You make out Pokerstars to be vile, greedy pigs which is probably a bit unfair - they're just doing their job. Let's face it, if us regular players are given an opportunity to squeeze out more money at the expense of others (recreational players), we won't hesitate even if it hurts the games overall. So it's a bit hypocritical to imply that Stars are evil when they do the same to us. Furthermore, it's their role as a business to maximise profits, and let's face it - any price increase from any company is not ideal for the customers but it happens all the time.

there are many opinions and expertise on this and so many contradictions from many people itt that came to argue the corporate and financial side of the changes, on whether it can be bad or good decision on long and short term. so be easy on that hypocrisy cause many are not only complaining of profit cuts.

also this is more than just maximizing profits. when a brand like Pokerstars slowly turns the game of poker into a luck based unbeatable casino-like game then you are obviously sabotaging the future of the game and its economy. We came to play this game cause there were proven winners that made us believe and achieve profits, in the future no one will come to play for that reason anymore, poker is just gonna be like blackjack, another casino luck based game.

You should have been complaining when they were rewarding players for massive volume to such an extent they could play losing poker and still succeed via rake back. Now that really was destroying the game of poker.

No rakeback, no tracking software, no huds. Imo, that would be as close to what I consider "real" poker as online can get. Some may consider this an extreme view. Some may think the designer of the best bot is the best online poker player.

Losing poker lol. If the rake is 15% even top pros can´t win.

I get what you're saying but from a poker players perspective they are rather evil. They've done a bunch of stuff just to be dicks, they're the Cartman of companies.

The tone was set immediately following the takeover - Baazov posted on 2+2 that nothing would change and Pokerstars would be the same as it always was. He then immediately gave a contradictory interview to Forbes saying that he bought Pokerstars for the database and would be shifting us all over to casino/sports ASAP.

There were repeated promises that multiple rake increases would be reinvested in promotions/advertising - promotions markedly decreased immediately afterwards, all their TV adverts shifted to BetStars, Casino and Spin & Go.

There was the SNE debacle, letting people grind out SNE to obtain the subsequent years SNE benefits then just cancelling it out of nowhere.

Software and support (two of the main reasons for Pokerstars success) are a shadow of their former selves and only getting worse.

So yeah, assuming you like to play online poker they're fairly evil. They even know it, the Amaya name is toxic so instead of changing their ways they've just changed their name (they'll be known as the "Stars Group" going forwards).

I agree the false promises were an unreasonable move on their part, and in the past has caused players to lose trust in the company. But to be fair, in most recent times they have been more upfront and have given more notice about upcoming changes so people were expecting the price increase/rakeback cuts. Furthermore, people in this thread are complaining not primarily about the false promises, but the price increase itself. They are unhappy that they are losing money with the price increase, just as retail customers are unhappy with a price increase of commercial goods.

Regulars can "hope" that Stars suffers as a result of these changes and that it would "serve them right" for "trying to screw over players". Whilst this may be a comforting hope for some players, we must remember that Stars has all the data/numbers that we don't have, and experienced business data analysts to examine them. There's an off-chance they may have formed the wrong conclusions, but still I would trust that they would know a lot more than a biased regular's speculations in this thread of what might happen.

Also bear in mind that it isn't Stars's primary goal to "try to screw over players" or "ruin the games" but rather to maximise longterm revenue (to be expected of any big corporation). They are looking out for themselves, just as regular players look out for their own bottomline. If regulars really were looking out for the overall quality of the games then all the biggest winners would simply leave (or reduce volume/bumhunting dramatically) as it would make the games better for everyone else. But no, regular players are just as self-focused as the company is.

Just go back to the casino please..

Play losing poker and still succeed via rakeback ^^ in order to profit from rakeback you actually need a positive win rate.

