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

[mondatoo]

The reason grinders playing for a living don't want to play these is because the variance in them is insane, increased more so by the fact no deals are allowed.

The rake is listed as 4% on $7+ buyin levels, 5% on the and 7% on the 1s.

Info on probabilities here :

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

[arbboy]

seems like a bad idea for stars to me.  The churn factor will not have much chance to kick in rake wise as anyone who binks 1000 times their buy in is pretty certain to withdraw it from the stars system and spunk it elsewhere outside of poker compared to normal stt's.  It will also send less lucky punters skint much quicker as they contribute towards these massive 1000 times the buy in pay outs and hence hurt the rake/deposit amount ratio they get from these players.  They must be expecting a huge increase in mugs playing these to counter the loss of churn from their normal stt product.

[AlunB]

seems like a bad idea for stars to me.  The churn factor will not have much chance to kick in rake wise as anyone who binks 1000 times their buy in is pretty certain to withdraw it from the stars system and spunk it elsewhere outside of poker compared to normal stt's.  It will also send less lucky punters skint much quicker as they contribute towards these massive 1000 times the buy in pay outs and hence hurt the rake/deposit amount ratio they get from these players.  They must be expecting a huge increase in mugs playing these to counter the loss of churn from their normal stt product.

Call

[arbboy]

seems like a bad idea for stars to me.  The churn factor will not have much chance to kick in rake wise as anyone who binks 1000 times their buy in is pretty certain to withdraw it from the stars system and spunk it elsewhere outside of poker compared to normal stt's.  It will also send less lucky punters skint much quicker as they contribute towards these massive 1000 times the buy in pay outs and hence hurt the rake/deposit amount ratio they get from these players.  They must be expecting a huge increase in mugs playing these to counter the loss of churn from their normal stt product.

Call

Ok i will rephrase it to pretty certain to withdraw a substantial chunk of it.

[AlunB]

seems like a bad idea for stars to me.  The churn factor will not have much chance to kick in rake wise as anyone who binks 1000 times their buy in is pretty certain to withdraw it from the stars system and spunk it elsewhere outside of poker compared to normal stt's.  It will also send less lucky punters skint much quicker as they contribute towards these massive 1000 times the buy in pay outs and hence hurt the rake/deposit amount ratio they get from these players.  They must be expecting a huge increase in mugs playing these to counter the loss of churn from their normal stt product.

Call

Ok i will rephrase it to pretty certain to withdraw a substantial chunk of it.

Fold

[TightEnd]

an interesting 4 minutes reading time

http://www.pokerstrategy.com/news/world-of-poker/Why-online-poker-rooms-do-not-owe-you-a-living_87563/

[bagel]

pretty sure these or something very similar were running on DTD  not so long ago?

[TightEnd]

They do, twister poker is I-poker's variant, been launched nearly a year now

[rfgqqabc]

Professional poker players are "cleverly gaming a system"? What system? Are plumbers cleverly gaming the system? Journalists? I don't understand why people in the industry seem to want to treat professionals as some sort of scumbags that are scamming a living. Stars would absolutely not be better off without any recreational players, and this very idea is just so dumb I can only try to explain. Do you think the London Stock Exchange would be better off without any professional traders? Poker media seems fairly anti pro at the moment, which is funny considering many pros give (presumably) free interviews/information out all the time.

"The winning players as a whole win a lot more money than the company makes each and every year"- Daniel Negreanu 2014. Just take that in for a second.

"In the first half of 2014, Oldford Group recorded USD$567.9 million in revenues (H1 2013 - USD$545.9 million), USD$218.4 million in net income (H1 2013 - USD$189.9 million), and USD$246.4 million in net cash from operating activities (H1 2013 - USD$207.0 million"
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/amaya-pr-shareholders-today-about-pokerstars-full-tilt-1482207/

He actually thinks professional poker players won more than $246m last year. Hes on a different planet. Its just not even close to possible. Can we please not take advice on the poker ecosystem from someone who is so far removed he thinks the stat above could be possible.

