You are wrong, he is definatly a rec, hes only playing part time. U can call him a very passionate rec but whatever, hes just more educated than other random recs. He also understand better how bad theses last changes are to the poker economy in general. Being a rec doesnt mean u just ''rake'' at Pokerstars and thats it. He has the right to tell what he really thinks instead of just letting Stars continue to rape every single customers including the rec's.

One last thing... Why are u arguing about this ****, thread make so much sens...

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but I don't think OP represents as many rec players as he thinks he does. I still really enjoyed the OP though

OP here.
I`m certainly not saying I speak for all recs, and I`ve said what I`m about to say in this next already, but just for clarities sake, I`ll repeat it.

I`m sure there are all kinds of recs out there who have no interest in getting into the nuts and bolts of poker and just want to gamble it up after a few drinks.

But I think the common idea that ALL "rec" players think this way is what allows Poker Stars to get away with their sxxt. If they get the narrative out that "rec" players expect to lose , that they are just in for the gamble, don`t mind depositing....well, then they don`t have to send us an e.mail to say they are hiking rake or introducing a 2.5% exchange fee (which affects me) do they?? Because we "don`t care" about rake. So they didn`t.

And I say FXXK. THAT.

Because I AM a "rec" player but I DO want to win and learn how to play better. My poker time is on a two hour commute on a train instead of at 3am when I get home from the pub. It`s still "recreational" though. I don`t use an H.U.D on my mobile, but I did buy it, because, basically, every thread or article or website about "How to get better at poker" recommends getting one. It`s my hobby, and I want to get better. But, as my first post said, recently I found out the REAL reason I can`t win at poker is their goddam rake. Which they just raised. In secret.

It's not rocket science. If Stars raised the rake too high, they'll lose their customers and biz. If it's not too high, some people with bitch and moan.....and that's it. But yeah, anyone with half of a brain or an IQ not in the teens realizes that beating Poker Stars games is almost impossible due to their rake increase.

I had the bad luck of my post being the final one on Page 2 (100 posts/page) so it's likely it was not seen by some folks.

I also chimed in to another, a reg-filled thread that was full of complaining about Amaya's apparent attitude towards "winning players". My response was similar gist to the post I offered in this thread. So... THOUGHTS? (i.e. the "rec player" point of view I describe, does it seem to ring true?)

How can so few people realise that rec stands for recreational and therefore is determined solely by a player's mindset and not skill set?

You can be a winning rec player by the way.

I agree with this. A full time professional player is one that derives most of his income from playing poker while spending most of his time playing poker. A part time pro also makes a decent amount of money from poker on a continual basis. The very limited view of recreational players makes no sense if you look at other potential games/hobbies outside of poker. There are plenty of people who are recreational in those activities and yet want to get better at them or win and know things about their hobby. All hobbies cost money. To say that a poker player is not a recreational one just because he has played thousands of hands of poker and knows what HM is, is laughable. What would you have a recreational player do if his hobby is poker? Should he not play hands and figure out what there is to the hobby? Most people want to learn at least something about their hobbies.

This is the best post on the subject so far. Everything you said in this post I have experienced. Every one in this forum should copy and paste this and Email this to pokerstars.

Anyone who has ever played live knows that the fish actually know alot about poker. most can shuffle their chips. they have ideas of strategy. most act coy and certainly do not embrace "being the fish". they will talk a lot of running bad. etc. most are capable of making moves, bluffs, some can make big folds, etc... they just arent that good at poker, have control issues, are unbalanced, have tells etc...

but they want to be good at poker. they understand that it is a skill game. they have other income sources.

they might play casino games from time to time but they are not degen casino gamblers.

those people playing casino games believe that they can make prediction on random events. they can feel a number coming. it is a much different species.

the reason is pretty simple.

someone who is a complete whale will lose their money at poker VERY quickly... like immediately. it is unsustainable. therefore a poker fish is still >>> a casino degen in terms of awareness/intelligence usually...

Amaya seem to view the rec poker player as a CASINO DEGEN.

:humble thx: ... if others agree, DO IT! If not, reply in this thread why I'm full of it. I have no ego-stake in this fight. I miss having FUN in online poker, and I want to not feel hopeless about the state of things now or the future... the stuff I listed is commonly brought up by others in similar situation who are giving up on internet poker tho

OP I liked your post cuz it's nice to see someone's enthusiasm about poker. Brought me back to a time when any country's players were welcome, but players who lived where $2 is a day's pay, hadn't started playing en masse. When there were tons of cool new NVG threads every week instead of several a month. That type of thing. When up and comers (as opposed to recs!) like yourself had a large player (and site) base to draw from in their quest to become part time pros (in their heads at least). Thanks for the read!

I think everyone accepts PokerStars need to make a profit but their business model needs serious review. Business's will increase their charges up to the point customers start to complain and leave - this is where PokerStars are today.

The rake charges have gotten out of hand and I think the dynamics of the game are largely influenced by rake back pros. Reduce the rake, eliminate rake back deals and charge enough to make a reasonable profit.

