It's the winner of the 10m gtd sunday million if anyone is wondering

Not very original btw, the winner of a 1M spin did this before

let's look at the two extremes. WTA vs DON.

A small WTA with 3 players works extremely well but the more players the game has, the variance rises so damn much as well as the excitement. I was once playing a 800man 1$ WTA and was literally shaking the last ~60 people because I wasn't used to payouts larger than 2 digits back then.

Now take the difference, a DON. In a HU it works very well, ldo.
But think of a 1k man DON. How mofo boring that would be. Even more boring would be like 90% of the field get paid. That wouldn't work because those 90% get paid only 90% of the pool because of rake so you only lose or get BE. So in a Satellite it's at least 1:3 or up to 1:10 or even more (see 1.65$R to SM if you don't rebuy often). While in 1:4 Sat there still is tension, the game also ends as soon as the bubble hits, so all of your play time actually leeds to something.

Now here comes the thing in the middle, super flat payouts with a minimal increase. Let's say in a 1$ 1k man field the last paid place: 180th gets 1.5$ now while the 1st gets 180$. Now what if the 250th gets 2$ but the 1st gets only 18.0$. How incredible boring that would be. As soon as you're ITM the game is basically done. The FT would look like 18.0$ / 13.5$ / 9.9 $ / 7.0$ / 5.3$ / 3.8$... Nobody would want to play that I guess. And that's where we headed right now.

A bit offtopic maybe:

Is it safer to cashout to neteller and keep a session worth in buyins or doesn't matter really now? (I believe the latter).

My funds are protected by gambling commissions/laws/whatever and Amaya have no way to access those, right?

part of stars -> neteller
part of neteller -> bank -> Cash or btc
or whatev you like

why part of neteller needs to be moved? I can't do really bank or cash due to laws here, since it's one way cashflow for me, if I withdraw I withdraw it for good and doesn't go back into poker pool.

Isn't DON and WTA in HU the exact same thing

roi in a wta tourney would be huge hypothetically yes, possible that with some pay jumps etc it's higher cause of icm/other skills necessary but wta would be one of the highest (possibly highest) for sure. but let's not get into that it rly doesn't matter simple point that doesn't require walls of text is the changes made reduce edge for all players, has some benefits for rec players in terms of getting more hours for their $, that's normally a fair point but here it's clearly designed as a deceptive semi/rake amongst all the other changes. also it has almost zero or zero supporters who asked for it or want it, even most recs won't like seeing a smaller min cash and smaller first prize.

Then you as a reputable member of the community has perfectly highlighted my point and the need for this: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=1330

It's clearly mutually favorable and +ev for the players and will address your's and others complaint perfectly. Sect7G seems to support the concept of the proposition.

Supported here by CoronalDischarge http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=1336

Uhrenknecht crushing in these threads lately, well imporved, gg.

Yes,they will get the point that their plan to get rid of non depositing regs is working.

I'm not against that but it's easier said than done. you will never get a consensus amongst such a large community and if you make the group exclusive to one that will agree on something by definition that is unfair. most of the things even close to being able to reach unanimous agreement will be things like not increasing rake or something.

here for this change, a lot of people don't even understand why it's bad (as you can see in the thread). however it is clear that no one asked for it and no one (so far) wants it or sees any benefit to it. if stars won't change it despite this, what you suggest won't change that if I understand correctly. plus how would we even know what they are going to do etc? once they've done it it's not like us discussing in a place where the rep can't see makes any difference (and that's not considering the other issues as above)

if they want to make a change they will do it, they can make up a reason it is necessary. if someone here makes bad suggestions and they cherry pick it as an ezcuse what you said won't change that. and these days they just do anything they like and say something misleading about why it's necessary or why it's good etc regardless. sorry not to rain on your idea

I mean for this change specifically I imagine a petition would make more sense with stars sns, imagine with enough work you can get a lot of regs to sign and rec players but it's a lot of work for something that might not work vs a relatively small benefit when next Tuesday they might just be like "lol price revision again gaiz mtts will 1.5x rake"

not to be pessimist here but let's face it they don't want winning players anymore and are "slowly" making sure no one is withdrawing long term.

You have missed the point completely, and I do believe I was explicate. Please take a moment to reconsider your understanding.

The entire point is that the players will only reach consensus for proposals that are obviously favorable. And in fact I might make a conjecture they will also only agree on that which is also favorable to the site (this is because in discussion the sincere posters will admit that its a waste of energy to make proposal that are negative ev for sites (ie lower rake).

The consensus from the players side simply also involves rational concessions.

