PokerStars VIP Changes 2016 and onwards

[The Camel]

I personally think he's great for the game. A genuine superstar, great talent, friendly and has adapted his game to stay at the top.

So what if he's self serving. I see that as a quality too

I don't mind that people are self serving.

It is the way he tries to market himself as voice of the poker player at large which really annoys me.

He's the voice of Daniel Negreanu and Pokerstars.

[DaveShoelace]

I personally think he's great for the game. A genuine superstar, great talent, friendly and has adapted his game to stay at the top.

So what if he's self serving. I see that as a quality too

I don't mind that people are self serving.

It is the way he tries to market himself as voice of the poker player at large which really annoys me.

He's the voice of Daniel Negreanu and Pokerstars.

I happen to think 80% of his views in poker are correct.

However, IMO when he gets something wrong, it is because he thinks he knows what is best for poker, when in fact he is thinking about what is best for him and his high stakes buddies.

His Hall of Fame views for example. Plus his view that we should get rid of low buy-in bracelet events, even though they clearly are what 99% of poker players want. He ripped into PokerNews a few years back about their live updates, but what he proposed as a solution would only really have appeased his fanboys and him.

So while I actually like the guy, I think I get what you are on about Keith.

[The Camel]

I personally think he's great for the game. A genuine superstar, great talent, friendly and has adapted his game to stay at the top.

So what if he's self serving. I see that as a quality too

I don't mind that people are self serving.

It is the way he tries to market himself as voice of the poker player at large which really annoys me.

He's the voice of Daniel Negreanu and Pokerstars.

I happen to think 80% of his views in poker are correct.

However, IMO when he gets something wrong, it is because he thinks he knows what is best for poker, when in fact he is thinking about what is best for him and his high stakes buddies.

His Hall of Fame views for example. Plus his view that we should get rid of low buy-in bracelet events, even though they clearly are what 99% of poker players want. He ripped into PokerNews a few years back about their live updates, but what he proposed as a solution would only really have appeased his fanboys and him.

So while I actually like the guy, I think I get what you are on about Keith.

His refusal to condemn Erick Lindgren for his disgraceful behaviour was the thing which really got me.

If that had been someone he didn't like we'd never have heard the end of his moralising condemnations.

But as he's part of Danny's gang he got a free pass.

Be consistent or STFU IMO.

[arbboy]

Guess how many twitter followers your mate has Camel? 

[DaveShoelace]

I personally think he's great for the game. A genuine superstar, great talent, friendly and has adapted his game to stay at the top.

So what if he's self serving. I see that as a quality too

I don't mind that people are self serving.

It is the way he tries to market himself as voice of the poker player at large which really annoys me.

He's the voice of Daniel Negreanu and Pokerstars.

I happen to think 80% of his views in poker are correct.

However, IMO when he gets something wrong, it is because he thinks he knows what is best for poker, when in fact he is thinking about what is best for him and his high stakes buddies.

His Hall of Fame views for example. Plus his view that we should get rid of low buy-in bracelet events, even though they clearly are what 99% of poker players want. He ripped into PokerNews a few years back about their live updates, but what he proposed as a solution would only really have appeased his fanboys and him.

So while I actually like the guy, I think I get what you are on about Keith.

His refusal to condemn Erick Lindgren for his disgraceful behaviour was the thing which really got me.

If that had been someone he didn't like we'd never have heard the end of his moralising condemnations.

But as he's part of Danny's gang he got a free pass.

Be consistent or STFU IMO.

+1 I was trying to remember that, deffo his lowest point IMO. It wasn't even his refusal to condemn, he actually supported the victim notion and said it was 'kinda ok for old school players'

[The Camel]

Guess how many twitter followers your mate has Camel? 

Less than Joe Sebok!

I'll have a stab at 200k.

[AlunB]

I heard a very strong rumour that the reason he stopped criticising Howard Lederer over Full Tilt was because if he didn't Howie would reveal a very large skeleton in Danny Boy's wardrobe.

I wonder what it is.

You do actually wonder? Or do you know?

[arbboy]

Guess how many twitter followers your mate has Camel?  

Less than Joe Sebok!

I'll have a stab at 200k.

It's higher than that.  380k.  I was expecting him to have 1m+ followers tbh.  Just shows how few people relatively are influenced by these types imo when it comes to poker.  I think he is having Stars' pants down with the deals he must have given how few twitter followers he has relative to other famous stars in other fields.

Find it hard to believe he drives that much traffic to Stars from new players who wouldn't have a clue who he is generally.

[The Camel]

I heard a very strong rumour that the reason he stopped criticising Howard Lederer over Full Tilt was because if he didn't Howie would reveal a very large skeleton in Danny Boy's wardrobe.

I wonder what it is.

You do actually wonder? Or do you know?

I don't know, but I could have a few eduacted guesses.

I should write a blog post which only appears after I die which reveals all the sordid facts I know about various famous poker players!

[Marky147]

Made me LOL

[rfgqqabc]

Never understood the aversion poker folk have to A) a sponsored player being self serving and B) an online poker room trying to max their profits.

It's remarkable how many people on 2+2 have posted to the effect of 'I guess we have learned PokerStars are only doing this for the money...'

What the hell else is a business doing it for? Given they have staff as well as shareholders, I'd be mortified if they weren't trying to make as much money as profit. You should of course complain about the way they make a profit, and especially if what they are doing is short sighted for all parties, but complaining because a business is motivated to do the exact thing it should be motivated to do is silly.

And everyone complaining about Stars wanting to make as big a profit as possible is complaining because the latest changes are stopping them from making as big a profit as possible. Nobody 24-tables hyper turbos for the love of the game, so why does everyone demonise Stars for wanting to make money?

btw not directing this at anyone here, all of it directed at the many ludicrous comments I've seen on 2+2.

