Jump to content


My Two Cents On The Pokerstars Changes


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#1 DanielNegreanu

DanielNegreanu

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Root Admin
  • 8,092 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas

Posted 01 November 2014 - 01:59 PM

I wanted to clear up a few misconceptions about some of the recent changes at PokerStars and throw in my two cents. First of all, I think it’s really important to note that some of the recent changes were going to happen well before the new ownership group took over. The online poker landscape has changed over the last few years and many of these changes were inevitable in a competitive market for the company to continue to be the world leader. While I get it, nobody gets excited over rake increases, I think it’s really important to note that PokerStars remains the cheapest place to play online poker. The rake increases are still smaller than what the competition offer, and that’s before you account for the generous VIP programs.

Several years ago the WSOP announced some increases to their rake in tournaments. I heard from a lot of poker players who complained that they would be unbeatable and no one would want to pay that kind of a rake. Since that time, the WSOP continues to break attendance records each year. Back then, despite having no affiliation with the WSOP other than being a fan, I understood the reasoning for the increases and accepted that the company needed to do what they felt was necessary, while at the same time understanding that players wouldn’t love the changes.

When the new popular Spin N’ Go format was introduced on PokerStars, many thought this was based on a directive from the new AMAYA group. That’s just not true. Broadening the game offerings was always something PokerStars looked to do each year and the plan to launch Spin N’ Gos was put in place long before AMAYA came around. While the ownership group at PokerStars may have changed, most all of the key employees and decision makers at PokerStars are still in place and from what I’ve seen, it’s business as usual for the most part.

PokerStars has, and always will look to be regulated in more and more markets, and depending on different government regulations that can be both costly and australian pokies online create some barriers. PokerStars is regulated in more countries than any other online poker site, and I don’t believe it’s even close. It’s always been the company's policy that regulation is a good thing, despite the cost.

The other area that has helped PokerStars remain #1 for as long as it has, has been the company's ability to attract NEW players. As I wrote in a previous blog, http://www.fullconta...=&ucat= bringing new recreational players to the game, poker games simply die. It’s imperative that we attract new players and I do believe the company's strategy will do that. If that strategy works, that could mean more profit for online grinders in the long run. Of course, that remains to be seen over the next couple years, but I’m confident in the company's vision and I am fully aligned with the direction they are going. I have met with the new owners and I think they have some really exciting and innovative ideas to attract more casual players to the game.

For a more detailed look at each of the changes I recommend reading this: http://pokerfuse.com...rs-change-year/
Posted Image

#2 looshle

looshle

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 5,284 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Connecticut

Posted 01 November 2014 - 02:41 PM

I've played on Stars for 10+ years. I can't remember one change that made me think poorly of the company. There have been numerous changes that have since the change in ownership. I don't believe it's a huge coincidence. Amaya has an obligation to its share holders to make sure that the steep price they paid was worth it. This wasn't true of the old stars since it was built from the ground up. I understand the position you are in but I think you are getting some false information.
QUOTE (rcgs59 @ Sunday, December 12th, 2010, 10:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
say what?

I don't berate players unless they are donkeys making bad plays


#3 DanielNegreanu

DanielNegreanu

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Root Admin
  • 8,092 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas

Posted 01 November 2014 - 02:46 PM

View Postlooshle, on 01 November 2014 - 02:41 PM, said:

I've played on Stars for 10+ years. I can't remember one change that made me think poorly of the company. There have been numerous changes that have since the change in ownership. I don't believe it's a huge coincidence. Amaya has an obligation to its share holders to make sure that the steep price they paid was worth it. This wasn't true of the old stars since it was built from the ground up. I understand the position you are in but I think you are getting some false information.

Absolutely. Being a publicly traded company means more checks and balances and less leeway. Whether it was AMAYA, or the old group, going public means there are going to be changes and the company plan was to ultimately go public at some point.
Posted Image

#4 KeithMM

KeithMM

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 01 November 2014 - 03:28 PM

so at what point is raking MTT rebuys and add ons for uk players (supposedly to pay for the increased tax for the regulation changes recently introduced ) acceptable when most other players are not raked on those rebuys. The rebuys and addons go to the prize pool not to stars income , and therefore are not taxed. So stars are stiffing UK players for extra rake on those rebuys/addons and this then incurs extra tax because that extra rake is now income and taxable. Is the 40% profit on all their income (rake) insufficient for Stars so that they have to take even more out of the poker economy?

