Amaya acquires Rational Group (owner of Stars/FTP)

Why would PokerStars be thankful they have a player base?

They provide a good service, and earned their player base.

"Blah blah blah monopoly"

They provided one of the top two sites for a decade, then when black Friday hit, THEY HAD PLAYERS' MONEY. Which means they actually did it far more legitimately than anybody else on the market.

Yeah, you should be thankful for them. Hating on them because they're a "multiple billion dollar corporation", and because you don't always get what you want, is childish at best. They could've been like every other site that went down on black Friday, or went bankrupt, or jumped ship with people's money.

No, I don't play on stars. I just don't hate " the man" for the sake of hating the man. And if I had an issue with paying rake to a multi billion dollar corporations, I wouldn't play on it. But that's because I'm not a Muppet o.o

Who are you arguing with? I obviously don't hate pokerstars - I still pay them a shitton of rake when I actually do play. I think the profit they have is outrageous, but if I'm willing to pay it, whatever. I also think gas prices are ridiculous, but I still buy that too. And dozens of other examples. I wasn't a part of the apple craze a number of years ago when they dominated (and charged insane prices), but I think the prices they charged were crazy too. Should people be thankful for Apple to be charging them these amounts of money in order to buy their hyped up products?

I just think people who think we're "lucky" to be paying pokerstars outrageous (in my opinion) amounts of rake to heap atop their gravy train of profit are ridiculous.

Every company on earth should be thankful for their customer base ffs. I don't understand what business philosophies you've ever studied, but a company that isn't thankful of it's customer base and has decent competition is destined to eventually fail.

I mean... I feel like I'm in the twilight zone. A company did what they said they were going to do (not steal, allow cashouts, have good customer service, etc.) and all of a sudden, we're lucky to be padding their coffers handsomely? WTF is wrong with you people who believe this.

Anyways. This is my last post on this topic. It's already been kicked back and forth and the exact same arguments are coming up. No more kicking the dead horse for this guy.

Who are you arguing with?

Nobody said "we're lucky to be padding their coffers handsomely"
Nobody said "we are 'Lucky to PAY FUCKING RAKE TO THIS BILLION PROFIT COMPANY' "

Here's what people ACTUALLY said:

"Be thankful you have pokerstars."
"They provide a good service, and earned their player base."

What you are doing is an obvious strawman argument. We SHOULD be thankful we have pokerstars. They provide a great service to us. Yes, we pay for it, but we pay less than it is worth to us. The reason we do it is because its a net positive benefit to us. This is a mutually beneficial relationship - BOTH parties benefit, and yet you think only one party should be thankful? When we have something in our life that benefits us (net positive), we should be thankful for it.

GoldRush and FrEaK are obviously correct. You are arguing with them because you are flagrantly misinterpreting what they said.

That's based on your opinion and view of the site and gambling industry and on if the individual has a reason to be thankful - which is info you dont have. Should losing players be thankful? All things considered, should I? Personally I say no.

On September 04 2014 09:29 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Why would PokerStars be thankful they have a player base? They provide a good service, and earned their player base. "Blah blah blah monopoly"

i don't know if you're trolling but nobody is going to take you seriously when you address the important issue of Pokerstars' monopoly with "blah blah monopoly". even if you're one of the minority who thinks it's not currently a monopoly, brushing the issue off is just dumb, it's obviously a big deal.

They provided one of the top two sites for a decade, then when black Friday hit, THEY HAD PLAYERS' MONEY. Which means they actually did it far more legitimately than anybody else on the market.

the fact that PS not scamming their players is considered some sort of industry benchmark is kind of insane and kind of sad.

Yeah, you should be thankful for them. Hating on them because they're a "multiple billion dollar corporation", and because you don't always get what you want, is childish at best. They could've been like every other site that went down on black Friday, or went bankrupt, or jumped ship with people's money. No, I don't play on stars. I just don't hate " the man" for the sake of hating the man. And if I had an issue with paying rake to a multi billion dollar corporations, I wouldn't play on it. But that's because I'm not a Muppet o.o

nobody has mentioned being a multi-billion dollar corporation or "hating the man" in this thread as reasons for having an issue with PS, might want to re-read and make a meaningful point if you have one instead of devolving the thread into idiotic generalizations like "hating the man".

anyway the whole discussion about who should be thankful for who is pointless. stars will always act in their best interests, they will be "grateful" to the extent that it's in their interest. it's not like they paid players back out of the goodness of their heart. and whether individuals feel grateful to Stars is a personal decision based on their values, and doesn't really matter. just because Stars is the best-run business in the industry doesn't mean they're beyond reproach or critique.

players act in their best interests too, and as someone mentioned earlier in the thread the idea that a grinder is entitled to x amount of rakeback because they produce y amount of rake is also nonesense (sort of), since the market will determine the price. it's nonesense in terms of actually feeling entitled to it. but it's not nonesense for players to discuss, criticize, and use whatever influence they can to lobby for Stars to change their policies, especially if they're not good for the long-term health of the poker economy.

