Amaya acquires Rational Group (owner of Stars/FTP) - Page 3

Pokerstars doesn't maximize profits? What? Huh? Did I just read that?

They control ~65% (I believe that's what their slides stated) of the online poker market share, and they're more than 10x bigger than their nearest competitor. Well, I read that on a site that analysed the business deal, so I'm not 100% positive.

Rommel discussed the numerous barriers to entry. Spending money on the software, the networks, the incredible amount of competition (ask hero poker David how difficult it was to join the poker industry). The money you'd have to spend on marketing to even get your name 'out there'. Those are rather high barriers to entry if you ask me.

Pokerstars *has* changed it's price (with regard to the price discrimination). They have constantly changed how rake back is received, how milestone bonus' are awarded, the entire layout of the supernova system, etc.

I'm pretty sure Apple has been consistently losing market share for years, and there are TONS of alternatives to apple products... How you think apple is closer to a monopoly than pokerstars is completely beyond me. A statistic I keep reading is that over 80% of smart phones sold now have the android operating system.

Anyways, I'm with Naz on this one. I used to think it was definitely a monopoly, but now I'm really not sure. They definitely have a strangle hold on the online poker market though.

monopoly or huge market leader, if you people think pokerstars can't fuck you in the ass if they wanted to you;re being too naive. They own the 1st and 2nd biggest poker room, they have market presence and sometimes the only option in some countries, they are also poised to be in the U.S. market soon. The only options out there are small euro sites or shady american ones - anyone with a brain would definitely play there simply because there is no other option, obviously if you want softer games and shitty traffic it will be a trade off with smaller sites but you keep in mind your money could go poof any time and you are aware of that risk but choose to play anyway just to get away from tougher games. They have the best brand but clearly they clearly got you by the ballsacks.

you think pokerstars wouldnt buy all of those smaller sites(that have some value) at the drop of a hat if they could? its an unregulated industry ffs

short at 50, maybe even better to wait for 55.

On June 24 2014 11:35 devon06atX wrote: Pokerstars doesn't maximize profits? What? Huh? Did I just read that?

No certainly you did not read that, at no point I said such thing


[quote}
They control ~65% (I believe that's what their slides stated) of the online poker market share, and they're more than 10x bigger than their nearest competitor. Well, I read that on a site that analysed the business deal, so I'm not 100% positive.[/quote]

Dominating a market does not make you a monopoly

Rommel discussed the numerous barriers to entry. Spending money on the software, the networks, the incredible amount of competition (ask hero poker David how difficult it was to join the poker industry). The money you'd have to spend on marketing to even get your name 'out there'. Those are rather high barriers to entry if you ask me.

Well no shit.. competing with a well oiled and properly managed billion dollar enterprise isnt easy, but as far as investing goes its the easiest market by far... Lets see how easy David finds to enter into the deep sea oil drilling bussiness and try to compete with Schlumberger how much billions of investment that would requiere, or compete with SpaceX -___-, a poker site is by far one of the industries that require less investment and infrastructure.

I'm pretty sure Apple has been consistently losing market share for years, and there are TONS of alternatives to apple products... How you think apple is closer to a monopoly than pokerstars is completely beyond me. A statistic I keep reading is that over 80% of smart phones sold now have the android operating system.

And the Ipad had about 98% of the tablet market, they had a huge legal team attacking its competition through billion dollar patent lawsuits, they exploited FOXCONN near-slave working conditions in china to maximize profit, along with many other forms of blocking the free market.

The fact that after a decade another company is finally battling against Apple dominance does not means they didnt behave like a monopoly

On June 24 2014 18:43 whamm! wrote: monopoly or huge market leader, if you people think pokerstars can't fuck you in the ass if they wanted to you;re being too naive. They own the 1st and 2nd biggest poker room, they have market presence and sometimes the only option in some countries, they are also poised to be in the U.S. market soon. The only options out there are small euro sites or shady american ones - anyone with a brain would definitely play there simply because there is no other option, obviously if you want softer games and shitty traffic it will be a trade off with smaller sites but you keep in mind your money could go poof any time and you are aware of that risk but choose to play anyway just to get away from tougher games. They have the best brand but clearly they clearly got you by the ballsacks. you think pokerstars wouldnt buy all of those smaller sites(that have some value) at the drop of a hat if they could? its an unregulated industry ffs

When has somebody even suggested that PokerStars had no power to ruin your day? please show me what post.


Its ridiculous to preach fear about PokerStars dominance of the market and then talk about this small companies and how they are so likely to just run with your money, PokerStars has since day one being the most trustworthy online poker company by far, even when Party was the one who dominated, it simply has a nearly spotless record in all areas.

So instead of spreading random paranoia be glad that such company is the head of our "sport", would you rather have Absolute Poker or Howard Lederer runnig the show?

And believe me in no corporate shrill, but im think PokerStars is a great company that has accomplished so much for poker.

Also its funny how you mention "unregulated" because that is one of the reasons its a total free market example, regulations hinder growth and are often huge barrier for small companies to compete because guess who usually maniupates such regulations... yeah, big corporations lobbying, thats why I said that most monopolies are produced by the state.

