Dear Pleno..........Best Regards, Danny.

[tikay]

From the 2+2 Thread titled "SNE launches a petition against Spin & Go format", this post by Little Danny.


I've seen a lot of talk about the poker ecosystem and what kills games, etc. Do you know what kills games and destroys the poker ecosystem above and beyond all the things mentioned? Winning players. Yup, you guys lol. The winning players as a whole win a lot more money than the company makes each and every year. Yet, oddly, they still offer VIP programs to the very people who are essentially "killing the games."

If Spin N' Go's deterred pros from playing, that actually HELPS the poker ecosystem immensely, it just may not help YOU personally. I love, love, love, and love this concept and if it helps to level the playing field a little bit, while allowing rec players to stretch their dollars a bit further than before, I think in the end that is a win for everyone- even the winning players who are upset about it now.

You guys don't even want to know what I would do to the VIP programs if I was in charge! I would focus on giving bonuses to the LOSING players exclusively. They'd play more, last longer, and the pros would get the money in the end anyway. I think it's overkill to not only have pros crushing all the rec players, but then also giving them the majority of the bonuses on top of that?

The mindset of some pros is backwards. You think they need you, when the reverse is true. They would do better as a company if pros didn't play at all. They need the rec players, THEY should be the priority, not the pros. If you lose rec players, then pros don't play anyway. If the rec players continue to deposit and play, then the pros will be there to get that money.

Look at it this way, PokerStars provides a service that allows some of you to make a living. You are not employees, and they are not your boss. As with any service, if you don't feel it's worth it to use, then you are free to choose a different service. That may seem harsh, but I get a sense that some people have entitlement issues that aren't warranted.

[RED-DOG]

Spin and go?

[tikay]

Spin and go?

It's a recent 'Stars innovation which has proven to be stunningly popular, so much so that it has put a sizeable dent in the cash game traffic, (I read somewhere that it was 9% down the week before last) hence it has upset many cash game players.

As with most things, what pleases some, displeases others.


http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/spin-and-go/

[TightEnd]

Nick Wright wrote the following interesting article

http://www.pokerstarsblog.com/tournaments/ept/2014/ept11-london-anyone-for-a-spin-and-go-151535.shtml


Barry Crater wrote this one

Is there too much gamble in PokerStars Spin & Go tournaments?

http://www.pokerstrategy.com/news/world-of-poker/Is-there-too-much-gamble-in-Spin-Go-_87588/

[Doobs]

Can somebody explain why this is a dear Pleno thread?

I assume we are quoting a totally unbiased Danny here and not the best paid stars Pro on the planet who shares the same name.

[tikay]

Can somebody explain why this is a dear Pleno thread?

I assume we are quoting a totally unbiased Danny here and not the best paid stars Pro on the planet who shares the same name.

It was just a whimsical thread title David, good thread titles get more views. It was certainly not specifically aimed at Patrick, I just used his name as he wins more than almost anyone in our circle!

I was not quoting any particular Danny, I was just quoting his comment, as it struck me as very interesting, & included what some may consider to be a few home truths.

If I Posted this thread Next Door, there would be an overwhelming response in favour of Danny. On here, I would imagine quite the opposite. 

 

[Eck]

Spin and go?

Generally forms part of a sentence whenever the camel meets little Danny...

[tikay]

Spin and go?

Generally forms part of a sentence whenever the camel meets little Danny...

Lol, am keenly awaiting the response from Danny's biggest fan.

[The Camel]

 

It pains me more than you can imagine to admit to agreeing with Daniel Negreanu but I agree with Daniel Negreanu.

Hyper turbo sngs are full of pros 18 tabling and taking forever to make a decision. It means you sometimes only get 3 or 4 hands per level. It's beyond annoying. And selfish of them. Because the recs are playing these for a change of pace and a bit of gamble. NOT to be exploited by regs.

I've played a few of these spin and gos and they are great. Haven't suffered a player timing out once in about 50 games.

The rake is a little high, but apart from that I see absolutely no downside.

Hope they put in $50, $100 and $200 versions soon too.

[MelissaChloe]

Dear Danny,

Do you know what kills games and destroys the poker ecosystem above and beyond all the things mentioned? Winning players.

