blonde poker forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 19, 2024, 09:03:20 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
2272539 Posts in 66754 Topics by 16946 Members
Latest Member: KobeTaylor
* Home Help Arcade Search Calendar Guidelines Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 ... 112
31  Community Forums / The Lounge / Re: The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged on: January 15, 2016, 03:21:44 PM
As I said earlier due to Ofcom requirements they have to, at least attempt to, be balanced and therefore everyone on both sides think they are biased.
32  Poker Forums / The Rail / Re: We Are Poker Players - join the protest against Amaya. on: January 14, 2016, 10:54:58 AM
What makes you think that Amaya is, "very desperate"?

Share price is tanking very hard, they have huge debt repayments to keep up which they barely are and likely to fall behind on if a few things don't go their way.

They massively overpaid for stars and then mortgaged up to the hilt to pay for it. Think of the glazeers buying out man utd back in the day and then putting the debt onto the club.

I think its a belief held by quite a few people that a big driver of these changes is simply cost cutting and raising prices to mitigate those things. Not the PR spin they put on it that it is going to be good for the ecology for the games. A view held by more than a few that actually the changes long term will do the opposite.

Hence this seems like a somewhat desperate course of action from Stars/amaya

Net debt is around $2.4bn

Financing costs on this are around $200m annually I think.

You can certainly tweak the numbers so it becomes a problem, but you still need a pretty huge drop in revenues or huge hike in costs.

Share price has no (direct) impact on cash flow.

Lots of hyperbole on both sides. It doesn't help.

You are likely better informed than me to be honest. But do you have the source on this as amaya paid $4.9b for stars I think and around $3b was loaned for it?
 I thought the costs were closer to $300m per year in finanicing ? The info I heard is kind of 2nd hand and perhaps the costs are not as high as believed.

Stars makes around $420mil per year profit or did in 2014 I think. In Nov this year amaya announced a profit warning ironic timing (well according to 2+2 so who knows lol) which doesn't suprise me thay much

With the costs of markets increasing quite alot (mainly taxation/regulation) and revenues likely to dip due to some markets getting closed off. Plus the $ is very strong atm (if you are going to withdraw some $ now is a great time) which is likely hurting them pretty hard.

I would not be suprised if loan repayments start getting close to profit or closer to the point it makes the board very uncomfortable. Either way  net profit will be very small (compared to pre amaya) once the debt burden is taken into account.

 It seems the reality of what amaya promised investors is not true. A big part of the dream sold was rentry into the USA which is seemingly not as smooth as they were sold.

Hence the share price tanking quite hard, obviously it doesn't impact cash flow at all though. Having worked previous to poker in a few large business I know how obessive  (overly so) companies are to share price even the the city is incredibly fickle

Like the other poster said I don't think all this is as much of an issue as the strikers believe. Likely there will either be another round of financing or the company is simply sold off to another Corp. It's not like stars is not profitable it is extremely so and this won't change overnight.

Still seems to me that these changes/cuts/increase are very short term reactionary to a bunch of macro issues. Which if the executives at amaya had any clue about the poker market before they over paid for stars. They could have easily forseen. I guess they equated gambling= poker and they know about gambling. Plus took a huge punt on getting into the USA quickly.



It's a public company. You don't need some bloke on 2+2 to let you know what's going on, you can just look it up yourself Smiley

Try here http://www.amaya.com/pdf/20151118_aya-presentation_for-website.pdf

Slide 46 shows Adjusted net debt as US$2,359,574

Slide 44 shows YTD financing costs to Q3 2015 as CAD$184,878 (US$129m).

They very recently refinanced the debt on better terms and have access to additional fund raising up to $3bn if required.

You are definitely correct that profit is not at pre-Amaya levels, and the investors were sold a massive growth story based on huge revenues from casino and sports as well as increased poker revenues. So it's not all plain sailing. But defaulting on debt seems unlikely to me. But Tighty would be far better placed to analyse that than me.

The profit warning is what sent the share price tumbling, but it's still going to make a healthy profit this year. Just not as much as it previously thought.

USA is an odd one. It's more a reputational benefit than a financial benefit. NJ wouldn't be acretive to bottom line in the short-term I wouldn't have thought.
33  Poker Forums / The Rail / Re: We Are Poker Players - join the protest against Amaya. on: January 14, 2016, 09:13:31 AM
What makes you think that Amaya is, "very desperate"?

Share price is tanking very hard, they have huge debt repayments to keep up which they barely are and likely to fall behind on if a few things don't go their way.

They massively overpaid for stars and then mortgaged up to the hilt to pay for it. Think of the glazeers buying out man utd back in the day and then putting the debt onto the club.

I think its a belief held by quite a few people that a big driver of these changes is simply cost cutting and raising prices to mitigate those things. Not the PR spin they put on it that it is going to be good for the ecology for the games. A view held by more than a few that actually the changes long term will do the opposite.

Hence this seems like a somewhat desperate course of action from Stars/amaya

Net debt is around $2.4bn

Financing costs on this are around $200m annually I think.