#5 bbfg

bbfg

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 01 November 2014 - 03:29 PM

Daniel, with all due respect, but both you and Pokerstars are really treating poker players as idiots with statements like this.

Amaya its books are open now. Don't try and say these changes are to improve the product, access more legal markets, or attract new players. Amaya made an EBITDA of 450 million USD on a 1,1 billion USD revenue in 2013. These are profit margins any company would dream of, and profit margins that should have more than enough room for increasing marketing costs or dealing with some increased costs to enter new legalized markets. Either admit why the changes are taking place (Amaya needs to pay back the enormous amount of debt they raised to buy Pokerstars) or shut up, but don't come up with lame excuses. Pokerstars has done excellent things for poker and poker players have shown extreme grattitude for it, but it feels to me like this is a turning point. In a couple of years time we're going to look back to the Isai days and cry.

#6 KeithMM

KeithMM

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 01 November 2014 - 03:48 PM

from the Q & A about uk migration



Will my VIP Club rewards be affected?

A.
VIP Club rewards for PokerStars UK will be the same as on PokerStars.com for the remainder of 2014. Rewards will be reduced slightly for 2015; more information will be available at a later date.

Q.Are there any tax implications that will affect me as a player?

A.
PokerStars, like all other operators, will be required to pay UK gaming tax at 15% from December 1. The impact of this cost may mean that we introduce some changes to our VIP programme (but only from 2015). This is currently being reviewed. We will ensure that players are notified in advance.
The introduction of the UK tax will not impact winnings/cashouts, deposits or transfers - we will not be required to withhold taxes from any such transactions.


so if UK players vip rewards are being reduced to reflect the fact that stars is taxed on UK players rake why also selectively rake the uk players rebuys and add ons. 85% of that extra rake is pure profit for stars. Also if the tax has to be paid from december 1st why are stars raking the november rebuys and addons? Will your opinion still be the same when the amaya bean counters decide that you sponsorship money would be far better in the companies bottom line than in your bank account.Do you fell like you are now heading into the position that the LOCK poker pros were in when they kept promoting Lock whilst Lock were busily shafting the players for their own benefit? look how that turned out.



#7 fatboi78

fatboi78

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 02 November 2014 - 01:19 AM

Ok well what i would like to know is what you think about stars CONTINUED inaction on things such as seating scripts. You don't really play much on stars, but if you did you would probably notice how hard it is to get in to games (especially good ones) because of the scripts. The only way to get in to better games at the higher stakes is by sitting and battling the two best regulars at any stake so that you can be one of the people waiting for others to play. A lot of the time this will involve playing hu. Whilst i understand that rake increases are needed at certain times, the one area that the new increases slams is hu play with rake doubling for that format. This is especially important when a lot of the time in the situation described you will playing against the best regulars at the stakes. This means that any persons win rate will be very small. I would argue that it is not just the overall rake increase, but also the way that it has been handled, along with stars continued inaction on issues such as this which is creating such an issue with players. They talk about bringing in new players and worrying about the longevity of the games, well if that is the case and they have the time to roll out a rake increase, how come they dont have the time to sort out these other issues. The people battling for hu superiority at the 6max tables are playing a lot more hands with a smaller win rate and paying a lot more rake. The people who are using scripts play less hands and generally have a very high winrate as they are only playing in very good games with recreational players. High win rates plus less hands is not good for anyone. So if stars truely care about the "longevitiy of the game" etc how come most of the changes they are implementing only seem to be about one thing. Now the scripting thing is not the only issue but when you look at how this is dealt with along with the rake increase and things such as the lack of real announcement about the currency exchange which was almost a stealth tax. Perhaps you can better understand peoples issues more.

#8 Bejamin1

Bejamin1

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 1 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:Pot Limit Omaha

Posted 02 November 2014 - 12:05 PM

View PostDanielNegreanu, on 01 November 2014 - 01:59 PM, said:

I wanted to clear up a few misconceptions about some of the recent changes at PokerStars and throw in my two cents. First of all, I think it’s really important to note that most of the recent changes were going to happen well before the new ownership group took over. The online poker landscape has changed over the last few years and many of these changes were inevitable in a competitive market for the company to continue to be the world leader. While I get it, nobody gets excited over rake increases, I think it’s really important to note that PokerStars remains the cheapest place to play online poker. The rake increases are still smaller than what the competition offer, and that’s before you account for the generous VIP programs.

