Poker Ecology/Poker Economy/Poker environment

Yes, all this trendy words we hear and use with good-will to defend our game is what is been used for greedy companies to take the most money out of it. It's kind of ironic.

Latest blog entry from pokerstars was another example of how they're using this to brainwash us, manipulate us and treat us like we're dumb.
The insult starts right off, in the title -> "Comprehensive Plan for Enhanced PokerStars Experience "
Good looking, well written title.. In the PR department, I can imagine the directions at first was:
- Make sure to write a preety title
- Don't forget to add "poker economy/ecology" at least once every paragraph. This is extremly important, key ingredient for them to buy this!
*1

Moving on with the read. At this point we're all eager to see what they will do to enhance our experience.
Wait, what? They will cut the VIP program for everyone, except chromestars(lol).
What? Reducing the value of FPPs we won? Seems crazy... Let me ready till the end.
No VPPs for 5/10+? Hummmmmm, doesnt look good. Did they at least give us some good news?

Poker economy here, poker ecology there.. Oh yeah. I like this changes actually. I have no idea why, but the ecosystem will be better with everyone having less money - weaker players included. Make sense. If pokerstars says, it must be true.

I wonder why we don't apply this to other activities in society?

Let all the football teams have the same technology/budget/stadium capacity; Let all golf players play with the same golf club; Let's play worse with the weaker basketball players to give them a chance to win; Let's give all the factories of a certain sector the same access to technology and R&D abilities; Let's help the worst teams in the Champions League and make it obligatory for the top teams to play vs them with their second team players;Top football teams utilize a high-tech set of statistics with everything you can possible imagine to improve performance and detect flaws... lets abolish that, it s unfair as other teams dont have that.

A bit of extreme examples, but you get the idea of the level of BRAINWASHING they're attempting. As everything in life, the people who:
-invest more time
-study more
-play more
-want it more

Should be rewarded, and therefore have better results than those who don't put that effort. I'm not expecting to go to a local golf event and win; Despite practising the sport I know I won't win, but I still go because of competition and try to somehow beat a guy. I know I'm an underdog and I'm prefectly fine with it. What's the big deal?

Also, the manipulation continues with stuff like this changes only will impact 5% of players, or as DN said --> https://embed.gyazo.com/b11124c27656...42ab645cf6.png

"catering the 98%; you're the 2%"
We're the 2%. The regs are 2%. Really? . Where's this site where the reg to fish ratio is 2 regs per 98 fish?
I'd play on this site with zero rakeback.. DN, please tell me where this site is. You could invent "negative rakeback", I'd play there. Where is it Daniel? It can't be Stars, right?

The guys compare the regs to their EXISTING PLAYER DATABASE, wheras they should compare the regs with THEIR ACTIVE PLAYER DATABASE.
They think we're stupid?


Companies are taking advantage of this and justifying cuts with this bull****, and everyone seems fine with it and in some cases even aplauding the changes. They're treating poker players like they're dumb, which would probably result if we were truck drivers or construction workers (no disrespect). But I think we're on average inteligent and don't buy this silly conversations for 10year olds, ecology stuff, etc to fill their pockets.

If that's their way to improve the poker economy/ecology, I'd rather prefer they not only don't improve but actually put it worse by their standards. Can you harm poker ecology stars, please?

To finish, I agree with incentivizing the recreationals to play and protect them. But this had nothing do with that. Just say that your goal is to make poker a game of chance even more, and diversifiying for sports books and casino. This changes were made for you (amaya) to WIN more money. Just say that and stop this non sense.

Right now, there will be a gap in the market for either an existing player or a new player. The opportunity is there for the professionals; not for the amateur and the incompetent people that seems to be present on the industry. If any site has the luck of having smart/professional people, they should take this chance and capture the 2% (LOL) of players that are outraged by the pokerstars changes.

Right now we should let them know that we're not the 2% they say, but their 98% active players. And we're not happy.. If we're complacent with this, and clap this changes we will have zero rakeback in the next 2 years. If you think about the pace they're cutting rewards, having zero rakeback is not that far.

*1 http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...2/index19.html post #285 (ansky speaks about the changes 10x better than I do. I think his post deserved a thread to not be lost and it was at first the reason I started to open a thread)

Note: I was never SNE and I'm not a volume player. So i'm okay to talk about this. I just think it's a straight money grab for every player.

You forgot to add "poker ecosystem".

yeah, that's a classic one as well. I dont know how I forgot the ecosystem one

Poker mon?

one sentence cliff note please

PTLou I'm already tired of writing. It was the biggest text i've written in any forum. Read it in couple of parts

The word that is most misused in the poker industry is should, as in this is why I think the game should favor my financial return.

Hard work and no play makes Jack a nit. For most players, this is a game, a recreation, which they might win some money playing.

What you really seem to be arguing for is some more favorable sharing of gross revenues in what originated as "rakeback" for players who "blah, blah,blah".

There is no "should" about that.

"The "rakeback" is going to be too damn low"

The people that should be rewarded are the ones that bring the money to the table.

Nothing else in your post matters.

Note that the difference between the total player DB and the active player DB would be smaller if the games were better.

Many of the sports you mention do take steps to level playing fields, like FFP in football and drafts in US sports, car tech rules in F1, etc, etc.

Guys the " SHOULD be rewarded", I wasn't talking about rakeback.