This statement in itself is completely flawed. Poker is an 'ecosystem' which has to have winning and losing players. No players are of the same ability, even amongst the losing players, there are going to be ones that are better at poker than the others. If we took out all of the players that are currently winning, then the best of the previous losing players would now start to be winning players. There is no way around it, there simply has to be winners and losers in poker.

As for all of this about the VIP system, it is a fair system that awards EVERYONE the same bonuses, regardless of whether you win or lose. It is a fair system that pays out depending on how often you are playing, not how much you are winning/losing.

The mindset of some pros is backwards. You think they need you, when the reverse is true. They would do better as a company if pros didn't play at all.

Pokerstars and other sites need both pros and recs. At the end of the day, they make most of their money through rake. They need the pros that grind 5 days a week, specifically at times when most 'recs' would be at work, else the site would be far less busy. Recreational players are called that because they play exactly that way - casually. Not every day, not 5 days a week. Just whenever they fancy it. Poker sites needs both recs and pros to maximize their profits at all times of the day and I think Pokerstars does a great job of attracting both types of player. So no, Pokerstars would not do better as a company without pros.

'Danny's' whole argument seems to be insinuating that winning players either shouldn't be allowed to play or that they should not be awarded bonuses and that if this was the case, more people would play.

Again, I disagree. If poker was like roulette or blackjack, where I knew the only way I could win in the long run was to gain an 'edge' over the house, which would likely get me banned, then I wouldn't play poker. It would be too much like a lottery and that doesn't appeal to me at all. It would literally be burning money and that is the reason why I don't play roulette or any other casino games. What attracts me to poker and keeps me playing 5 days a week and working very hard off the table is the fact that I know that you can become a better player and can strive to become one of the best if you work hard enough. I play poker for the challenge and the fact that I can aim to become a great player. If there was nothing like this for me to strive for, then I wouldn't play at all. Not a single hand.

Finally, I have no idea why the VIP program or the fact that you are a winning or losing player has anything at all to do with Spin & Go's. It is just another option on the site for people to play. You aren't forced to play them, it's your choice. If you don't like the concept, then you don't have to play them. If you love them, then great - keep playing them! It may attract new players to the site, which can never be a bad thing!


Yours Sincerely

MelissaChloe

[tikay]

Dear Danny,

Do you know what kills games and destroys the poker ecosystem above and beyond all the things mentioned? Winning players.

This statement in itself is completely flawed. Poker is an 'ecosystem' which has to have winning and losing players. No players are of the same ability, even amongst the losing players, there are going to be ones that are better at poker than the others. If we took out all of the players that are currently winning, then the best of the previous losing players would now start to be winning players. There is no way around it, there simply has to be winners and losers in poker.

As for all of this about the VIP system, it is a fair system that awards EVERYONE the same bonuses, regardless of whether you win or lose. It is a fair system that pays out depending on how often you are playing, not how much you are winning/losing.

The mindset of some pros is backwards. You think they need you, when the reverse is true. They would do better as a company if pros didn't play at all.

Pokerstars and other sites need both pros and recs. At the end of the day, they make most of their money through rake. They need the pros that grind 5 days a week, specifically at times when most 'recs' would be at work, else the site would be far less busy. Recreational players are called that because they play exactly that way - casually. Not every day, not 5 days a week. Just whenever they fancy it. Poker sites needs both recs and pros to maximize their profits at all times of the day and I think Pokerstars does a great job of attracting both types of player. So no, Pokerstars would not do better as a company without pros.

'Danny's' whole argument seems to be insinuating that winning players either shouldn't be allowed to play or that they should not be awarded bonuses and that if this was the case, more people would play.

Again, I disagree. If poker was like roulette or blackjack, where I knew the only way I could win in the long run was to gain an 'edge' over the house, which would likely get me banned, then I wouldn't play poker. It would be too much like a lottery and that doesn't appeal to me at all. It would literally be burning money and that is the reason why I don't play roulette or any other casino games. What attracts me to poker and keeps me playing 5 days a week and working very hard off the table is the fact that I know that you can become a better player and can strive to become one of the best if you work hard enough. I play poker for the challenge and the fact that I can aim to become a great player. If there was nothing like this for me to strive for, then I wouldn't play at all. Not a single hand.