On June 23 2014 23:06 Baalim wrote: Wrong, when a company dominates a market doesnt automatically make it a monopoly, monopoly its an intrinsically bad thing that stops free market, Wikipedia lists these as its characteristics, which PokerStars clearly does not fill. Show nested quote + Characteristics Profit Maximizer: Maximizes profits. Price Maker: Decides the price of the good or product to be sold, but does so by determining the quantity in order to demand the price desired by the firm. High Barriers to Entry: Other sellers are unable to enter the market of the monopoly. Single seller: In a monopoly, there is one seller of the good that produces all the output.[5] Therefore, the whole market is being served by a single company, and for practical purposes, the company is the same as the industry. Price Discrimination: A monopolist can change the price and quality of the product. He or She sells more quantities charging less price for the product in a very elastic market and sells less quantities charging high price in a less elastic market.

Those are characteristics not requirements. PokerStars definitely complies with several of them. Additionally some of those characteristics don't imply anything about a companies wrongdoing. As you notice it says a monopolist *can* change the price and quality of the product. It's not a requirement that they do.

A monopoly (from Greek monos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity (this contrasts with a monopsony which relates to a single entity's control of a market to purchase a good or service, and with oligopoly which consists of a few entities dominating an industry).[2] Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods.[3] The verb "monopolise" refers to the process by which a company gains the ability to raise prices or exclude competitors. In economics, a monopoly is a single seller. In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power to charge high prices.[4] Although monopolies may be big businesses, size is not a characteristic of a monopoly. A small business may still have the power to raise prices in a small industry (or market).[4]

The existence of a very high market share does not always mean consumers are paying excessive prices since the threat of new entrants to the market can restrain a high-market-share company's price increases. Competition law does not make merely having a monopoly illegal, but rather abusing the power a monopoly may confer, for instance through exclusionary practices (i.e. pricing high just because you are the only one around.) It may also be noted that it is illegal to try to obtain a monopoly, by practices of buying out the competition, or equal practices. If one occurs naturally, such as a competitor going out of business, or lack of competition, is not illegal until such time as the monopoly holder abuses the power.

Having good service/products simply does not mean you are not a monopoly. You can be a monopoly through better product and service and decide not to abuse it. So referring to a company as having a superior product and service means absolutely nothing when arguing they are not a monopoly. Again, I'm not saying they are one. Not even close to saying that, as I don't have the expertise to make any statements like that. The only thing I'm saying your argument about it not being a monopoly because they have a superior product isn't correct. Being a monopoly isn't about abusing your powers. It's about whether you can abuse them if you wanted to.

In many jurisdictions, competition laws restrict monopolies. Holding a dominant position or a monopoly of a market is often not illegal in itself, however certain categories of behavior can be considered abusive and therefore incur legal sanctions when business is dominant.

Well then the issue is about a definition? because to me the word monopoly intrinsecally carries a negative connotation.

But more importantly what I mean is that unlike true monopolies PokerStars cannot do as it wishes because its swimming in a uncommon absolutely free unregulated market, and a digital one with very little infrastructure therefore its at extreme mercy of the capitalist laws, unlike companies like EXXON (etc) that long ago left any form of capitalism and now depend on regulations, lobbying and policies to control the market.

ye it does look like a pointless argument over definitions,

agree with baal though, if the outcome for consumers is what you'd expect to get as a result of a monopoly industry structure (customers getting owned, subpar product at rape price) then i'd call the firm a monopoly. if the outcome for consumers is what you'd expect to get in a highly competitive industry structure (really good outcome for customers, great product at good price) then i wouldn't call the firm a monopoly.

if it doesn't look like a duck and doesn't quack like a duck, it's probably not a duck.

First change I've noticed under new ownership



Oh Joy.

^ damn, times be tuff. im not sure if the sunday mil ever has had an overlay but they must be expecting that to happen in the near future with a pop-up message like that

On July 10 2014 14:15 devon06atX wrote: First change I've noticed under new ownership Oh Joy.

So basically no more using FPP's to grind satellites to sell T$?

Yeah, exactly. Pretty significant hit on the rakeback ratio (for me anyway).

It's basically - you can't sell your initial entry. You need at least 2x to sell any further entries.

It's a guard against over-lays, but I've NEVER (reference to khan) heard of any PS sunday millions hitting overlay.

It's just weird, that's all I'm saying.

Time to hit the block fellas.

Great, they got rid of the 2 seats,6man sunday storm turbos too, and you cant unregister from those either ... PS s going into douchebag mode

So what do we do with FPP now. Can i register with $, then play sattelites and then unregister since i've registered with my current bankroll anyway?

can't you register with real $ then try to win satelites? then just unregister + sell ticket

No no guys its just the free market at work. Move along now. lol

honestly its not much of a big difference, and the site is still the best by far.

traveling to play on stars i'd be more than happy with small fpp changes, you should save ~100k or w/e for 1600 or w/e ne ways

lol neilly, you're happy to let them take away small things people have grinded np for years mostly because it doesn't affect you but also because you think people should save for 100k fpp bonus? do you know how hard it is for someone to get 100k fpp unless they're grinding certain mid+stakes or mass tourney/sngs? we should undeniably be allowed to unregister from tourneys and also T$ trade.

375fpp satellite and ur saying save for 100kfpp and its np they're still the best...

There is no FPP bonus that is worth taking, 100k fpp = 425 sunday storm stts 6max,2 paid , where if you're decent you cash in in half of them for 11$ or 213*11$ = 2343$ which is almost 50% more

no bonuses. it's coming in the next couple years. im not kidding.

Oh...wow?
if I at least play in one can I keep playing the sats and get the T$ above the one entry ?