This will hurt a small minority of their customers - rake back pros, but will likely provide a better environment for hobbyists to break even or make a small amount of money which will keep them involved with the game.

If we want more chatting at the tables the solution is simple



and there will be plenty of chat.

Great post OP

I'm a rec fish doing around 100K hands/year @25NL loosing at -1.2bb/100. I used to play for the challenge and to improve, not for the $$.

About 5 weeks ago it dawned on me I wasn't enjoying it. I realized without putting in high volume and a lot of studying, it's probably unbeatable. I didn't want to dedicate most/all of my spare time (kids, demanding job, other interests etc) to try beat a game that's really just an interest. I've got other things to do. I decided to cut it right back and only play occasionally, rather than get frustrated trying to beat something that really needed a lot more dedication to be good at. Played twice in the last five weeks for a total of two hours and definitely think it was the right decision.

Maybe poker needs to be graded like every other sport so you compete with people on your level. After all, I'm happy to pay club fees, buy football kit, equipment, drive around etc for the kids. I don't expect them to make money, ever, but I do expect a fair and competitive game.

Saying we fish-recs are happy to loose is just wrong. We'll move onto something else that doesn't require 40hrs dedication a week to be ok at. BTW, I have

That's what buy-in levels are. There is the option to regularly deposit and play at stakes above your skill level, but otherwise if you always play the highest game for which you have at least 100 buy-ins you will be playing with people at your own level most of the time.

Great post Shane.

Read the damn thing.

Ever since I came to 2+2, I've argued against the false dichotomy of grinders and fish, and the tendency for "rec" to be bundled with "fish." In my well, I coined the phrase Competitive Recreational Cardplayer (or CRC), and talked about the psychological profile thereof.

CRCs tend to prefer live anyway, as we're competing more directly, but online used to be much more convenient, and the lower stakes made us all able to be rolled to withstand variance (and to have the data at our fingertips to really study our games). As online gets more nitty, less convenient, and more expensive rake-wise, it loses us.

Heck, the nittiness loses the true fish too, because they get bored.

This isn't true tho because you have the grinder pros playing at limits below their skill level so they can grind out a living playing high volume . There's just too many grinders wanting to make steady money seeing the game as their job . These guys don't move up limits readily they just stay at a level they know they can easily beat , since the money they make is not just sitting in their online br but gets withdrawn and spent IRL and they grind away making their $/hr . It takes a lot of fish to sustain one of these guys

Great post!

A few things:
1) There's no reason to think that PokerStars is well-managed. They could be destroying their business. People are comparing them to Amazon in this thread but Amazon has a huge retention rate for customers. They don't actively try to drive them away.

2) I think that PokerStars is managed like a tobacco company. They assume their audience is addicted to gambling/nicotine and they charge as much as possible. And if their customers leave/die they really don't care at all.

3) I think your reaction is the most natural one in the world. Any enthusiast (I found a good label) in golf, bowling or whatever would be upset if the costs for their activity kept going up without more value being provided.

What enthusiast's hobby doesn't go up in price over time? Golf and bowling certainly have in both equipment and fees. But then, those are recreation. If someone looked at poker the same way they would be recreational players.

Edit : amazon raised the prime membership by 25% recently as well fwiw.

good post

Amazon is offering a lot more services with prime. Shipping costs have risen. Prime is undoubtedly a Loyalty Program that loses money for Amazon.

All of Amazon doesn't run as a profit. Profit margin -0.25%.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=AMZN+Key+Statistics

It seems like a nonsense comparison to me. By the way: The local TPC golf course has lowered their fees over 95% in the last few years because they want to retain their customers and get new ones.

People reacted the same way to the prime price increase, complained, and then continued to use it.

http://bgr.com/2014/07/23/amazon-pri...ease-reaction/


They are not in the same space as a business model so pointing out differences is the nonsense. The only thing worth mentioning in this discussion are the aspects that are similar.

If a golf course is able to run on 5% of what they had been charging previously you have buried the headline.

OP here.

So I see that my man "Dnegs" has just written a blog post talking about the payout structure for the WSOP.
http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-blog...wsop-guarantee

It`s funny, but in his post he points out the attractiveness of "winning" to players (no matter how small their "win" is) as opposed to constantly losing. He uses this to call for a flatter payout structure in the WSOP, and justifys it by saying that expanding the number of "winners" (even if it`s a min-cash) that play the tourny will be good for the game because of word of mouth advertising. More people will be able to say they "won", therefore more of their friends will play next time.

In other words, the exact same point that I have made in this post about Amaya and the rake increases. I say it`s "funny" because when it is Dnegs bosses directly reducing the number of "winners" on their site and making it less likely that anyone CAN "win", well, Dnegs doesn`t see any problem with that at all. In fact he thinks it`s a GREAT idea. Because it`s these pesky "winners" that are ruining the game according to him.

When it`s someone that`s not paying him to shill however, he feels that having more "winners" is a great thing. Funny that, huh? Oh, and by "funny" I mean "total predictable bullsxxt".

Not really the same comparing the attractiveness of cashing in a tournament to that of being a winner long term in cash games IMO