On September 04 2014 18:31 WhyYouKickMyDog wrote: What you are doing is an obvious strawman argument.

if you're looking for obvious logical fallacies you can find a lot more in freak's post.

On September 04 2014 19:38 bigredhoss wrote: Show nested quote + On September 04 2014 09:29 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Why would PokerStars be thankful they have a player base? They provide a good service, and earned their player base. "Blah blah blah monopoly" i don't know if you're trolling but nobody is going to take you seriously when you address the important issue of Pokerstars' monopoly with "blah blah monopoly". even if you're one of the minority who thinks it's not currently a monopoly, brushing the issue off is just dumb, it's obviously a big deal.   They provided one of the top two sites for a decade, then when black Friday hit, THEY HAD PLAYERS' MONEY. Which means they actually did it far more legitimately than anybody else on the market. the fact that PS not scamming their players is considered some sort of industry benchmark is kind of insane and kind of sad.   Yeah, you should be thankful for them. Hating on them because they're a "multiple billion dollar corporation", and because you don't always get what you want, is childish at best. They could've been like every other site that went down on black Friday, or went bankrupt, or jumped ship with people's money. No, I don't play on stars. I just don't hate " the man" for the sake of hating the man. And if I had an issue with paying rake to a multi billion dollar corporations, I wouldn't play on it. But that's because I'm not a Muppet o.o nobody has mentioned being a multi-billion dollar corporation or "hating the man" in this thread as reasons for having an issue with PS, might want to re-read and make a meaningful point if you have one instead of devolving the thread into idiotic generalizations like "hating the man". anyway the whole discussion about who should be thankful for who is pointless. stars will always act in their best interests, they will be "grateful" to the extent that it's in their interest. it's not like they paid players back out of the goodness of their heart. and whether individuals feel grateful to Stars is a personal decision based on their values, and doesn't really matter. just because Stars is the best-run business in the industry doesn't mean they're beyond reproach or critique. players act in their best interests too, and as someone mentioned earlier in the thread the idea that a grinder is entitled to x amount of rakeback because they produce y amount of rake is also nonesense (sort of), since the market will determine the price. it's nonesense in terms of actually feeling entitled to it. but it's not nonesense for players to discuss, criticize, and use whatever influence they can to lobby for Stars to change their policies, especially if they're not good for the long-term health of the poker economy.

Obviously people and companies seek their own interest, the thing is do they throw morality out of the window on that pursuit?

On July 16 2014 22:28 devon06atX wrote: Show nested quote + On July 14 2014 02:39 GoldRush wrote:Be thankful you have pokerstars. To people who live in this that think we are 'Lucky to PAY FUCKING RAKE TO THIS BILLION PROFIT COMPANY', go fuck yourselves..

Just for the record.

Forgive me, he said billion profit company, not billion dollar corporation. My bad. Always nice when people talk to you on a negative light, with a wealth of confidence, and claim you should "read the thread". Keep it up.

And yes, I think one company doing the right thing when every single other site failed to is a reasonable benchmark. I'm not being idealistic, I'm creating a base line based on history.




And just one question, and then I think I'm done as thiw really doesn't interest me but...

WHAT insane rake? You mean the rake that is exactly the same, and in some cases lower, than every other site on the internet? Because they have volume, they should charge less rake?

And yet, you think them being a monopoly is a big deal, but think that they should charge less rake, in spite of the fact that that would create a monopoly in and of itself. With their market share, across the board lowering of rake would only increase the gap between them and everybody else.

Just because the dollar amount is high, doesnt mean anything. They charge the same as everybody else, and they earned their volume. And now that every other site has essentially copied their model, they can't go beneath that or they'll lose everything they spent 15 years building. It's not that there aren't other options, which is the real problem with monopolies.




Anyway, like I said, probably won't say anything else. The negative side usually has more emotion than they do sense.

You know the absolute worst decision PokerStars made from a playing quality standpoint? Supernova elite. That's why I don't play there. It destroyed the games, as far as I'm concerned. Smartest decision they have made from a business perspective.

Where was your comlaining when they announced that? Right, nobody complained. You were all too busy trying to okay 24 tables throughout January and wasting our time timing out.


