poker in my spare time or when work was slow. I'm a winning recreational player that was trying to work my way up the ladder with the dreams of making big money from poker. Every month though, no matter how much I won, I made less money than I paid in rake.

Players like me and other winning players should be important to a healthy poker site.

When a player deposits money on a poker site, that is not revenue for the site. Those deposits are only potential revenue that gets realized through rake. Regular players are important to consistently turn deposits into rake.

As deposits get converted into rake, winning players get some and the sites get some. I don't know how things were at the higher stakes but at 50nl and below pokerstars always got a bigger cut compared to the winning players. The PTR graphs I drooled over of 20/50nl+ players was the opposite story. When the site starts taking a bigger cut of the work regulars do converting deposits into rake there is less incentive to spend their time doing it when they can probably find other pursuits they equally enjoy that can make them more money. Especially these days where there are a lot of things you can do online to make money.

I think the more important question to ask is what is the real reason for the rake increases?

One reason may be that Stars is getting deposits in so fast they want to get that converted to revenue quicker. That doesn't seem likely though.

Another reason may be that the want to make it less worth while for regulars to play or at least play as much because the current conversion rate is too high for the level of deposits that are actually coming in.

It's probably closer the the second reason and it may only be certain games where corrections need to be made. I can see where they might want to increase rake in HU cash games considering win rates are so high relative to the rake at most stakes and there's so much bumhunting. Not really familiar with some of the other games.

They should have the data to determine this without needing a poll.

My guess would be that in terms of number of players it's probably "trying to beat." But in terms of quantity of money deposited, probably "gamble it up."

Also, there's a considerable overlap. I'm sure a lot of players start out looking to gamble and then realize there's more to it. And some players might start out trying to be a winner, but then give up and say "f it let's gamble" (which I'm sure we've all said more than once).

After these changes I doubt we'll see any new players climb through the HU ranks for any format on AmayaStars without either being staked or coached extensively or both and possibly not even then.

That may be the point.

Great OP .. BUT .. maybe you aren't a rec player and maybe this is the definition of a rec player.

The day you become aware of how much you pay in rake may be the exact point at which you switch from being a rec player to something better than a rec player or a fish.

That is my experience of gambling generally. A recreational gambler will bet a horse at 5/1 even if 5/1 is a bad price. But a professional (or even a knowledgeable amateur) will understand the concept of value and the point at which betting the horse is +EV.

A +EV calculation must take into account rake.

I can see both sides of this argument.

A business is a business and Pokerstars are there to maximise profits. So they will increase rake up to the exact point at which increasing it any further will lose them money. There must be a point at which even recreational gamblers realise they are being taken advantage of.

A roulette table has a 5% house edge (or whatever, I don't play). Rec players still play it. How many more 0's or 00's could you add before they would stop playing? That is the equation.

I think poker is a little different. You don't physically see the rake when you play a hand. But OP is right. There is a tipping point. I just think it's a little higher in poker.

Nobody's right. Pokerstars are allowed to find the perfect rake for them. Players can find it too for them. It's market forces. I don't have a big problem.

Pokerstars has always been absurd with rake.

Whether it be for SNGs, PLO, HU, Hypers, or FFS RAKING MICRO GAMES/TOURNAMENTS.

It's always been a gigantic joke.

Great rant.

A point that I found interesting was limiting the number of tables someone could play so that you force "pros" to move up to 200NL or higher to make a "living" rather than play a dozen or more tables at a very low stake. I never thought of it like that before. Yes, by multi-tabling there are players at lower stakes that are far more skilled than the recs at that level than would otherwise be the case.

It was worth a read. GL mate.

One thing that would be good for some recs would be to make the satellites actual satellites instead of something to grind for T$, where entering the target tournament is only one of several possibilities for what to do if you win.

Plenty of people have bitched in the past and pokerstars reduced rake. Perhaps pokerstars doesn't want to be that site that everybody bitches about on twoplustwo, and to restore their image they make some changes? I'm not sure but i think there are examples of this very thing occuring in past history.