I absolutely agree that businesses (public companies anyway) should act in a profit maxismising way but there has to be boundaries somewhere. There are plenty of reasons to complain in these situations. Whilst I hate to trivialize much more serious situations, do you have the same reaction when you read about the Apple factories in China? (I reread your post and I think you cover this tbh kinda but dont want to delete) Personally, I think it is unethical for a company to provide a games service which should be beatable, but cannot actually be beaten, and this is where Amaya is going. Pokerstars will lose the dream of professional poker play, and after that I'm not sure why people would be particularly drawn to play. I'm sure even the worlds biggest degen will be turned off by a product that will suffer so much bad press. I guess the Spin and Go side makes up for some of this but surely not all. I don't think they realise how good they have actually had it.
o
When Stars lower my rakeback I will do 2 things; 1) Never battle a reg/reggy lineup     2) Bumhunt more. Both of these negatively affect Stars bottom line. Less hands will be played and winrates will actually increase unless something else changes. I can't imagine it being good for Stars to dissuade me from playing games where I have a small-negligible edge. This is in fact what they want! The changes Stars have made may affect one of their best USPs at the moment. Any stakes/game and you can find what you want. In not so long that simply won't be the case. I don't understand the logic of buying a company that has better margins than anyone else in the business with higher revenues and presuming that I can leverage capital and take over this company before forcing that extra 10% out of it. The seller always has a huge informational edge in this situation. (I guess the Scheinbergs retirement could be a factor). Furthermore, would you even risk changing the businesses strategy in such an offensive manner to your player base. Amaya really are punters. I can't believe they managed to con someone into giving them money for this after how hard they managed to butcher Ongame.

[Marky147]

Ansky went on Joey's podcast to talk about it yesterday (dicussing it from the start)

[tikay]

Never understood the aversion poker folk have to A) a sponsored player being self serving and B) an online poker room trying to max their profits.

It's remarkable how many people on 2+2 have posted to the effect of 'I guess we have learned PokerStars are only doing this for the money...'

What the hell else is a business doing it for? Given they have staff as well as shareholders, I'd be mortified if they weren't trying to make as much money as profit. You should of course complain about the way they make a profit, and especially if what they are doing is short sighted for all parties, but complaining because a business is motivated to do the exact thing it should be motivated to do is silly.

And everyone complaining about Stars wanting to make as big a profit as possible is complaining because the latest changes are stopping them from making as big a profit as possible. Nobody 24-tables hyper turbos for the love of the game, so why does everyone demonise Stars for wanting to make money?

btw not directing this at anyone here, all of it directed at the many ludicrous comments I've seen on 2+2.

Lordy Lordy. These guys don't do themselves any favours when they trot that nonsense out, do they? Why & for what exactly do they think 'Stars - or any Online Poker site - exists?

And they make changes because - with the data they have at their disposal (which we don't have) - they think they will make more money long-term. I've no idea if they will, but if I had to back one side or the other to be right, I'm backing the guys who run the business & have all the data.

[teddybloat]

very few people are disagreeing that stars motives arent in line with the players.

lots however are angry about losing a dedicated poker room that was unrivaled in terms of spread of games, traffic, software, low rake etc etc.

so much of that is being erroded. and people justifiably feel a loss.

pokerstars losing the pre amaya ethos is a genuine loss to poker.

i cant understand poker players not lamenting that and instead stating the very obvious to the point of being bromidic line of "well they are doing what is best for themselves"

imagine DTD sold to a casino chain. imagine it started acting like a run-of-the-mil casino, increased rake, put slot machines and automatic poker-bot machines all around, altered tournament structures - lost all the individual poker specific touches that makes it the best at what it does. many would be right to lament the loss of a world class dedicated card room, even if the casino chain was right and increased its bottom line.

anger often follows a sense of loss, the fustration that goes with it.

poker is currently losing a standard bearer. if you cant feel some sense of sadness about that then i'd argue you dont love poker.

[DaveShoelace]

Never understood the aversion poker folk have to A) a sponsored player being self serving and B) an online poker room trying to max their profits.

It's remarkable how many people on 2+2 have posted to the effect of 'I guess we have learned PokerStars are only doing this for the money...'

What the hell else is a business doing it for? Given they have staff as well as shareholders, I'd be mortified if they weren't trying to make as much money as profit. You should of course complain about the way they make a profit, and especially if what they are doing is short sighted for all parties, but complaining because a business is motivated to do the exact thing it should be motivated to do is silly.

And everyone complaining about Stars wanting to make as big a profit as possible is complaining because the latest changes are stopping them from making as big a profit as possible. Nobody 24-tables hyper turbos for the love of the game, so why does everyone demonise Stars for wanting to make money?

btw not directing this at anyone here, all of it directed at the many ludicrous comments I've seen on 2+2.

I absolutely agree that businesses (public companies anyway) should act in a profit maxismising way but there has to be boundaries somewhere. There are plenty of reasons to complain in these situations. Whilst I hate to trivialize much more serious situations, do you have the same reaction when you read about the Apple factories in China? (I reread your post and I think you cover this tbh kinda but dont want to delete) Personally, I think it is unethical for a company to provide a games service which should be beatable, but cannot actually be beaten, and this is where Amaya is going. Pokerstars will lose the dream of professional poker play, and after that I'm not sure why people would be particularly drawn to play. I'm sure even the worlds biggest degen will be turned off by a product that will suffer so much bad press. I guess the Spin and Go side makes up for some of this but surely not all. I don't think they realise how good they have actually had it.

All very good points, I think we are in agreement, just may differ on the severity of the (current) changes.

Completely agree poker has to be beatable for it to be packaged the way it is.