I should've said: People who work hard, ARE rewarded. And that is by winning at the table, I wasn't talking about rakeback.

It's in poker and in every game. The more you work, the better you get and the more you win!

I was saying that to justify that ofcourse the people who puts more time and effort, will win more OFTEN.

It happens in every sport. What's the problem of being different in poker? You guys seem to think that the FISH are unaware they're at a disadvantage. Read the whole text, don't read things out of the context

Lamest thread since "Bonomo has snit over Negreanu and Selbst."

^FYP

lol bring money to the table. Wait what? To play you don't need to bring money to the table?
The problem is the guys that can't win, think that this stuff will help them win. But guess what. It's not gonna happen untill you take the right approach. You won't win no matter what if you keep approaching like you did the game. You're only feeding the companies greed, with this thought process of :

"oh now i'm gonna crush!" "one time!". It's not gonna happen. I could understand that you think you'll win more without huds (not gonna happen as well, but okay); but I can't understand that by having less rewards you think you'll win more often.

Keep aplauding pokerstars, you should be hired as employees

ty for cliffs. if that is OPs basic point, then my only suggestion to him is to go find another job, because his current position as grinder of rakeback will continue to get worse and worse to the point where it will be well below minimum wage

Rakeback grinder lol my results have nothing to do with the thread but for ur info, I was never SNE and I play 500z as my main game and 1kzoom when it runs. 60k hands per month is a good number for me. so you can see how bad and rakeback grinder i am. I just think that this is a money grab for every grinder, not just for the high vol grinders. But if you think the solution for you to win, is for stars to REDUCE everyone's VIP level my battle is lost and their brainwashing is probably working

Want fish to have a good experience? How about not pummeling them for 15bb/100 while they learn a skill game that has been heavily studied and matured.

How about giving them a tax break while they learn the game, and then start charging when they start making money?

Doesn't this seem like the most obvious thing sites can do to fix the nosedive in poker's popularity that they've caused?

Charging big winners more to play needs to happen but they are completely missing the point which is that they are still raking the crap out of new and mediocre players, and they just can't do that if they want new customers to stay.

Ban HUDs, do name changes, reduce rakeback, whatever; but address this ridiculous rake model which has butchered the industry from its start.

Funny how they try to claim these changes affect only 2% of players. But what happens is that recreationals don't really get more benefits but are going to be playing vs stronger regs who have had to additionally cut down table numbers so they can concentrate on the individual fish even more.

Meh... Incentivizing mass-tabling rake back grinders killed the Stars ecossytem.

Those statistics are always fun when a huge percentage of accounts are inactive/playmoney. Wasn't it Tapie that claimed he would pay back 98% of all FTP players in full, that also meant converting 99% of player funds into bonus money but that part was not in the press release.

This was back in the day when the market was growing. Nowadays the number of regs is saturated and tables with fish get filled instantly. With no motive to get massive volume regs must concentrate on quality and this will hit the fish hard.

Nope incredibly high rake and an outdated seating system is what did it.

If there was a 4 table cap there would just be 2-3x as many regs, concentrating more and having higher winrates. Can't have a longterm game where low stakes lose 50+bbs per table every hour to rake. It makes it so there are almost no winners, and all the losers find something more fun to do with their time.

There won't be 3x as many regs, because while the win rates would rise the hourlys would drop, and full time players would substitute into other jobs.

i.e. winrate doesn't decline proportionally to tables added.

This business model needs to make a lot of its admin staff (regs) redundant, they are a cost centre, not a profit centre, and they are not helping anyone attract new money any more.

Obviously they will be upset and claim they are important, as in other industries, but that will pass.

Alexdb
Your post is so full of nonsense i won't even bother to answer. But one thing i can say, probably since 2005 you're convincing yourself that you only lose because other players are regulars and use programs. 10 years ago you were fooling yourself, blamming others (rather than urself) for your losses. And in 2015, you think that reducing rewards for everyone will suddenly make you a winner? It's not gonna happen. With that approach its never going to happen

you can see this 'trend' since a few years. so it's neither new, nor can it only be seen at PS. what grinders must accept, is the simple fact that less ppl deposit and poker rooms face higher costs due to regulation/taxation.

and it's definitely not a made-up term. each poker room has a ecology. some players deposit, some players cash out. an operator must rake enough to cover costs and make a profit. if a certain game is a money drain b/c some players loss too fast, then it's better for the room to close this game. this is the reason why some rooms got rid of high stakes tables or the HU-format.

in golden years it was a smart decision to have a huge team of famous pros and offer good RB/bonuses. the VIPs where those, who grinded hardest. today it's not important, who much rake you generated, but how much you deposit. therefore it's good to have uber-celebrities like Neymar to attract new customers and offer $1m up for grabs in some random all-in shootout, which can basically won by everyone.

besides that, all the years there was a discussion whether or not HUDs are unfair. the typical reply was: "Recs could adapt, so gtfo i'm a winner .... weeee". now i wonder why the same ppl are complaining instead of 'adapting'.

poker is a dynamic game so insisting on having the right to win a certain amount of money (even less ppl deposit while it seems more and more and more 'pros' pop up) is almost as delusional as believing some nvg-tards have more knowledge of the situation than all the analysts working for the poker rooms.

There are legions of eastern Europeans that would be fine with 30-50% of the wages western grinders are making.