Amaya acquires Rational Group (owner of Stars/FTP)

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/amaya-agrees-acquire-rational-group-012400010.html

gogogo

edit - 2p2 thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/...r-pokerstars-full-tilt-poker-1451606/

i dont see how this is a good news

not sure if i like this o_O

time to cashout

lol relax everything is the same

the amount of debt here is quite shady

OoooOO might consider moving to NJ/NV again once I see how it plays out.

saw this online, i liked it

http://www.globalpokerindex.com/blog-alex-dreyfus-thanks-isai-marc-and-david/

I believe the expertise and talent of Rafi Ashkenazi (COO) with his background at Playtech
oh
fuck

huge news.. get that on the lp front page, it's much more significant than the other trivia (pay to meet hellmuth)

Seems they're planning to open up casino/sports betting to stars/ftp players in the future for "growth". Not really my taste
Slides from Amaya's presentation: http://imgur.com/a/ZsTHw

Idk, everything seems like it'll be normal for now but in the future (2+ years) who knows what stars will look like. I think our funds should always be safe (as they're almost certainly going to continue being segregated and not Amaya assets) regardless of how much debt Amaya has. Good news for US players though.

We need US players

If PS re-enters the US it's probably going to be state by state and unlikely ever to be with the rest of the world.

On June 13 2014 17:46 ggplz wrote: If PS re-enters the US it's probably going to be state by state and unlikely ever to be with the rest of the world.

thanks for throwing cold water on everything....even though you are probably right.

sigh :/

Did those slides really say stars had <500m in revenue in 2013? I had no idea stars was such a tiny business. I always assumed their revenue was at least 5-10x that much.

morons itt

Im tired of grinding vs russians all day anyways.

On June 14 2014 00:02 Vivi57 wrote: Did those slides really say stars had <500m in revenue in 2013? I had no idea stars was such a tiny business. I always assumed their revenue was at least 5-10x that much.

no, double. <500m earnings, ~1bn revenue (solid margins) trailing 12months according to the valuation multiple mentioned on the front news post

edit: had a look at the slides ggplz linked (thanks ggplz)

oldford group (stars) 2011 revenue: $865m, 2012: $976m, 2013: $1.133bn

I was pretty happy to get the chance to see these kinds of figures as well since i always wondered. I tried to do back of envelope calculations once to have a guess at revenue and its nice to see i was very much in the right ballpark thinking it was always around the $1bn mark. What I had much less idea about is how much of that goes into profit. Sadly they only talk about EBITDA as far as I can see so I still don't really know. EBITDA margin looks around 37% in 2013 and grows with revenue but who knows how much they pay to develop software. Let's say after all that and tax and interest their margin is maybe around 25% of revenue - obviously pretty healthy but I think it pretty widely discredits the ridic ramblings of the stars-is-evil/rake-free-bitcoin-poker crowd that used to "campaign" here and make out as if stars have no expenses and 90% of their revenue is profit.

Are you fucking serious? Look at their business model for fucks sake.

How much of their capital is spent on the actual software? Nil. How much do you think is spent on Customer Service? Yeah, they're awesome at it, but I assume I rake more than every other 30,000 person. A few mins here nor there isn't bad.

Servers? Yep, cash. Marketing, there's the big one. That would cost at least a few tens of millions.

Sitting there, acting like they have tons of overhead, is a fucking joke. Many businesses have tons of overhead, this one is pretty DAMN GOOD. I'd be shocked if I found other businesses with less. Well, maybe thugging it up in Baltimore, but even then, you gotta pay.

This is a cash cow to the max, don't think for a fucking second their rake is fair.

And btw - No, I don't blame them. I'd do the same in their shoes if I had a monopoly on us idiots.

Make those dollars where you can, right?

.. Just don't give me that 'civil rake' bullshit ever again.

On June 14 2014 23:30 devon06atX wrote: Are you fucking serious? Look at their business model for fucks sake. How much of their capital is spent on the actual software? Nil. How much do you think is spent on Customer Service? Yeah, they're awesome at it, but I assume I rake more than every other 30,000 person. A few mins here nor there isn't bad. Servers? Yep, cash. Marketing, there's the big one. That would cost at least a few tens of millions. Sitting there, acting like they have tons of overhead, is a fucking joke. Many businesses have tons of overhead, this one is pretty DAMN GOOD. I'd be shocked if I found other businesses with less. Well, maybe thugging it up in Baltimore, but even then, you gotta pay. This is a cash cow to the max, don't think for a fucking second their rake is fair.