So you could say blah blah blah pokerstars/GM/loblaws is just a business and they do not give a ****, but if people respond than perhaps they should or will. Note pokerstars is just raising rake not killing people like GM and loblaws . If not a big deal is made about loblaws and their unsafe practices perhaps nothing changes. If no one makes a big deal about the NFL and domestic abuse, perhaps nothing changes.

I don't think this is always the case. I quit playing online in 2012 but up until then I was a 24 tabling supernova and played 37,000 tournaments/sng's and 6 million hands of cash.

I never once looked at how much rake I was paying. Wasn't interested, didn't care. Couldn't have even told you how Pokerstars calculated their rake. I wouldn't have batted an eyelid at these rake changes. All I was interested in was whether I was turning a profit or not.

I had absolutely no idea how online poker was raked and didn't care.

It was only when all this fuss about rake changes blew up on 2+2 recently that I actually googled what the rake actually is online and I was surprised at how small it is compared to live which is all I play now.

Based on my online history you can call me a rec, a reg or whatever you like but the way I figure it is if I had as little interest in rake as I did then surely a majority of recs or whatever you call them do too.

OP here again. I`ll try to reply to points people have made.

I think it`s very important to make sure people understand, that this is not about ME PERSONALLY winning. Everyone wants to be a winner, and I think no-one is stupid enough to believe you can win while playing suck-ass poker (beyond short-term luck). I know when I`m losing at O8 it`s because I suck at it and it`s not because Poker Stars is raking me too hard or that the deck is rigged or whatever.

The thing is, there is no "ratings" system in poker as there is in (say) chess. I knew how good I was or how much I had improved in chess by my rating rising or falling. Poker, to me personally at least, has only a binary "win/loss" classification. Ie you are a "winning player" or a "losing player".

I think this is honestly true for a very large % of "rec" players as evidenced by the endless online threads all asking the same thing. "How can I be a winning player"? These far outnumber the "How can I get rich playing poker?" or "I want to earn $1,000 playing poker" threads.

Poker Stars knows it would be a stupid idea to introduce a rating system, because THEN it would put the focus clearly on their rake. "Hey, I`m in the top XX% of poker players by my rating and I STILL lose money! Why is that?"

The answer would usually turn out to be rake. As I said, I have lost multiples of money to rake beyond what I lost to the good chaps/ladies who beat me online.

So my question to you would be "What number do you think is fair to substitute for the variable "XX" here?". At the moment I think it`s firmly in the single digits.

Personally, I feel that a player in the top 20% of the game should be a break even player at least. Certainly not making a pile, but at least breaking even. That would mean 2-3 of my Japanese poker playing friends out of 13 would at least be good enough to break even and I think that would be good for the game as a whole. At the moment, for the majority of people, its utterly unobtainable. A dream.

The way to increase the # of players is to increase the # of WINNING players, and not through some stupid gambling style games which are basically just rake distribution mechanisms.

How about this? Poker Stars has a variable rake set monthly by using analytics to determine the level of rake that would allow 20% of their population base to break even or turn a profit. Easily done, and ungamable. If the games are particularly hard one month, next month rake would be lower and vice versa. With such a large population sample rake would very quickly stabilise.

In addition, the question "How do I become a winning player?" could be clearly answered. "Get to the top 20% mate". Think of THAT as an obtainable goal to give people. Perfect. What a promo tool. Doesn`t matter if people get better then does it? As long as you can get good enough to get into the top 20% you are "winning the game".

I get that of course. But I would argue that the game in it`s current form isn`t sustainable. They are hoping for a big influx of U.S or developing country players to save them. Then what? The vast majority (I believe it`s something over 85%) of people quit for good within a year of opening their initial a/c.

Why is it that they can`t create a business model aimed on huge volume at a low margin like most other market leaders in other fields? Why do they have to have a product that 80-90% of people try and decide that it sucks within a year?

The answer is of course, "They have a monopoly". For Mr Negreanu to then claim it`s "winning players" fault is ridiculous.