I don't think anyone is saying the meetings are harmful, more like totally pointless right now when most general things can be discussed between stars reps and players on the forum anyway, but what "harm" might come of it is that half of the reputable people on the forum have signed NDAs which isn't exactly going to help us band together is it.

I was referring to this thread and Stars presence on the PLO-forums in general being harmful, not the meetings.

You can also use the Stars-regs thread as Napsus pointed out

Well if they are going to start a thread and then refuse to talk about any of the pressing issues and ignore all the questions, and then follow that up with a load of utter bull**** that is basically an ad, I feel like they should lose their privileges in this forum. Just my 2 cents.

Re: the meetings being harmful; they are harmful for two reasons:

1. They waste time and money that could be better used on other promos and rewards.

2. They totally stifle open discussion. We used to all speak and discuss things. Now it's the active players have signed away their rights to speak, and the rest of us are just told to stall til the next meeting where nothing will get done.

We just need to band together and vote against sending anyone next time. That will end the charade once and for all.

Yea lets use the zoo thread regarding those meetings.

Already did my duty there.

Financial details Amaya deal

btw where are those meeting reports?

ok found them... I find Pokerstars Steves report/statement is just a really sick joke. Not even any reasoning behind the rake bull****. I hope more of you ****s will turn away from pokerstars now. This is simply not tolerable any longer. Anyone who continues to play on stars is ******ed imho.

The issue is that Omaha is treated as a feeder for 2 card bull**** by sites across the board. No pokersite actually takes the game seriously or cares about it. It's an unbelievably absurd and ******ed situation but its true.

Given there aren't any better alternatives, I still play on the site with the slick software and round the clock games.

Can you talk about the decision of the number of tables in the hu lobby ? I noticed that the cap went from 10 to 15 at 10/20, can you elaborate why you took this decision ?

Can Stars at least fix one thing that tilts the hell out of me...

When I click Sit out all tables, I want to sit out at all tables, not have one ****ing table keep playing and put me through another BB...

This was never changed. It's always been 15.

Nick, you guys given any thought to remembering 100bb+ stacks at Zoom for couple hrs like I suggested? Not forcing, just remembering if you wanna take a dinner break or something.

I think a lot of regs would appreciate the option.

-1

No disrespect, just squarely on the other side of this for obv reasons. I feel like the option to play deep is there, so it doesn't really make sense to force people to do it at zoom when they are effectively playing other stacksizes anyway (ie if someone is 4 tabling you are forcing them to play deep on one but they still play however they want on the others).

The only real reason to do it is to force players like me to play less or to force us to play with less of an edge/more of a lossrate against the field, and players like me generate a lot of the rake in the games.

-2, Eskimo has put it well.

think GGARJ is saying that players should have the option - like stars would ask something like "do u want us to remember your stack size at this table for the next 2 hrs? yes/no". if that's the case then that's a good idea imo

If we did this, it would be more that you wouldn't get removed from your seat for two hours (instead of 30 minutes) if you sat out at Zoom, rather than an additional option or feature.

THIS is exactly what I have been saying to people for a long time. IMO, if you close your tables, GG, time to restart from scratch. However, it's such an inconvenience when something interrupts my session (dinner, gf wants me to do something for her etc) that I sit out all tables, go and get it done, and I get booted from the pool so quickly.

Obviously I shouldn't be able to sit out all tables, leave the computer on overnight, and come back the next day to my 500bb stacks... But I think 1-2hrs would be ample time to take a serious break and come back.

Well, there's some higher justice in that, if you're a massive winner, then after running a huge stack up, you're going to have real-life problems (the necessity to return to the tables within 30 minutes to cover everyone else) to compensate for it.

Allowing good players to earn more than an average 9-to-5 worker is great, but the share of winners in the pool should be kept high, so that they tell success stories to friends and lure them into poker. If we cater too much to the needs of the biggest winners and let them win more, marginal winners will start losing and spoiling the public image of poker by negative testimonials. That will backfire on the winners, whose profits will go down because of the fall of cash inflow into the ecosystem. As we say in Russia, live yourself but let others live too.

Basically this, I just don't wanna get booted and lose my stack in the process if I go grab a bite or watch a football match.

Would obv be convenient if you could also close the client for a couple hrs, but that's a minor concern.

The shorter your stack compared to players of equal/higher skill, the bigger your edge. You should welcome a change where more and more regs play deeper than 100bb.

Again, this change wouldn't affect your buy-in options/obligations in any way

The more regs play deeper than me, the bigger is the portion of recs' stacks that will go to those deeper regs, and the smaller is the chance of a rec to save at least part of the stack if going on a heater but then losing to a reg.

Q about cashing in/out :

i've only deposited/withdrew with Skill on PS.

1) If I deposit via Visa on FTP, transfer it to PS, will I be able withdraw it from PS via cheque or Visa?

2) How long does a cheque take to get to Canada these days?

ty

Hey yeah just to be clear, I misunderstood your first post, assuming you are talking about what passing has said, that would be a great idea and im all for it.

I thought you were talking about a rathole timer for 100bb stacks.

I decided a long time ago to not play PLO cash games at Stars. The horrendous rakeback model for casual players like myself, that do not play regularly enough to maintain a decent VIP level, forced me to bring my business elsewhere. However, I made a comeback last night, and decided to play 100 hands of PLO10 zoom. The final score after roughly 5 minutes of play:

Average player: -19.38 bb
Pokerstars: +116.2 bb

Hmm, I wonder if I should play more PLO at Pokerstars, or if I should return to the competitor where a reasonable part of the rake is returned to the players...

I'm with c00n, no more buffs to full-/deepstackers this year, not even a minor one!

Tough decision

While this change would certainly be a rake concession by Stars, it's misleading to paint it as so significant that it would drastically alter the PLO ecology.

No worries, hehe

I figured there was a chance of my original post getting misunderstood and tried to be clear by writing "not forcing". Don't blame you for reading it as the opposite regardless.

As I already explained, this would also be a buff to the short-stackers