As a player, I care about software and playing quality. Rake is the same everywhere.

On September 04 2014 22:51 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Forgive me, he said billion profit company, not billion dollar corporation. My bad. Always nice when people talk to you on a negative light, with a wealth of confidence, and claim you should "read the thread". Keep it up. And yes, I think one company doing the right thing when every single other site failed to is a reasonable benchmark. I'm not being idealistic, I'm creating a base line based on history. And just one question, and then I think I'm done as thiw really doesn't interest me but... WHAT insane rake? You mean the rake that is exactly the same, and in some cases lower, than every other site on the internet? Because they have volume, they should charge less rake? And yet, you think them being a monopoly is a big deal, but think that they should charge less rake, in spite of the fact that that would create a monopoly in and of itself. With their market share, across the board lowering of rake would only increase the gap between them and everybody else. Just because the dollar amount is high, doesnt mean anything. They charge the same as everybody else, and they earned their volume. And now that every other site has essentially copied their model, they can't go beneath that or they'll lose everything they spent 15 years building. It's not that there aren't other options, which is the real problem with monopolies. Anyway, like I said, probably won't say anything else. The negative side usually has more emotion than they do sense.

you're focusing on one sentence where he used the phrase "billion dollar company" (or whatever the exact words were) and acting like it's one of the main premises of that side of the argument. basically you're picking the least relevant and weakest bits from his posts, over-generalizing and in some cases seemingly pulling viewpoints out of your imagination and attributing them to others.

i'm sorry if i seemed overly negative in my response, i was tired and your post kind of irked me, because not only do i believe you're wrong on most of your points but more importantly the way you made them is a bunch of misdirected handwaving that's not conducive to actual conversation.

re: benchmark, like i said before, they provide the best product in a shady and corrupt industry. if you're just saying they're the best, then that's fine i guess. but the bar is quite low, and being the best doesn't make them exempt from criticism.

my only mention of rake was in the hypothetical regarding player entitlement of all things, i never actually said anywhere that they should charge less rake. again this whole notion that they ought to do one thing or another doesn't really matter, i don't think their rake structure is inherently moral or immoral. but there are certainly games where the rake does not promote the health of the poker economy, microstakes PLO most notably comes to mind. players can and should make an effort to change things like this.

On September 04 2014 23:10 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: You know the absolute worst decision PokerStars made from a playing quality standpoint? Supernova elite. That's why I don't play there. It destroyed the games, as far as I'm concerned. Smartest decision they have made from a business perspective. Where was your comlaining when they announced that? Right, nobody complained. You were all too busy trying to okay 24 tables throughout January and wasting our time timing out. As a player, I care about software and playing quality. Rake is the same everywhere.

this is what i'm talking about, i'm glad you know me well enough to make so many assumptions about me that are 100% wrong.

i agree that SNE was bad for the games, and i haven't played on the site for 4 years. i was never a SNE grinder nor did i ever attempt to be so i don't know where the 24-tabling timing out comments come from.

Show nested quote + On September 04 2014 23:10 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: You know the absolute worst decision PokerStars made from a playing quality standpoint? Supernova elite. That's why I don't play there. It destroyed the games, as far as I'm concerned. Smartest decision they have made from a business perspective. Where was your comlaining when they announced that? Right, nobody complained. You were all too busy trying to okay 24 tables throughout January and wasting our time timing out. As a player, I care about software and playing quality. Rake is the same everywhere. this is what i'm talking about, i'm glad you know me well enough to make so many assumptions about me that are 100% wrong. i agree that SNE was bad for the games, and i haven't played on the site for 4 years. i was never a SNE grinder nor did i ever attempt to be so i don't know where the 24-tabling timing out comments come from.

I think the misunderstanding is largely coming from my statements being generalized and not actually directed. Admittedly, that's my fault for how I chose to word it.

And I'm focusing on the size of the company largely because I think people's complaints get focused around the size of the company and not the reality of the situation. Many people have this correlation between how much they are entitled to as a customer and how big the overall profits of a company are. They're completely unrelated though. Pokerstars has always been a site where sometimes we gain something, and sometimes we lose something, as far as what they offer or what we receive. It seems to me that when we gain, or perceive to gain, not much is said, or it's treated as if it is deserved as the customer. However, when something, even something relatively small, is taken away, people act as if it's a corrupt, crooked, massive corporation destined to screw its customers.

Granted, this could also just be a result of the fact that people are often much louder when they complain than when they compliment.