Finally, I have no idea why the VIP program or the fact that you are a winning or losing player has anything at all to do with Spin & Go's. It is just another option on the site for people to play. You aren't forced to play them, it's your choice. If you don't like the concept, then you don't have to play them. If you love them, then great - keep playing them! It may attract new players to the site, which can never be a bad thing!

Yours Sincerely

MelissaChloe

Hi Melissa,

For context, that Post by Mr N was on a thread in which there was a vigorous debate saying Spin & Gos were a bad thing as they are greatly reducing cash game traffic, &, as such, affecting the Pros. That was the gist of the thing.   

[MelissaChloe]

Hi Melissa,

For context, that Post by Mr N was on a thread in which there was a vigorous debate saying Spin & Gos were a bad thing as they are greatly reducing cash game traffic, &, as such, affecting the Pros. That was the gist of the thing.

Hi Tikay

Yeah, I get that. But i think that it will see such a decline for the initial period whilst all the new 'hype' is surrounding them. In the long term though, if they attract new players to the site, those new players could then try out cash games etc. that they wouldn't have joined the site for previously, so may increase traffic to other games!

I don't agree with the people that are trying to get them banned, but I also don't agree with the points made by Daniel that I quoted.

[AlunB]

Dear Danny,

Do you know what kills games and destroys the poker ecosystem above and beyond all the things mentioned? Winning players.

This statement in itself is completely flawed. Poker is an 'ecosystem' which has to have winning and losing players. No players are of the same ability, even amongst the losing players, there are going to be ones that are better at poker than the others. If we took out all of the players that are currently winning, then the best of the previous losing players would now start to be winning players. There is no way around it, there simply has to be winners and losers in poker.

As for all of this about the VIP system, it is a fair system that awards EVERYONE the same bonuses, regardless of whether you win or lose. It is a fair system that pays out depending on how often you are playing, not how much you are winning/losing.



Yours Sincerely

MelissaChloe

Not quite. I see your point, but it does ignore some of the larger issues at hand. Why are you rewarding frequency of play for example? Is it fair on the people who bring money into the system to reward them equally to those with withdraw money from the system?

Your point regarding the usefulness of pros and regs is well made though and is often ignored in this debate.

[MelissaChloe]

Not quite. I see your point, but it does ignore some of the larger issues at hand. Why are you rewarding frequency of play for example? Is it fair on the people who bring money into the system to reward them equally to those with withdraw money from the system?

Your point regarding the usefulness of pros and regs is well made though and is often ignored in this debate.

I think it is more fair to reward frequency of play, rather than by how much you win or lose. I think it is a smart thing by Pokerstars too, as they offer an incentive of good bonuses for the people who have the time to make SNE etc. whereas they probably wouldn't play anywhere near that volume even if they were playing full time. Or a recreational player might push to play slightly more that month so they make goldstar instead of silverstar and get an extra bonus at the same time. So it makes sense for stars to do it that way cause I'm sure it increases their rake an awful lot.

Is it the most fair way? I don't know, there probably will be a system out there that is better or more fair, but I haven't looked into it. I think it is hard to make everyone happy, whatever system they introduce, someone will disagree with it.

[tikay]

Not quite. I see your point, but it does ignore some of the larger issues at hand. Why are you rewarding frequency of play for example? Is it fair on the people who bring money into the system to reward them equally to those with withdraw money from the system?

Your point regarding the usefulness of pros and regs is well made though and is often ignored in this debate.

I think it is more fair to reward frequency of play, rather than by how much you win or lose. I think it is a smart thing by Pokerstars too, as they offer an incentive of good bonuses for the people who have the time to make SNE etc. whereas they probably wouldn't play anywhere near that volume even if they were playing full time. Or a recreational player might push to play slightly more that month so they make goldstar instead of silverstar and get an extra bonus at the same time. So it makes sense for stars to do it that way cause I'm sure it increases their rake an awful lot.

Is it the most fair way? I don't know, there probably will be a system out there that is better or more fair, but I haven't looked into it. I think it is hard to make everyone happy, whatever system they introduce, someone will disagree with it.

"frequency of play" is a major driver & KPI of a poker site. By "stretching" a player from playing, say, 2 days per week to 3 days per week it makes a huge difference to total Margin. Most sites work very hard to increase this.