Several years ago the WSOP announced some increases to their rake in tournaments. I heard from a lot of poker players who complained that they would be unbeatable and no one would want to pay that kind of a rake. Since that time, the WSOP continues to break attendance records each year. Back then, despite having no affiliation with the WSOP other than being a fan, I understood the reasoning for the increases and accepted that the company needed to do what they felt was necessary, while at the same time understanding that players wouldn’t love the changes.

When the new popular Spin N’ Go format was introduced on PokerStars, many thought this was based on a directive from the new AMAYA group. That’s just not true. Broadening the game offerings was always something PokerStars looked to do each year and the plan to launch Spin N’ Gos was put in place long before AMAYA came around. While the ownership group at PokerStars may have changed, most all of the key employees and decision makers at PokerStars are still in place and from what I’ve seen, it’s business as usual for the most part.

PokerStars has, and always will look to be regulated in more and more markets, and depending on different government regulations that can be both costly and create some barriers. PokerStars is regulated in more countries than any other online poker site, and I don’t believe it’s even close. It’s always been the company's policy that regulation is a good thing, despite the cost.

The other area that has helped PokerStars remain #1 for as long as it has, has been the company's ability to attract NEW players. As I wrote in a previous blog, http://www.fullconta...=&ucat= bringing new recreational players to the game, poker games simply die. It’s imperative that we attract new players and I do believe the company's strategy will do that. If that strategy works, that could mean more profit for online grinders in the long run. Of course, that remains to be seen over the next couple years, but I’m confident in the company's vision and I am fully aligned with the direction they are going. I have met with the new owners and I think they have some really exciting and innovative ideas to attract more casual players to the game.

For a more detailed look at each of the changes I recommend reading this: http://pokerfuse.com...rs-change-year/

Bejamin1 here - this is just my theoretical take on the situation. Not like I can prove any of the conclusions I draw, but I have a feeling I'm not that far off. I hail from LiquidPoker as a casual grinder whilst I work on my Master's and work as a student employee. I'm going to present my point of view because it seems like there are a good deal of people who think raising rake is actually a good decision for Pokerstars. I think in all honestly it's simply an effort to generate resources to pay off the costs of an expensive acquisition and it has little to do with "improving the quality of the games" for players. Although I understand the merits of going through the expensive process of regulation. Really doesn't help people much if all you get is a segregated player pool. In fact I question how anyone can suggest it does if the end result is a segregated player pool then people from other countries see zero benefit from that process. The only winner there would be Pokerstars bottom-line long-term. Unless that bottom line was re-invested in ideas to actually make the games better. I digress.

So lets explore a little bit the world of Poker and in order to do that let's use the example of a zero-sum Poker Economy. A climate where no rake is taken from the games. What happens in this situation?


-Many players win
-Players brag to their friends about how much $$$ they are winning
-Friends deposit because "holy crap poker so cool easy money I'm gonna be the next Matt Damon like in Rounders man!"

That's the sex-appeal of the game for recreational players. That's what it's always been. The idea of bragging to your friends about how you're winning. Even just moderately average players can win in this climate because the rake doesn't gobble up all of their winnings on a weekly basis.

Now, obviously a rake free climate won't exist. However, an in-software advertising revenue generating model + greatly reduced rake would be the best possible future for the poker economy. Many players have success. Lots of word of mouth. Lots of bragging and lots of new deposits. That's how the game spreads and grows. If Pokerstars were less greedy, they'd make more in the long term AND the game would survive just fine.

Right now, something like what 5% maybe 1% of players will be winning players over 100K+ hand samples? Most casual players play maybe 15,000 hands in a year or some random number like that. They're still paying 10pt/bb rake too at that rate, except with their level of play most of them are dramatically losing players and only a few make money and cash out. That's not good for the poker economy. You want weak players, casuals, and fish to be winning fairly often and cashing out and bragging about it. That's hugely important to the poker economy to keep it growing.