A lot of what I'm saying is just my opinion on the situation. It's not necessarily directed at or in response to anybody. I don't play at pokerstars, but that's only because of how SNE effected the games. I think it's a good company that provides a good service, and has largely operated with integrity with a great focus on it's customers. And it does so in an industry that is largely the playground for crooks and thieves. While you might not think that should net them points, I honestly think it says something when a company exists where the opportunity for corruption and exploitation of customers is massive, and the penalties relatively low, and they've chosen not to play the same game. It's not so much that somebody should be given credit for not doing bad things, but for standing out among their peers, even if it's for something they should be doing int he first place.

I don't know where to put the benchmark for pokerstars. For all I know, everything I think is only what's been revealed and they're just as bad as most of the other sites. ButI don't really have much that makes me believe that, and I'm not about to assume it.

If that's not enough, we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

i think that sounds pretty reasonable for the most part, i put some comments below because i still disagree with some things.

On September 05 2014 01:43 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: [quote] [QUOTE]On September 04 2014 23:10 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: And I'm focusing on the size of the company largely because I think people's complaints get focused around the size of the company and not the reality of the situation. Many people have this correlation between how much they are entitled to as a customer and how big the overall profits of a company are. They're completely unrelated though. Pokerstars has always been a site where sometimes we gain something, and sometimes we lose something, as far as what they offer or what we receive. It seems to me that when we gain, or perceive to gain, not much is said, or it's treated as if it is deserved as the customer. However, when something, even something relatively small, is taken away, people act as if it's a corrupt, crooked, massive corporation destined to screw its customers.

even though some (most?) people surely hold the correlation you mentioned, i think using it as a point just deteriorates the discussion since you're making an assumption about their value system and criticizing that instead of more tangible points - sort of how many political debates turn into "your problem is that you want the government to do everything for you" or "you don't care about the little guy" - instead of discussing more objective things. i also feel like fear of Stars being corrupt/crooked/etc. is not a reflection of PS themselves but of the powerful position they're in - ie they would fear any company with Stars' leverage.

I think it's a good company that provides a good service, and has largely operated with integrity with a great focus on it's customers. And it does so in an industry that is largely the playground for crooks and thieves. While you might not think that should net them points, I honestly think it says something when a company exists where the opportunity for corruption and exploitation of customers is massive, and the penalties relatively low, and they've chosen not to play the same game. It's not so much that somebody should be given credit for not doing bad things, but for standing out among their peers, even if it's for something they should be doing int he first place.

i agree PS is a good company - they've created a highly successful successful operation. it's because of this - the fact that their business model is sustainable, and they're reputation is more valuable than any amount of money they could scam - that it's in their best interest to be fair to players, and so they are. they deserve credit, and they've gotten that credit in the form of a huge playerbase. what i disagree with is using their past actions as empirical evidence that they will continue to be fair and honest, even if the market dictates it's no longer in their best interest (i'm not saying if it will or not). doing that implies that their honesty and fairness stemmed from some kind character trait rather than market forces, which i would disagree with.

for all the complaints about rake, they have superb customer service, vip points, vip free rolls, and rakeback packages.

i cannot even play on stars and that makes me quite sad. carbon poker did away with the rake back program. they have deposit bonuses, but they are incredibly terrible.

recent example, they offer 100% deposit bonus. for a $100 deposit, to get $100 in bonus, you have to play and pay 1.5k in rake to release the bonus.

you get ~ 6% rake back on a bonus, which is the only form of rakeback you can even get on that site anymore.

it is true rake seems high in the micro and some low limits, but i think most of those players likely do not consider it or care, anyway.

They're the best among the worst. If I wanted to play online again, I'd still deposit with them because there aren't any options out there anymore - 5 years ago this wasn't the case. So yeah they're a "monopoly"

pokerstars always was and always will be about their customer service and software integrity. despite having softer games, every other site had dirtball email support and an inferior game client appeal

Malaysia, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Egypt, Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait, Senegal, Nigeria, Tanzania, United Republic of Bahrain, Afghanistan, Occupied Palestinian Territory, Kenya, Mozambique, Rwanda, Holy See (Vatican City), Iran, Iraq, Syria, Zimbabwe, Libya, Sudan, North Korea, Cuba, Myanmar, Yemen. - all gone

+turkey obv

http://pokerfuse.com/news/poker-room-...money-blackjack-roulette-games-debut/

right

gg stars

Realistically, none of those countries really matter. I've probably seen less than 10 players total from those countries combined. What I'm more concerned about is how far their expansive strategy will go in their bid to get the US contract.

Ie. Are they willing to slamdunk Canada out of the poker equation in order to make their bid seem more 'valid' to the US congressmen? My money's on yes. I really wish Amaya didn't buy Rational