You can certainly tweak the numbers so it becomes a problem, but you still need a pretty huge drop in revenues or huge hike in costs.

Share price has no (direct) impact on cash flow.

Lots of hyperbole on both sides. It doesn't help.
34  Community Forums / The Lounge / Re: Would you trust a jury with your life? on: January 13, 2016, 04:29:47 PM
Easiest million you'll ever make.

If you didn't do it you just have to use the Shaggy defence "It wasn't me" and you'd be fine.

It's the prosecutions job to prove you've done it and if you didn't then they really haven't got a chance.

I understand that some innocent people get convicted but they aren't exactly picked out at random. There's obviously a very good reason for putting them in the dock and that's why the jury gets it wrong.

Actual odds against this going wrong are way over 100/1 so I'd definitely give it a go.




I think the assumption here is there would at least be some circumstantial or fabricated evidence against you. Not that they just picked a random bloke for no reason and tried to convict him of murder. I think it's saying put yourself in the shoes of someone innocently convicted of murder (it happens) and how safe do you feel with a jury. Not are all juries dribbling simpletons who will convict anyone they are told to.

Although maybe I've misunderstood.
35  Community Forums / The Lounge / Re: Would you trust a jury with your life? on: January 13, 2016, 02:39:35 PM
I'd do it and pay whatever it cost for the absolute best defence lawyer money can buy.

In all seriousness if this was a murder case that could end up costing more than £1m
36  Poker Forums / The Rail / Re: We Are Poker Players - join the protest against Amaya. on: January 13, 2016, 02:00:53 PM
What makes you think that Amaya is, "very desperate"?

Probably this https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=AYA.TO#symbol=AYA.TO;range=1y
37  Poker Forums / The Rail / Re: We Are Poker Players - join the protest against Amaya. on: January 13, 2016, 01:47:11 PM
As a regular, i'd say that this is a very big misconception about huds. I never use any stats aside few basic like vpip or PFR against recreational players. Never. I'm an honest players, i've never bought any mining in my career and i don't have nearly enough hands on a single rec to make me look for the advanced stats. They are only used against other regular players. And Amaya won't remove huds completely - why else would they make Jivaro? As for the complete removal of huds, i would support it if there was a solution against cheaters who would create their own hud undetectable by stars.
tikay yes, i know, that out demand seems too radical, but it's the only demand that matters. If we're correct about Amaya's intentions of turning poker into a casino game - any other demand is meaningless. So, we have to make enough leverage so our demand will be met.

I would say your demands are more unrealistic than radical. You are demanding too much.

Here's some food for thought for you - what do you think of this article?


 http://www.onlinepokerreport.com/19247/impact-pokerstars-boycotts-online-poker-liquidity/
Decent article. We will present our numbers on the latest strike very soon. We published those numbers already in russian and currently translating it to english.
SuuPRlim, the whole idea, how we see it is that Amaya is very desperate and that's why they did what they did(not only reduced vip-rewards, but cut second year of sn and sne rewards what enraged players all over the world). We don't know what exactly Baazov promised to his investors but, as i understand it, it's common practice that if he fails to fullfill this promises, he could loose the company to the creditors - my english is not good enough to translate our financial advisor opinion on that. So, either Baazov starts respecting players or new owners will understand that you can't f*** with us.

Your English is either much worse than you think or I'm missing something here. It's a public company. He doesn't own it anyway. And so long as he doesn't default on his debt then he's fine. They would need to lose an absolute shit load of money to make that a possibility.
38  Community Forums / The Lounge / Re: Would you trust a jury with your life? on: January 13, 2016, 01:37:33 PM
This is just a straight bet isn't it? Work out what you think the odds are and then the value for you in terms of life in jail versus £1m.

I think odds of wrongful conviction would need to be 10,000/1 for me to want to get involved. Maybe even higher. I suspect the true odds are a lot lower than that.

I know a few criminal defence lawyers and a lot of them say there is an element of randomness when you bring a jury into the mix. I think that's the polite way of saying what they say...
39  Community Forums / The Lounge / Re: The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged on: January 13, 2016, 01:33:01 PM
Surprised we haven't seen any discussion of the junior doctors strike. I've been pretty appalled at the BBC coverage of it. Seems really biased against the doctors and the government while Mr Hunt gets a complete free pass and is allowed to put out PR without ever being interviewed or answering questions. This post on Twitter just now did make me laugh.

https://twitter.com/cbrookmyre/status/686871591498723328

In what way? No need to give concrete examples, just an idea of general sentiment. It surprises me that the BBC would appear biased in such a way (Sky News seemed pro doctors for this bits I saw).

In fairness reading some of the coverage this morning the tone appears to have softened a lot. Maybe they had complaints. It was leading with the government line, pushing comment from BMA way down the piece, talking about how 11,000 doctors had not gone on strike (despite this being pre agreed for emergency cover) and operations being cancelled (when they had been postponed) and so on. It felt pretty biased to me at any rate. More than language and the way the facts were presented. Here is what's happening (mix of government line and populist scaremongering) and here is an alternative view (what the strikers say). Same way with tube strikes to be fair.