Reduced rake is a win for everyone long term, including Pokerstars. They need to be more creative about their revenue. And frankly, they should eliminate the vast majority of "Pokerstars Pros" and support only a key few. It's ridiculous how many they are - vast majority of fish have no idea who these people are. I don't mind giving randoms on the final table 5k to wear a Pokerstars hat or whatever, but semi-permanently sponsoring a bunch of people who nobody gives a shit about is a waste of money. People know who you are Daniel, but very few people know who most of these "Pros" are. Yes they're good players, but they don't have much sex appeal in terms of actually bringing in more players.

Lastly - and maybe this will come as a surprise, but Pokerstars should basically eliminate Supernova Elite status and possibly Supernova as well. The FPP system should stay the same, but allow for the reasonable acquisition of bonuses at the highest rate for everyone. Make it work out to 40% rakeback for everyone or just two levels with Platimum being 25% RB or whatever it is and Supernova being 40%. Maybe you can have 50% for Supernova x2 or something, but even then it's getting into the same problems we've had in the past which I will now go into.

Why you ask? Well guess what, insane amounts of mass grinders does what to the games? It creates a climate with every reg sitting on 20 tables and playing mindlessly, not chatting, not interacting, etc... It creates unbalanced fish to regular ratios because people simply have to play this many tables to get decent rakeback. It creates a climate where no regulars want to play each other because it's almost impossible to have an edge especially at stakes bellow $200 buy-ins because the rake is too darn high and they have no edge at all. They end up seat scripting and harassing the weaker players chasing them around for action (really welcoming don't you think? Oh wait no, that's horrible).

If you just provide most players with good rakeback without having to play insane amounts (chopping off the 20-30% extra SNE grinders have been getting) then you will create softer games. There will be no incentive to play 50 tables. They'll be incentive to play 4-8. Play well, and battle vs. other regs/casuals. This is especially true in a rake reduced climate. The edges will be more reasonable so good players can actually play each other. Actual poker will be played. Good regs will battle each other and people will come online just to OBSERVE the games because how cool is that. Watching good players duke it out.

So what exists now? A climate of massive rake + the only good rakeback is Supernova x3++++

What does that do? It forces players to play insane amounts, for minimal edges, and essentially become rake churners. They win a bit of money, and churn most of the rest of it back into rake. It's a bad cycle for the poker economy and it's not good for anyone.

Pokerstars should be aiming to make the games great and to have as many people as possible bragging to their friends about winning. That's what keeps this great game going. It's not anything else. People don't want to see it as gambling and losing because nobody talks about winning anymore. They just talk about how hard it is and how its rigged etc etc etc. People want to hear about people winning, about edges being reasonable. And that you TOO can be a Poker Star if you put the work in. Build a positive climate where people realistically think they can win and regulars aren't forced to seat script, and play 10 billion hands to acquire rakeback. That's how you improve things. The rest of this is just bollocks.

Or you can be short-sighted and do what Amaya is doing... which is squeezing as much money as possible out of this game until it dies from being choked to death. They aren't helping anything, and they have zero long-term vision.

The only thing that will fix this is dramatic change from Pokerstars. Or unregulated bitcoin poker rising to power with the vision to use lower rake to attract lots of winners and people who can then go brag about where they won.

Any system that basically encourages regs to put in insane volume (to the detriment of their own health, well-being, mental sanity, and quality of the games) is a bad system. It creates a hostile climate for recreational players and does nothing except take the recreational players money and churn it into rake whilst the regulars make a small living off slightly beating the game (if they're really good) + RB. That's what's happening there. It isn't fun for anyone. Games should be soft, regular to recreational player levels and ratios should be reasonable.

