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

[AlunB]

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.

I think he is right on the primary value pros bring to the game, which is the same in both live and online, but misses the equally important secondary value that only exists online.

[arbboy]

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.

You are more importantly telling the mugs that they can't win as well as they don't have the skills so will invest their gambling budget in other products where they feel they can win.

[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.

You are more importantly telling the mugs that they can't win as well as they don't have the skills so will invest their gambling budget in other products where they feel they can win.

Yep. Totally agree. And that IS what happened.

[The Camel]

After playing nearly 600 of these I finally got to play a big one.

The adrenaline rush was massive.

Love these spin and gos, played more online poker in the last two weeks than the last 6 months combined!

[pleno1]

how big did you get keith?

[The Camel]

how big did you get keith?

$750

0.08% chance of playing that which puts it into a bit of perspective.

Incredibly unlikely to get one, but more than made up for by my opponents playing terribly in it.

[smurf]

think they have just increased the jackpots on these after only a few weeks...must be hugely popular

[DMorgan]

Yeah it kinda got lost in the increased rake stuff but here is the new structure, top prize is now 3000x and only happens 1 in 100,000

Click to see full-size image.

[smurf]

so they increase the jackpot...but lower the chances of winning it...

and go from 1115 in 100,000 of hitting a x10 or above to
                   616 in 100,000

seems like a bit of an own goal to me or are they bowing to pressure and keeping less players with bigger wins.

[SuuPRlim]

are these beatable - just out of curiosity?!

How do you work out ROI on constantly adjusting prizepools?! Is it...Return on Prize pool!?

Spose you have a 40% ROPP at $30 SPnGo's and play 100,000 of them.

you'd have invested $3,000,000.

you'd have gotten
$1,692,432 back from the 2x's
$1,025,568 back from the 4x's
$540,000 back from the 6x's
$60,000 back from the 10x's
$30,000 back from the 25x's
$14,440 back from the 120x's
$14,440 back from the 240x's
$43,200 back from the 3600x's

$3,420,080 return total = 14% return right? Is that how you'd figure it out or am I barking up the wrong tree?? The variance though will be insane - as 72% of the time you'd be making a loss, $30 invested for an expected $24 return. When you count as well the fact that out of 100,000 you might get an extra 3000-6000 2xgames I don't know what kind of bankroll you'd need to sustain this as a beatable source of income - I imagine you'd need 25,000 buyins ($750k at $30's) at the very least - you'd make a lot of money in bonuses ofc ~$120k id imagine which will hep to smooth the variance over a little...

I think these are just unbeatable to all intents and purposes, and if stars are offering unbeatable games (blackjack, roulette etc) then poker as a game of skill and not a gambling game loses alot of credibility which given how pokerstars raves on about "legislation" I think is an issue for them.

[AlunB]

are these beatable - just out of curiosity?!

How do you work out ROI on constantly adjusting prizepools?! Is it...Return on Prize pool!?

Spose you have a 40% ROPP at $30 SPnGo's and play 100,000 of them.

you'd have invested $3,000,000.

you'd have gotten
$1,692,432 back from the 2x's
$1,025,568 back from the 4x's
$540,000 back from the 6x's
$60,000 back from the 10x's
$30,000 back from the 25x's
$14,440 back from the 120x's
$14,440 back from the 240x's
$43,200 back from the 3600x's

$3,420,080 return total = 14% return right? Is that how you'd figure it out or am I barking up the wrong tree?? The variance though will be insane - as 72% of the time you'd be making a loss, $30 invested for an expected $24 return. When you count as well the fact that out of 100,000 you might get an extra 3000-6000 2xgames I don't know what kind of bankroll you'd need to sustain this as a beatable source of income - I imagine you'd need 25,000 buyins ($750k at $30's) at the very least - you'd make a lot of money in bonuses ofc ~$120k id imagine which will hep to smooth the variance over a little...

I think these are just unbeatable to all intents and purposes, and if stars are offering unbeatable games (blackjack, roulette etc) then poker as a game of skill and not a gambling game loses alot of credibility which given how pokerstars raves on about "legislation" I think is an issue for them.

I think since 2011 and especially since the launch of online casino in New Jersey that is increasingly a non-issue. It was a position Stars had to have at the time. Not sure they need it now.

In the sense that the conversation went

PokerStars: It's not gambling
Governments: It is
PokerStars: It's not!
Governments: It is
PokerStars: It's not!
BAN HAMMER
Governments: IT F***ING IS
PokerStars: K

[MC]

I think these are just unbeatable to all intents and purposes

Confirmed unbeatable. Stars obviously don't want regs playing them. Regs were suggesting prizepool structures that weren't so variancey (that must be a word ) so they might be grindable. Stars reacted to this by increasing the variance substantially and making the rake literally unbeatable.

[VBlue]

I'm going to tentatively dip a toe in this thread here.

Is the complaint from poker pros that their living is being taken away from them by the introduction of these games, which are more appealing to recreational players than the cash games they currently play in, and from which pros are profiting more from?  And that the spin and go format itself is unbeatable to sustain a professional income?

If so, what complaint is actually valid?  Who ever said anyone had a right to earn a living playing poker?  If you choose a path as uncertain as that, then you have to accept the risks.  Same goes for pro sports bettors who have their accounts limited, etc.  Since when does the bookie have to continue to accept bets from someone who only wins consistently?  If the bookie stops that players account but can profit from losing players, well what would you expect them to do?  It is the very antithesis of a profitable business model to just accept winning players without taking any action.  Who opens a pub and then pays some of their customers to drink there?

Just as someone who enters any line of business really - any number of market forces can make their living unsustainable where once it flourished.  I have had to consider this in lines of employment before, as has my partner, my boss, etc.

Have I got the right handle on this situation?

[arbboy]

I'm going to tentatively dip a toe in this thread here.

Is the complaint from poker pros that their living is being taken away from them by the introduction of these games, which are more appealing to recreational players than the cash games they currently play in, and from which pros are profiting more from?  And that the spin and go format itself is unbeatable to sustain a professional income?

If so, what complaint is actually valid?  Who ever said anyone had a right to earn a living playing poker?  If you choose a path as uncertain as that, then you have to accept the risks.  Same goes for pro sports bettors who have their accounts limited, etc.  Since when does the bookie have to continue to accept bets from someone who only wins consistently?  If the bookie stops that players account but can profit from losing players, well what would you expect them to do?  It is the very antithesis of a profitable business model to just accept winning players without taking any action.  Who opens a pub and then pays some of their customers to drink there?

Just as someone who enters any line of business really - any number of market forces can make their living unsustainable where once it flourished.  I have had to consider this in lines of employment before, as has my partner, my boss, etc.

Have I got the right handle on this situation?

yes you have

[smurf]

Yes it does seem the gravy train that these 'pros' have been making their living from could be shuddering slightly

So much could be said on the pure naivity and self importance of their argument but it's really not worth the effort.

Pokerstars do seem to have stuck two fingers up to them knowing there isn't another site out there with such traffic - a case of needing each other but the pros needing them far more I think