PokerStars Considering Zoom-Only Tables at High St - Page 3

I have played some nl 200 zoom poker and i feel there are many fish, certainly many more then nirmal nl200 and i believe the casual player very much likes zoom poker because he diesnt need to wait if bot involved.

Obv i dont deny that it takes part of the game away ( even though you can still get reads obv). On the other hand as mentioned i think this format attracts fish.

I didnt play much nl500 since the 6max is rarely running

yea so far doesn't seem it will catch on on the high stakes, but who knows

On April 11 2012 22:41 Baalim wrote: For pokerstars big winners are actually a good thing, it attracts deposits etc, churning the money is not a priority, im guessing other smaller networks with traffic issues focus more on churning the money around.

lol

yes it is Baal

thats why Zoom exists
thats why Double or Nothing SNGs exist
thats why hyper-ultra-turbos exist
thats why low stakes LHE has unbeatable rake
thats why nittiest VIP system of all time for anyone who cant grind a billion hands
thats why etc etc etc

Yea how do big winners attract deposits and whats the etc?

Yup Baal's def way off on this one. Pokerstars are the MASTERS of policy/schemes that encourage maximum churnage of money with no big winrates for anyone. It's just good business and there's a reason they're the largest poker site, and it's that theyre very good at doing good business.

imo Bejamin1 is spot on for his reason why zoom at low/midstakes doesn't benefit the players but benefits the site, and I feel exactly the same about the SNE scheme. But in both cases (zoom and sne) if it's what a ton of players accept and even want then it's a completely hopeless fight for our side. (EDIT: even i played some 100plo zoom just now just for something to do while waiting on hold on the phone to a elec bills company)

Though on a different note, there's definitely no denying that as Baal said, Pokerstars spend a ton of money on advertising, marketing and promotions designed to get loads of new players depositing. Ofcourse they're doing this for self-interest and because it's good business, but motive aside this is amazing for players too.

fml they add $2.50/$5.00 do they care nothing for software developers who need to make adjustments? What's wrong with 2/4?

zoom is the biggest bullshit of all time
fml

why not just make global waitlist and shuffle tables after a few orbits?

On April 11 2012 20:58 locoo wrote: Because with smaller edges players are closer to breakeven between them which is what every poker site wants, money just goes back and forth and no one goes bankrupt, at least not as fast, more games are played and more rake for the house.

That is what i noticed when I started playing, that every pokersite has poker training, FullTiltPoker, Pokerstars, why the fuck do they want me to be good??
Then ofc, if everyone is good, then it's just coolers all around, and before we know the site has taken all the money in rake.

*I know the training is not very good on that site but most euro sites now offer DC,BFP subc. etc.for small rake

On April 12 2012 07:33 EvilSky wrote: Yea how do big winners attract deposits and whats the etc?

You people fail to see that the poker economy has 2 main factors, deposits and churners.

too many churners and few deposits dry the poker economy, but what happens when you focus more on deposits, well "churners" will come by themselves obv.

So you see the tricky and difficult part is getting deposits, getting people to churn that money around is easy, if there are many depositors they will come themselves.

Big winners like lets say Nanonoko are encouraging, Nanonoko graph is inspiring to many casual players and it induces deposits so for pokerstars in under those terms a player like Nano is more valuable than a break even sne even if the sne generates more direct rake.

For example scout generates absurd amounts of rake because he alone will start 3 or 4 tables that wouldnt be running, so in reality that rake is result of Scout, not the bumhunters.

You have to see the big picture and not be so short sighted and think direct rake is what matters.

So to clarify its not that im saying that PS is not profit driven (well duh its a bussiness) im saying that churning is not top priority

so Stars wants to force Scout to play Zoom, that way the 40 bumhunters will generate rake instead of sitting on the waiting list

seems like churning to me

why must it be Zoom ONLY?

why not just have more options and give the players the choice?

On April 13 2012 21:23 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On April 12 2012 07:33 EvilSky wrote: Yea how do big winners attract deposits and whats the etc? You people fail to see that the poker economy has 2 main factors, deposits and churners. too many churners and few deposits dry the poker economy, but what happens when you focus more on deposits, well "churners" will come by themselves obv. So you see the tricky and difficult part is getting deposits, getting people to churn that money around is easy, if there are many depositors they will come themselves. Big winners like lets say Nanonoko are encouraging, Nanonoko graph is inspiring to many casual players and it induces deposits so for pokerstars in under those terms a player like Nano is more valuable than a break even sne even if the sne generates more direct rake. For example scout generates absurd amounts of rake because he alone will start 3 or 4 tables that wouldnt be running, so in reality that rake is result of Scout, not the bumhunters. You have to see the big picture and not be so short sighted and think direct rake is what matters. So to clarify its not that im saying that PS is not profit driven (well duh its a bussiness) im saying that churning is not top priority

You assume way too much. The average depositing fish has no idea who Nanonoko is and has almost certainly never seen his graph. The vast majority of them know only about the live games they've seen on TV. The idea that they're somehow aware of the big winners online is laughable. Most of them have no idea.