If Pokerstars really wanted to increase the health of the games what could they do?
-Reduce maximum number of regular tables to 8, perhaps even 4 or 6
-Reduce maximum rake to 25 cents for all stakes below $25 buy-ins, and one dollar for all stakes 50$ buy-in to 500$ buy-in
-Introduce in software advertising, simple process, software launches unified adds for each limit that display on any active table once every hour or thirty minutes either one, everyone watches and then hands continue being dealt, similar to tournament breaks
-Eliminate awful bonus structures like Supernova and Supernova Elite - they only encourage mass tabling and high-volume (things which generate a lot of rake and $ for pokerstars, but have a hugely negative impact on the quality and softness of games and player experience)
-Eliminate seat scripting
-Stop providing hand histories - or update their format so often that players can't use the completely legitimate software allowed by TOS to play the game on such a high analytical levels
-It's cool to take notes - but you are supposed to use your memory and personal knowledge to do that - using these programs takes players to much more advanced levels and makes games tougher for everyone because you can make decisions that otherwise only the best most detailed note takers and game studiers would know how to make, those people would be one in hundred thousand players instead of EVERY REG as it is currently

So why won't Pokerstars make such obvious changes? It's because they're perfectly happy with the current climate of regs playing millions upon millions of hands. It's the best way to get rake. Most of the recreational players money won by regulars is churned into rake. It's a big fist pump win for them. It's not about the quality of the games. It's about money and stock value for the share holder

So lets get real Daniel. We could easily build a much better poker economy for everyone. Pokerstars isn't interested in doing that. THey're interested in maximizing profits for shareholders and that's about it. Its not about helping the players win money and having soft games where more players could be winners and brag to their friends leading to more deposits. It's about building a climate where people play as many hands as possible to make sure that recreational player money is churned into rake by mindless grinders.

#9 Vegas Knights

Vegas Knights

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 486 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon; lived in Vegas 1982 - 1991
  • Interests:Screenwriting - Wrote a Vegas/poker themed screenplay entitled "Vegas Knights" that won a 1st place award at the Nevada Film Festival, an honorable mention at the Las Vegas Film Festival, and was a quarterfinalist at the 2013 Scriptapalooza contest. Script still available.
  • Favorite Poker Game:Hold'em

Posted 02 November 2014 - 12:32 PM

View PostDanielNegreanu, on 01 November 2014 - 02:46 PM, said:

Absolutely. Being a publicly traded company means more checks and balances and less leeway...
This is true. In today's corporate world the goal of the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) is to make as much profit as is legally possible in order to keep the stockholders happy. If a CEO sees a course of action that will increase profits 10% he will most likely choose that course of action even if it pisses off a substantial number of customers. The CEO might sympathize with the customers but his/her loyalty is to the stockholders first. The CEO might not even care about long term aspects of his decision since he might be retired by then, or has received his performance bonuses and moved on to another company. The corporate world (like poker) can be very cold. The bottom line is to make as much money as is legally possible and if some people get pissed off or harmed in the process - sorry.

#10 Cruz

Cruz

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 78 posts

Posted 02 November 2014 - 03:04 PM

If the CEO for Amaya wasn't able to make Ongame succeed, it's unlikely that his ideas will succeed at PokerStars.

#11 king_tanner

king_tanner

    Poker Forum C***

  • Members
  • 11,646 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern CA
  • Favorite Poker Game:Crazy Pineapple hi/lo

Posted 03 November 2014 - 10:53 AM

The wsop milked more money out of the players so Pokerstars should do it too when the company is financially ok? It just doesn't sound necessary

Pokerstars has always been about pulling players in (which DN mentions), I don't see how this is +EV when they are pulling out of countries. Shouldn't they be trying to lower the rake at this time?
QUOTE (rcgs59 @ Wednesday, January 5th, 2011, 8:14 PM)
$5,000 lol wish it was 5000

#12 Vegas Knights

Vegas Knights

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 486 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon; lived in Vegas 1982 - 1991
  • Interests:Screenwriting - Wrote a Vegas/poker themed screenplay entitled "Vegas Knights" that won a 1st place award at the Nevada Film Festival, an honorable mention at the Las Vegas Film Festival, and was a quarterfinalist at the 2013 Scriptapalooza contest. Script still available.
  • Favorite Poker Game:Hold'em

Posted 03 November 2014 - 12:36 PM

double post deleted

#13 Vegas Knights

Vegas Knights

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 486 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon; lived in Vegas 1982 - 1991
  • Interests:Screenwriting - Wrote a Vegas/poker themed screenplay entitled "Vegas Knights" that won a 1st place award at the Nevada Film Festival, an honorable mention at the Las Vegas Film Festival, and was a quarterfinalist at the 2013 Scriptapalooza contest. Script still available.
  • Favorite Poker Game:Hold'em