Furthermore, how does no one seem to understand one of the main points in the 2+2 topic, that Stars changing the ecology in the sit and go games right at the end of the calendar year, significantly affects peoples plans for vip levels. I'm not really in that boat, but if I'd been planning on supernova elite, and then 3/4 of the way through the year have the liquidity in my main games vastly reduced, I'd be pretty upset. Especially as so much of the rakeback % comes from the last 10% of the volume. Any other company does this to a customer/pseudo employee and everyone would firmly be on there side, but because its online poker everyone is fine with it? It just doesn't make sense. Imagine pokerstrategy told Barry at the start of the year they would pay him at the end of the year for all his articles at a minimum of 1500 words as long as it gets a 100k total views, then in October, tell him to write articles in Japanese on their new website. He might even like writing in Japanese, but it doesn't mean this change is fair.

Spin and gos will not say recreational player friendly for very long because online poker as an economic market is extremely saturated. Any game that is soft will have an increasing number of regulars in it until the point where it becomes a rakeback fest, just like small stakes hold'em/plo cash that are frankly unbeatable due to the rake. Some games manage to stay hidden away, but largely this will always be the case.

Don't mean to offend anyone but this is a particularly tilting topic for me, and the general anti pro bullshit that keeps appearing is very frustrating. Off to game the Hearthstone system, you know, by being good. 


P.S "The same players would, in theory, be much looser too, given that they have come into poker with a gambling mentality. Spin & Go is also still pretty low stakes (Maximum buy-in $30) so recreational players will lose much more slowly than they would at a roulette table with no maximum bet. This is also good for the poker ecology in general." (pokerstrat article)

In comparison to a recreational player losing his money at roulette, I would obviously prefer they lose the money in spin and gos, but this is not good for the poker professional, its good for the sites. I wasn't aware the poker ecology consisted of just the poker sites. I want my opponents to get it all in dead on the river for their stack in the first hand.

[arbboy]

Professional poker players are "cleverly gaming a system"? What system? Are plumbers cleverly gaming the system? Journalists? I don't understand why people in the industry seem to want to treat professionals as some sort of scumbags that are scamming a living. Stars would absolutely not be better off without any recreational players, and this very idea is just so dumb I can only try to explain. Do you think the London Stock Exchange would be better off without any professional traders? Poker media seems fairly anti pro at the moment, which is funny considering many pros give (presumably) free interviews/information out all the time.

"The winning players as a whole win a lot more money than the company makes each and every year"- Daniel Negreanu 2014. Just take that in for a second.

"In the first half of 2014, Oldford Group recorded USD$567.9 million in revenues (H1 2013 - USD$545.9 million), USD$218.4 million in net income (H1 2013 - USD$189.9 million), and USD$246.4 million in net cash from operating activities (H1 2013 - USD$207.0 million"
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/amaya-pr-shareholders-today-about-pokerstars-full-tilt-1482207/

He actually thinks professional poker players won more than $246m last year. Hes on a different planet. Its just not even close to possible. Can we please not take advice on the poker ecosystem from someone who is so far removed he thinks the stat above could be possible.

Furthermore, how does no one seem to understand one of the main points in the 2+2 topic, that Stars changing the ecology in the sit and go games right at the end of the calendar year, significantly affects peoples plans for vip levels. I'm not really in that boat, but if I'd been planning on supernova elite, and then 3/4 of the way through the year have the liquidity in my main games vastly reduced, I'd be pretty upset. Especially as so much of the rakeback % comes from the last 10% of the volume. Any other company does this to a customer/pseudo employee and everyone would firmly be on there side, but because its online poker everyone is fine with it? It just doesn't make sense. Imagine pokerstrategy told Barry at the start of the year they would pay him at the end of the year for all his articles at a minimum of 1500 words as long as it gets a 100k total views, then in October, tell him to write articles in Japanese on their new website. He might even like writing in Japanese, but it doesn't mean this change is fair.