Without a doubt someone had a word with Beeb after the coverage two days ago which was so far in favour of Hunt it was beyond belief.

without a doubt? 

Every report I hear seems to suggest that Hunt thinks they are close and then states BMA thinks they are much further apart.  They have also been reporting survey results that suggest the doctors have public backing.   They reported the ballot results etc.  I heard a five live report the other day where both doctors were very much for the strike and against the Givernment.  I suspect one of them was supposed to be pro Government, as you could hear the presenter desparately trying to lead one of the doctors to say something to support the other side. 

Though you sometimes hear stuff that appears biassed, a lot of the time they do bend over backwards to give the other side even if it means bringing some right lunatics in front of camera.

 

That's because broadcast news organisations (unlike the print media) are obligated by law to be unbiased. They don't have a choice.

That's why it surprised me so much at how the BBC was treating the story at first. Within the margins they are allowed it seemed quite heavily one sided to me. They rarely challenge the statistics and "facts" that Hunt provides for example.
40  Community Forums / The Lounge / Re: The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged on: January 13, 2016, 11:29:34 AM
Surprised we haven't seen any discussion of the junior doctors strike. I've been pretty appalled at the BBC coverage of it. Seems really biased against the doctors and the government while Mr Hunt gets a complete free pass and is allowed to put out PR without ever being interviewed or answering questions. This post on Twitter just now did make me laugh.

https://twitter.com/cbrookmyre/status/686871591498723328

In what way? No need to give concrete examples, just an idea of general sentiment. It surprises me that the BBC would appear biased in such a way (Sky News seemed pro doctors for this bits I saw).

In fairness reading some of the coverage this morning the tone appears to have softened a lot. Maybe they had complaints. It was leading with the government line, pushing comment from BMA way down the piece, talking about how 11,000 doctors had not gone on strike (despite this being pre agreed for emergency cover) and operations being cancelled (when they had been postponed) and so on. It felt pretty biased to me at any rate. More than language and the way the facts were presented. Here is what's happening (mix of government line and populist scaremongering) and here is an alternative view (what the strikers say). Same way with tube strikes to be fair.
41  Community Forums / The Lounge / Re: Would you trust a jury with your life? on: January 13, 2016, 10:17:21 AM
Life imprisonment =/ death penalty

Which is it?

Assume it was a question for a US forum where many states don't have the death penalty so meaning the maximum sentence depending on where you live.

I wouldn't take the risk personally, but if there is genuinely no evidence then even if you were convicted you would have to fancy your chances at appeal. At least in the UK anyway. Not sure about the US.
42  Community Forums / The Lounge / Re: The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged on: January 13, 2016, 10:13:57 AM
Surprised we haven't seen any discussion of the junior doctors strike. I've been pretty appalled at the BBC coverage of it. Seems really biased against the doctors and the government while Mr Hunt gets a complete free pass and is allowed to put out PR without ever being interviewed or answering questions. This post on Twitter just now did make me laugh.

https://twitter.com/cbrookmyre/status/686871591498723328
43  Community Forums / The Lounge / Re: The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged on: January 12, 2016, 12:39:20 PM
Question of the day

Should Britain stay in the European Union, and why do you think that?

a rarity for this thread, and such a big issue too

 no views given?

The whole referendum thing is so tiresome.

Aren't civil servants in all sorts of departments paid to find out the answer to precisely the kind of question like is EU membership good for the country? I certainly don't know whether EU membership is good or bad for Britain, but I'd vote to stay simply because the out campaign to this point has been eye-wateringly infantile, as if we should maybe take our ball home to show the other countries how much they need us. If what we were really looking for was the most +EV position for the country then how about putting the cash for the cost of a referendum into a comprehensive, independent study to actually answer the question properly. Instead we're just gunna get a bunch of flag waving and Out votes because the Lithuanian guy at work keeps smelly pasta in the fridge.

If the Out campaign is so convinced that we would be so much better off outside the EU then I think that the burden of proof has to lie with them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that...


 

Yep

Yeo

Yep
44  Community Forums / The Lounge / Re: The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged on: January 12, 2016, 11:46:13 AM
I'm not 100% sure what my view is. Knee jerk is want to remain, but the longer I think about it the less I see the value.
45  Community Forums / The Lounge / Re: Making a Murderer - Discussion thread (DO NOT READ IF YOU'VE NOT WATCHED IT ALL) on: January 11, 2016, 01:14:19 PM
What shocked me most was how on several appeals brendan didn't at least get a re - trial.  With oj's lawyers can't see brendan ever getting done

Biggest factor in OJ case by far was the media coverage and not any brilliance of his lawyers. If either of them had the media on their side at the time they would have walked IMO
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 ... 112
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.312 seconds with 19 queries.