Posted 03 November 2014 - 02:50 PM

Benjamin1, you made some good points in your post #8 but your yellow highlighting is a turn off to me and I had to transfer it over to my word program to read it. Here is your post without the yellow highlighting so more people will read it:
________

"Bejamin1 here - this is just my theoretical take on the situation. Not like I can prove any of the conclusions I draw, but I have a feeling I'm not that far off. I hail from LiquidPoker as a casual grinder whilst I work on my Master's and work as a student employee. I'm going to present my point of view because it seems like there are a good deal of people who think raising rake is actually a good decision for Pokerstars. I think in all honestly it's simply an effort to generate resources to pay off the costs of an expensive acquisition and it has little to do with "improving the quality of the games" for players. Although I understand the merits of going through the expensive process of regulation. Really doesn't help people much if all you get is a segregated player pool. In fact I question how anyone can suggest it does if the end result is a segregated player pool then people from other countries see zero benefit from that process. The only winner there would be Pokerstars bottom-line long-term. Unless that bottom line was re-invested in ideas to actually make the games better. I digress.

So lets explore a little bit the world of Poker and in order to do that let's use the example of a zero-sum Poker Economy. A climate where no rake is taken from the games. What happens in this situation?

-Many players win
-Players brag to their friends about how much $$$ they are winning
-Friends deposit because "holy crap poker so cool easy money I'm gonna be the next Matt Damon like in Rounders man!"

That's the sex-appeal of the game for recreational players. That's what it's always been. The idea of bragging to your friends about how you're winning. Even just moderately average players can win in this climate because the rake doesn't gobble up all of their winnings on a weekly basis.

Now, obviously a rake free climate won't exist. However, an in-software advertising revenue generating model + greatly reduced rake would be the best possible future for the poker economy. Many players have success. Lots of word of mouth. Lots of bragging and lots of new deposits. That's how the game spreads and grows. If Pokerstars were less greedy, they'd make more in the long term AND the game would survive just fine.

Right now, something like what 5% maybe 1% of players will be winning players over 100K+ hand samples? Most casual players play maybe 15,000 hands in a year or some random number like that. They're still paying 10pt/bb rake too at that rate, except with their level of play most of them are dramatically losing players and only a few make money and cash out. That's not good for the poker economy. You want weak players, casuals, and fish to be winning fairly often and cashing out and bragging about it. That's hugely important to the poker economy to keep it growing.

Reduced rake is a win for everyone long term, including Pokerstars. They need to be more creative about their revenue. And frankly, they should eliminate the vast majority of "Pokerstars Pros" and support only a key few. It's ridiculous how many they are - vast majority of fish have no idea who these people are. I don't mind giving randoms on the final table 5k to wear a Pokerstars hat or whatever, but semi-permanently sponsoring a bunch of people who nobody gives a shit about is a waste of money. People know who you are Daniel, but very few people know who most of these "Pros" are. Yes they're good players, but they don't have much sex appeal in terms of actually bringing in more players.

Lastly - and maybe this will come as a surprise, but Pokerstars should basically eliminate Supernova Elite status and possibly Supernova as well. The FPP system should stay the same, but allow for the reasonable acquisition of bonuses at the highest rate for everyone. Make it work out to 40% rakeback for everyone or just two levels with Platimum being 25% RB or whatever it is and Supernova being 40%. Maybe you can have 50% for Supernova x2 or something, but even then it's getting into the same problems we've had in the past which I will now go into.

Why you ask? Well guess what, insane amounts of mass grinders does what to the games? It creates a climate with every reg sitting on 20 tables and playing mindlessly, not chatting, not interacting, etc... It creates unbalanced fish to regular ratios because people simply have to play this many tables to get decent rakeback. It creates a climate where no regulars want to play each other because it's almost impossible to have an edge especially at stakes bellow $200 buy-ins because the rake is too darn high and they have no edge at all. They end up seat scripting and harassing the weaker players chasing them around for action (really welcoming don't you think? Oh wait no, that's horrible).