Spin and gos will not say recreational player friendly for very long because online poker as an economic market is extremely saturated. Any game that is soft will have an increasing number of regulars in it until the point where it becomes a rakeback fest, just like small stakes hold'em/plo cash that are frankly unbeatable due to the rake. Some games manage to stay hidden away, but largely this will always be the case.

Don't mean to offend anyone but this is a particularly tilting topic for me, and the general anti pro bullshit that keeps appearing is very frustrating. Off to game the Hearthstone system, you know, by being good.  


P.S "The same players would, in theory, be much looser too, given that they have come into poker with a gambling mentality. Spin & Go is also still pretty low stakes (Maximum buy-in $30) so recreational players will lose much more slowly than they would at a roulette table with no maximum bet. This is also good for the poker ecology in general." (pokerstrat article)

In comparison to a recreational player losing his money at roulette, I would obviously prefer they lose the money in spin and gos, but this is not good for the poker professional, its good for the sites. I wasn't aware the poker ecology consisted of just the poker sites. I want my opponents to get it all in dead on the river for their stack in the first hand.

Think you mean pro players here?

Very good reply tbf.  Your argument about the SNE is very valid and i hadn't considered that.  Do you think Star's have actually timed this release to stop having to pay the SNE's as much year end rakeback?

[rfgqqabc]

Yeah, your right. Was a bit all over the shop finding things from links etc.  Stars want low win rates, and this is achieved by having tough games, not extremely soft ones. Open recreational player heavy games just don't really exist online.

[tikay]

More from Danny........


http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-journal.php?subaction=showfull&id=1413434000&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&

[SuuPRlim]

Whereas I somewhat agree that people trying to get these banned is poor form, the points he uses to make them are appaling, was only 1 line i agreed with...

I've seen a lot of talk about the poker ecosystem and what kills games, etc.

I believe he has seen a lot of talk.

[DMorgan]

Thats a super cool story but this isn't Toronto and more importantly we're not in 1995. Ask any cash game player the last time a recreational player got a bunch of friends to open sit a game online.

Winning players should be grateful that we're allowed to play? Pokerstars' marketing over the last however many years has leaned heavily on presenting poker as a skill game and good luck getting a legislation framework in place if you abandon the idea of poker as a skill game and market it as a lottery.

I completely agree with him that a lot of pros way over-estimate their bargaining power with the sites and over-inflate the winning regs' role in the games, but throwing comments around suggesting that Pokerstars would be just fine tomorrow if they flipped a switch to ban all accounts that are winning over a big sample is just flat wrong.

imo Mr Negreanu needs to toot the corporate horn a little less. He's trying to present himself as somebody that knows how the online poker 'ecosystem' (for desperate want of a better term) works and he's making himself look pretty silly to anyone that has been paying attention to this.

[AlunB]

Thats a super cool story but this isn't Toronto and more importantly we're not in 1995. Ask any cash game player the last time a recreational player got a bunch of friends to open sit a game online.

Winning players should be grateful that we're allowed to play? Pokerstars' marketing over the last however many years has leaned heavily on presenting poker as a skill game and good luck getting a legislation framework in place if you abandon the idea of poker as a skill game and market it as a lottery.

I completely agree with him that a lot of pros way over-estimate their bargaining power with the sites and over-inflate the winning regs' role in the games, but throwing comments around suggesting that Pokerstars would be just fine tomorrow if they flipped a switch to ban all accounts that are winning over a big sample is just flat wrong.

imo Mr Negreanu needs to toot the corporate horn a little less. He's trying to present himself as somebody that knows how the online poker 'ecosystem' (for desperate want of a better term) works and he's making himself look pretty silly to anyone that has been paying attention to this.

Arguably, IMO, this was a bad thing for the online game and has led to a lot of the problems we have now. Would it have happened if the US never tried to ban online poker? Hmm. I'm not so sure. Certainly not on such a grand scale.

My personal view on this is by marketing poker SOLELY as a skill game you are making promises the game simply can't keep.