As far as the effects on actual policy changes, again please don't miss the point, obviously there can be no such process where the players are owned concessions by stars. But we are taking away their greatest political tool which is to cherry pick posts and suggest that we (COLLECTIVELY!) for a certain change that was asked only by one poster etc.

I really think this imbalanced process has caused the site to abuse the power it affords them. This is detrimental for the site as well because it's creating a lot of friction and frustration which could otherwise be a productive dialogue.

I am not proposing to hold policy changes to a standard the players choose. I am proposing we streamline and optimize the process.

I dare say I understand the purpose and value of a consensus mechanism more than you, and perhaps the group. I hope you give the some deeper though and at least use your leadership role to inspire dialogue on this subject so we can explore the validity of it.

It's plus ev for ALL parties and players, imo!

The proposal is to dissolve sites ability to say "You asked for this" its a very very small win for the players. But it is a win, and I can't understand how you can not see this

They can cherry pick all these want, but they lose political spin power

I don't know if they even have someone who asked for that here, and even if they did it's obv ridic if they say "you asked for that" and anyone reasonable can see that. problem is that's completely standard of them to do stuff like that now and as much as an infinite number of 2p2ers w half a brain call them out, they either ignore or spew bs PR nonsense.

what happens if we do what you say then someone random comes here (could even be a shill..) and asks for something? and at this point they've made it clear they don't need to say we asked for something. like I don't think they have done that with this pay out change. that is worth nothing, they can say whatever they want, such as "our data shows this is good for the game and ppl via email asked for this"

anyway I am not against what you said... just don't think it'll achieve what you expect.. if you do this I'm not against it/I will support or put my name in or whatever so u don't need to argue w me about it

A philosophical questions, do we not see, this would be an adjustment of strategy and therefore a step towards "GTO". This is poker. I KNOW you are good. I ask this to ALL players though.

I am quite confident it will achieve what I expect. I am nearly as confident you aren't clear on my expectations though. I appreciate the sentiments, ur time, and your responses. You don't need to reply again like its an argument, I think we made our points together well.

My most basic point here, too the collective players reading this, is this would be a +ev for players. Which is something I think we have evolved to believe, cannot exist or happen.

I suspect seeing the change implemented would be inspiring in itself. In fact, I think having players discuss the possibility of it might even prove valuable.

@StarsRep:
Regarding Satelites 1x 2x 3x, after the rake-changes they are almost impossible to play, is there any chance, that you adjust the structure of those sats? Better structure? Bigger Addon? more average BB left when reaching AO? Would hope for a better pre Add-on structure so that 1x reaching Addon @ 150 2x @ 1k, 3x at 5k. After the addon is reached structure can be as the old one. Do you consider some Structure-Changes like you do on hyper-Games?

most of the player base won't even know about the rake on rebuys for a good few weeks, and even then many of the dumbest ones will keep playing them. The sole aim of these changes is to drive the informed / winning players out of the games.

Or, more nefariously, it's to take additional money from the players who are uninformed of the changes before they notice any difference.

.

Rebuy buy ins

$33 - $30.25+$2.75

$55 - $51.15+$3.85

$109 - $101.50+$7.50

$215 - $203+$12

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2016/0...ases-24394.htm

Negreanu On PokerStars Rake Increases: "Changes Are Designed To Increase Revenue"

In other news, water is wet.

Daniel very clearly changed his tone here. He does a 180 here in regard to his past spins on these issues.

Dead cows give no milk anymore, Amaya!

Seriously, tell us again you're not trying to kill rebuys. Never a promotion, removing rebuys, lowering guarentees constantly and now make them from lowest raked MTT to highest.

If you just said we we'll replace 109r --> b215; 109rt -->H215; 215r ---> New 400$ Sunday Major. Because they're to low raked and dying anyway. I would pbb boost participation x more rake and most could live with it. (see every dying tournament that turned red)

But why this shady/stupid way. You can't be that clueless to really think this will increase revenue? But you probably just don't care. Should've known with a CEO who says he only sees consumers and not players.

Will they be replaced after they die? Or just removed? Probably no point in puting new tournaments on since new schedule is coming anyway, which will after SCOOP be announced for October, delayed to december, to be never heard of again.

Everything seems pure randomness, f.e whose dick did the 44t have to suck to have a better structure then 215t?

Anyway; not playing rebuys/hypers anymore from next week. Or posting in this thread for that matter. Asking for months for most obvious things to gain couple bucks to see EV getting slashed so hard over and over again.

lolled hard @ Increased Rake and 7 charges challenge. vwp