If you just provide most players with good rakeback without having to play insane amounts (chopping off the 20-30% extra SNE grinders have been getting) then you will create softer games. There will be no incentive to play 50 tables. They'll be incentive to play 4-8. Play well, and battle vs. other regs/casuals. This is especially true in a rake reduced climate. The edges will be more reasonable so good players can actually play each other. Actual poker will be played. Good regs will battle each other and people will come online just to OBSERVE the games because how cool is that. Watching good players duke it out.

So what exists now? A climate of massive rake + the only good rakeback is Supernova x3++++

What does that do? It forces players to play insane amounts, for minimal edges, and essentially become rake churners. They win a bit of money, and churn most of the rest of it back into rake. It's a bad cycle for the poker economy and it's not good for anyone.

Pokerstars should be aiming to make the games great and to have as many people as possible bragging to their friends about winning. That's what keeps this great game going. It's not anything else. People don't want to see it as gambling and losing because nobody talks about winning anymore. They just talk about how hard it is and how its rigged etc etc etc. People want to hear about people winning, about edges being reasonable. And that you TOO can be a Poker Star if you put the work in. Build a positive climate where people realistically think they can win and regulars aren't forced to seat script, and play 10 billion hands to acquire rakeback. That's how you improve things. The rest of this is just bollocks.

Or you can be short-sighted and do what Amaya is doing... which is squeezing as much money as possible out of this game until it dies from being choked to death. They aren't helping anything, and they have zero long-term vision.

The only thing that will fix this is dramatic change from Pokerstars. Or unregulated bitcoin poker rising to power with the vision to use lower rake to attract lots of winners and people who can then go brag about where they won.

Any system that basically encourages regs to put in insane volume (to the detriment of their own health, well-being, mental sanity, and quality of the games) is a bad system. It creates a hostile climate for recreational players and does nothing except take the recreational players money and churn it into rake whilst the regulars make a small living off slightly beating the game (if they're really good) + RB. That's what's happening there. It isn't fun for anyone. Games should be soft, regular to recreational player levels and ratios should be reasonable.

If Pokerstars really wanted to increase the health of the games what could they do?
-Reduce maximum number of regular tables to 8, perhaps even 4 or 6
-Reduce maximum rake to 25 cents for all stakes below $25 buy-ins, and one dollar for all stakes 50$ buy-in to 500$ buy-in
-Introduce in software advertising, simple process, software launches unified adds for each limit that display on any active table once every hour or thirty minutes either one, everyone watches and then hands continue being dealt, similar to tournament breaks
-Eliminate awful bonus structures like Supernova and Supernova Elite - they only encourage mass tabling and high-volume (things which generate a lot of rake and $ for pokerstars, but have a hugely negative impact on the quality and softness of games and player experience)
-Eliminate seat scripting
-Stop providing hand histories - or update their format so often that players can't use the completely legitimate software allowed by TOS to play the game on such a high analytical levels
-It's cool to take notes - but you are supposed to use your memory and personal knowledge to do that - using these programs takes players to much more advanced levels and makes games tougher for everyone because you can make decisions that otherwise only the best most detailed note takers and game studiers would know how to make, those people would be one in hundred thousand players instead of EVERY REG as it is currently

So why won't Pokerstars make such obvious changes? It's because they're perfectly happy with the current climate of regs playing millions upon millions of hands. It's the best way to get rake. Most of the recreational players money won by regulars is churned into rake. It's a big fist pump win for them. It's not about the quality of the games. It's about money and stock value for the share holder

So lets get real Daniel. We could easily build a much better poker economy for everyone. Pokerstars isn't interested in doing that. THey're interested in maximizing profits for shareholders and that's about it. Its not about helping the players win money and having soft games where more players could be winners and brag to their friends leading to more deposits. It's about building a climate where people play as many hands as possible to make sure that recreational player money is churned into rake by mindless grinders."