Ummm no you are wrong. Ever since they switched to contributed rake everyone gets rakeback not just winning players. And that change happened long before anyone ever heard of Amaya.

pretty sure you don't know what "contributed rake" is

You may not be familiar with the earlier days of the rakeback system because there were numerous rakeback pro's with a negative win rate. And even if it changed moderately, substantially rewarding players for massive volume corrupts the integrity of the competition.

No it doesn't (unless the rakeback exceeds the rake, of course). It is just a sign of the fact that the rake is too high.

2 people of equal skill are both trying to have a successful poker playing career. One guy puts in x volume and the other puts in 7x volume. Based on their skill level in the games they are both break even players but one guy... Well, I hope you get the point but just in case, one guy was successful(not because of a skill advantage) and the other guy wasn't.

You describe the old Stars. Now it's a shareholder-company where the people in charge are more concerned about the next quarterly than what's down the road in a few years. Common knowledge.

Whether or not this is true, it doesn't really change the main points I made. Be it longterm or short-term, Stars is a company trying to maximise profit, just as us regular players try to maximise our own individual profits. As I said:

We keep posting that Amaya has already crashed the Ongame poker ecosystem it used to own, presumably with experts advising them, but it's like nobody reads it.

Amaya has warned investors that its new rewards program may well have an immediate negative short-term impact on its revenue as high volume players move away or adjust their play.

Call it what you will, but their public shareholder statements have been literally the opposite of 'more concerned about the next quarterly'.

Apples and oranges. Amaya won't make the same mistake twice - so it must be different this time round with different variables in place. Do you really think Amaya would just forget what happened with Ongame when making their decisions with Stars? Actually, the mere fact that they would go ahead with the stars changes even despite knowing what happened with Ongame shows they must be even more confident than had it never happened.

unless amaya has aliens instead of humans running these decisions then its not apples to oranges.
so much wishful thinking here, everyday companies go bankrupt, amaya is no exception and only time will tell their success or lack of.

gg stars

Well, you don't expect them to tell their shareholders: "Guys, buying Stars didn't work out as we expected and now we have this huge debt. We have to cut now costs in all areas even if it might turn Pokerstars into a ghosttown."

You said that, as a shareholder company people in charge "are more concerned about the next quarterly".

This rewards program, according to Amaya, is actually not going to be beneficial to the bottom line in the next quarter or two.

^^

If savings through paying less rakeback < loss of rake generated due to people leaving Stars for other sites, then this might be true. I personally highly doubt that it will turn out this way. Obv some will leave, but i expect a huge majority to stay at the beginning.

1) If the rake were not as high, they would both be winning players, not breakeven.

2) You feel that a situation where someone who works harder ends up being more successful is evidence of a corrupt environment, really?

Please. You run your first marathon. It's a race. You have one opponent and because he has "worked harder" over the last 2 years by running 5 marathons, the race officials take 19 minutes off his time for your race. It's perfectly fine.

It's more like two people go to a store to buy toilet paper. One person buys one roll of toilet paper and pays the store $1. Another person buys 15 rolls of toilet paper and pays the store $12.75. The store is willing to give a discount to the bigger customer.


EDIT:

Or to make it more like your example:

You enter your first marathon. Other participants enter the same marathon, including this one particular participant (your "Opponent").

You and your Opponent each have a chance to win prize money in accordance with a prize structure determined by the marathon organizers ($x for first, $y for second, etc. - I believe prize money for large marathons is usually contributed by sponsors).

The marathon organizers charge the participants an entrance fee to cover their expenses and make themselves some profit. The marathon organizers have also organized other marathons and have a rule that if a participant enters more than five of their marathons in any two consecutive calendar years, then in the sixth and every additional marathon, such participant gets a 20% discount on the entrance fee.

As stated earlier, this is your first marathon, so the marathon organizers charge you 100% of the regular entrance fee.

Your Opponent has previously entered five marathons within the last two calendar years. Therefore, since this is the sixth marathon he has entered over the past two calendar years, the marathon organizers charge him 80% of the regular entrance fee.

It's perfectly fine.