Its assumptions like this that mean you'll never make it in business. You cannot assume anything, especially a model that worked 10 years ago. By your logic, VHS rentals should still be viable.... Amaya have all the data, you just have your poorly thought out logic and a rake back pro's wet dream of an ideal world. The pool was over fished because of the model that 'worked' for 10 years plus.

Something has to change. Any finance expert looking at the online poker model would would start by stopping money leaving the economy via 'pros' (i use the term very loosely). The first goal should be to eliminate online pros, and they seem to be doing very well. Everyone who posts in here that they are never playing on stars again, is just validating their business plan. So well done.

who exactly is they seem to be doing well in this scenario? Name me one company who is doing better now than say 2-3 years ago (plz im curious). Imo I dont see it, and its fine they can make whatever changes they want its their product. But dont be so naive to think that they ultimately dont want any regs because as posters above have alluded their wont be much action left. I think in theory both sides seem correct (as its just theory) but in practice we will only really know 1-2 months after changes take place. Safe to say though its likely pros go elsewhere and wont be playing here come June 30th. Time will tell

Does this mean VIP levels will be eliminated??

Yes, and the "finance experts" are essentially suggesting the model that didn't work 10 years ago and was suggested to the publicly quoted providers (e.g. UK bookies) by the finance experts at the time.

There is also data on what works now. The growing sites have reasonable table caps, defence against HUD use (e.g. players encouraged to change screen names if not all-out anonymous) and sensible rake.

Wouldn't regs leaving PokerStars en masse be a huge hit to its profitability simply because of the amount of possible rake money being taken off the site?

Of course it would.

Lets imagine that stars has 5000 regs who each have $1000 on the site. That gives stars $5,000,000 in funds on the site. 100 recreationals decide to deposit $100 each. That makes the liquidity 5,010,000. The recs get crushed and they all lose their deposit to the regs. The liquidity is not 5,010,000 - 10,000 but 5,010,000 - 10,000 - rake that has gone into stars pockets. Those 5000 regs provide stars with the ability to create mass raked games. Take those 5000 regs out of the game - lets say they all decide to protest and withdraw. Those 100 recs decide to come back - stars now has players playing with $10,000. How much rake will they earn on that compared to $5m? The recs will still lose their money to each other and the number of recs in the game will diminish, the luckiest/strongest recs surviving.

Regs leaving en masse would create huge problems for stars. The problem for regs is, however, their just isn't anywhere to go from a gameplay point of view that provides a) that kind of liquidity b) great software. Until stars has decent competition they can afford to take risks like this.

Partypoker need to speed up their new software that is supposedly going to be huge.

i love how amaya has turned everyone into finance majors/exceptional businessmen

Party Poker are switching over to doing precisely what worked for 10 years and they also have shareholders to answer to.

The point is Party and Stars can't both be right can they?
Just because a company has data doesn't mean they necessarily are going to make the right choice... all businesses have internal data yet believe it or not many fail. The point being my guess, joe's guess or your guess could be just as good if not better than Stars' or Party's guess for that matter.

Your logic isn't bad at all. But the numbers you are using are way off. You are suggesting there are 50 pros for each rec? I dont think that's accurate or sustainable. And your right about the fact that Stars can take risks, and from a business point of view, this risk is absolutely the best play. It's interesting to see what PP are doing too, from their position it is very bold to try and gain market share. Time will tell.

I look at it from a cash flow perspective. A player who wont be a net depositor doesn't contribute to rake because he will pay rake out of the money he wins from depositors and withdraw the rest to pay his rent. If he weren't there the depositor loses his money more slowly or may even win. But what if he does win? What does this type of player do? Withdraw and pay his rent or play more and move up in stakes? So, I think, ultimately, with fewer withdrawal'ers more of the depositors money will go to rake.

Some pro's will freak out reading this and start screaming, "I pay rake", "I pay rake", "it's just a fact".

Okay, okay, calm down. Enjoy your game.

How much % of rakeback it could be from now on?

about 3.50%

not even joking

lederer said that 95% of the funds were hold by 5% of the players on ftp when blackfriday happened.

those 5 players were phil ivey, gus hansen, howard lederer, jesus ferguson, and that other guy no1 remembers who was part of the ftp business, and they never gave the 95% back

5% of players

Nobody really knows how much the RB equals to. It's not even known if you can get more than 4 chests a day, if you reach a certain level you can start at that level the next day or it resets to a red chest again... too many unkown variables to put a definiitve number up.

So it's probably more like 50 recs per pro then

You're mentally challenged dude. I'm neither a "rakeback pro" (using that term actually shows how few things u understand) and I actually am a finance expert with one of the best degrees achievable in my country. First time ever I'm making a personal remark in this board, just to defend against random idiocy, already regretting.

Afair I made lots of productive suggestions on here, the only thing u piece of **** do is hopping in from time to time and tell all other ppl suck at business, presumably cause they are able to make money at poker and u're a jealous dumbass who does not.

I don't feel like continuing to tell you on how many levels you are wrong, [quoting short parts of a post, writing long answers on it ignoring any context and further answers; quoting proven wrong stuff to suit your points,...] just stop posting and do sth you are good at.

I was never mentioning any background about myself cause I think ppl should judge the validity of arguments and suggestions independent of stuff like degrees etc. and I was never into any ego battles on who's "better" at xyz.

You're just a troll spewing "hahaha u regs suck, amaya no wantsel u cause in my head makes perfect sense, u suck at business if u dont like, hahaha".
If u actually want to try thinking about what amaya wants (keep those thoughts for yourself, u make ppls brain's hurt), try to start by: They want $$$! There are different views on how to reach that, an important factor is wagering potential short term vs long term effects of certain measures like changes in the reward system and there are things like principal agent issues (and lots of other factors u've never thought of) influencing the decisions as well. The world is quite complicated u know, it won't solve your intellectual problems trolling others who are clever and disciplined enough to beat poker.

Oh look. Another internet discussion ruined by people refusing to see and understand the other sides point, instead choosing to call them ******s. How amusing...

I did make a lot of actual suggestions in my older posts itt while all that dude did was insulting ppl he is likely jealous of. How is that even a discussion? There are ppl making valid arguments on why Amaya might be aiming at pushings regs off the site (most of which I agree with btw, I just think it is not a good longterm solution for all parties involved: amaya, withdrawers, depositors), he is not one of them, he's a troll.

Well, time to short amaya stock I guess

I don't think Wal Mart is a country

Few ppl will doubt that.


Guys like that troll who lack basic poker and argumentation skills, are jealous and seek their soul peace or w/e in insulting others are so many. If u like, you can have dozens of this convo a day on stars:

"**** u donk"

"Pardon sir, isn't it good for you if i'm a donk? I've read donks lose money to good players like u. "

"Yeah not if the site rigs cards in favor of donks"

"So do I get u right: U're good at poker, I'm a donk. The site rewards donkish play and rigs the cards.
Why is it then that u take no of the following two options:
- donk around yourself to profit from these rewards
- play a a site where they reward your skill advantage
Instead u keep playing great here, how make sense??? "

"**** u u ****ing ****"