#14 king_tanner

king_tanner

    Poker Forum C***

  • Members
  • 11,646 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern CA
  • Favorite Poker Game:Crazy Pineapple hi/lo

Posted 03 November 2014 - 07:49 PM

O/u on people reading that whole thing? I'm setting it at 2
QUOTE (rcgs59 @ Wednesday, January 5th, 2011, 8:14 PM)
$5,000 lol wish it was 5000

#15 Vegas Knights

Vegas Knights

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 486 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon; lived in Vegas 1982 - 1991
  • Interests:Screenwriting - Wrote a Vegas/poker themed screenplay entitled "Vegas Knights" that won a 1st place award at the Nevada Film Festival, an honorable mention at the Las Vegas Film Festival, and was a quarterfinalist at the 2013 Scriptapalooza contest. Script still available.
  • Favorite Poker Game:Hold'em

Posted 05 November 2014 - 07:37 PM

View Postking_tanner, on 03 November 2014 - 07:49 PM, said:

O/u on people reading that whole thing? I'm setting it at 2
With 24,000 hits to this thread I'll take the over.

#16 king_tanner

king_tanner

    Poker Forum C***

  • Members
  • 11,646 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern CA
  • Favorite Poker Game:Crazy Pineapple hi/lo

Posted 06 November 2014 - 09:18 AM

Don't think so. Looking at it and ignoring it is not reading it. I'm still taking the under
QUOTE (rcgs59 @ Wednesday, January 5th, 2011, 8:14 PM)
$5,000 lol wish it was 5000

#17 David_Sklansky

David_Sklansky

    He/Him Pronouns

  • Members
  • 3,134 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Favorite Poker Game:Holdem, while looking at pornography

Posted 07 November 2014 - 12:48 PM

View Postking_tanner, on 03 November 2014 - 07:49 PM, said:

O/u on people reading that whole thing? I'm setting it at 2

I got to the end before realizing it wasn't an excerpt from his celebrated screenplay Vegas Knights.
12. When menstruating, use a product that right for your menstrual flow. A tampon too big can irritate and develop fungus. A product left in too long can cause bacteria or fungus build up. Products can be changed at least every 4 hours. Except when sleeping, they can be left in for the night

#18 Vegas Knights

Vegas Knights

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 486 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon; lived in Vegas 1982 - 1991
  • Interests:Screenwriting - Wrote a Vegas/poker themed screenplay entitled "Vegas Knights" that won a 1st place award at the Nevada Film Festival, an honorable mention at the Las Vegas Film Festival, and was a quarterfinalist at the 2013 Scriptapalooza contest. Script still available.
  • Favorite Poker Game:Hold'em

Posted 07 November 2014 - 04:03 PM

View PostDavid_Sklansky, on 07 November 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:

I got to the end before realizing it wasn't an excerpt from his celebrated screenplay Vegas Knights.
It's not being celebrated on 2 + 2. I offered to post the the 1st 6 pages of the 3x's honored poker themed screenplay in their "News Views and Gossip" section but was declined. Thankfully Daniel Negreanu's Full Contact Poker allowed me to post some of it in this General Poker section. 2 + 2 did allow me to post some in the Other Other Topics Forum (the thread has since been deleted) but what does that section have to do with poker. Isn't a poker themed screenplay that wins 3 honors poker news?? The offer still stands. Thanks again to Full Contact for allowing me to post it. In case anyone doesn't know what we're talking about, this will explain:

http://www.fullconta...howtopic=147299

Now let's get back to the thread topic.

#19 BigDMcGee

BigDMcGee

    Forum Entitlist

  • Members
  • 26,255 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 November 2014 - 05:14 PM

NO IT'S NOT ****ING NEWS
"We are only wise in knowing that we know nothing"
-Socrates

"Dust. Wind. Dude."
-Ted Theodore Logan

"I'm a basketball player and a businessman, not a Thundercat,"
-Lebron James

#20 David_Sklansky

David_Sklansky

    He/Him Pronouns

  • Members
  • 3,134 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Favorite Poker Game:Holdem, while looking at pornography

Posted 07 November 2014 - 05:19 PM

View PostBigDMcGee, on 07 November 2014 - 05:14 PM, said:

NO IT'S NOT ****ING NEWS

News is relative. Not much poker news lately, I think poker players would be interested to hear that a poker themed story is rocking critics like this, and yet studios, 2+2 and DN alike seem to be trying to sweep it under the rug like it never happened. Almost makes you wonder what kind of revolutionary ideas are in there that no one wants us to hear.
12. When menstruating, use a product that right for your menstrual flow. A tampon too big can irritate and develop fungus. A product left in too long can cause bacteria or fungus build up. Products can be changed at least every 4 hours. Except when sleeping, they can be left in for the night




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users