On June 14 2014 23:36 devon06atX wrote: And btw - No, I don't blame them. I'd do the same in their shoes if I had a monopoly on us idiots. Make those dollars where you can, right? .. Just don't give me that 'civil rake' bullshit ever again.

lol didnt take long for one to come out of the woodworks.

how much research did you put into your 'breakdown' of the stars business model? none at all by the looks of it. nil spent on software is the first zinger.

1500 total employees with customer service in 29 languages - is it possible you're underestimating some of the expenses that you're aware of? a few tens of millions for marketing - is it possible you're an entire order of magnitude off here? that might be how much they spend on the top 2 or 3 earning members of team pokerstars alone (negreanu), let alone significant advertising in more countries than i can imagine.

More significantly do you think it's possible there are expenses you're apparently not aware of or forgot to mention? Did you think gaming licenses and payment processing come for free? Banking services? Legal teams and lobbying in tons of different jurisdictions across the world? (still far from a comprehensive list of all expenses incurred by pokerstars, just naming a few more off the top of my head)

"I'd be shocked if I found other businesses with less" - its not a surprise at this stage you dont know much.. big pharma, financials and big tech have comparable margins. Did you actually read the basic numbers in my previous post? Do you dispute that 20-25% is a reasonable guess for profit margins after tax for stars? Or do you think they're lying about the numbers (lol) and still think they're actually making 90% of revenue in profit? How do you define what level of margin is "fair" or what level of rake is "fair"? What does "fair" even mean??

On June 15 2014 06:08 Romm3l wrote: Show nested quote + On June 14 2014 23:30 devon06atX wrote: Are you fucking serious? Look at their business model for fucks sake. How much of their capital is spent on the actual software? Nil. How much do you think is spent on Customer Service? Yeah, they're awesome at it, but I assume I rake more than every other 30,000 person. A few mins here nor there isn't bad. Servers? Yep, cash. Marketing, there's the big one. That would cost at least a few tens of millions. Sitting there, acting like they have tons of overhead, is a fucking joke. Many businesses have tons of overhead, this one is pretty DAMN GOOD. I'd be shocked if I found other businesses with less. Well, maybe thugging it up in Baltimore, but even then, you gotta pay. This is a cash cow to the max, don't think for a fucking second their rake is fair.   On June 14 2014 23:36 devon06atX wrote: And btw - No, I don't blame them. I'd do the same in their shoes if I had a monopoly on us idiots. Make those dollars where you can, right? .. Just don't give me that 'civil rake' bullshit ever again. lol didnt take long for one to come out of the woodworks. how much research did you put into your 'breakdown' of the stars business model? none at all by the looks of it. nil spent on software is the first zinger. 1500 total employees with customer service in 29 languages - is it possible you're underestimating some of the expenses that you're aware of? a few tens of millions for marketing - is it possible you're an entire order of magnitude off here? that might be how much they spend on the top 2 or 3 earning members of team pokerstars alone (negreanu), let alone significant advertising in more countries than i can imagine. More significantly do you think it's possible there are expenses you're apparently not aware of or forgot to mention? Did you think gaming licenses and payment processing come for free? Banking services? Legal teams and lobbying in tons of different jurisdictions across the world? (still far from a comprehensive list of all expenses incurred by pokerstars, just naming a few more off the top of my head) "I'd be shocked if I found other businesses with less" - its not a surprise at this stage you dont know much.. big pharma, financials and big tech have comparable margins. Did you actually read the basic numbers in my previous post? Do you dispute that 20-25% is a reasonable guess for profit margins after tax for stars? Or do you think they're lying about the numbers (lol) and still think they're actually making 90% of revenue in profit? How do you define what level of margin is "fair" or what level of rake is "fair"? What does "fair" even mean??

pwned

When i watch a sports channel I see a pokerstars or fulltilt add every 3 commercials those are not cheap.

When I said nil, I meant nil compared to the revenue the company takes in. Of course they have to hire coders and do market research to see what people like, etc. Even if it costs them ~10 million a yr. to upgrade their software, I consider that 'nil' considering that's ~3 days of rake. And their software *is* their product imo. Well yeah, and customer service, reputation, etc. etc.

And no, I had no idea they had 1500 employees. I just did a quick calculation, giving all of the employees a salary of $50k, that's roughly 75 million. That equates to the revenue they'd generate in ~25 days. Obviously some people will make much more, and some people would make much less, but again, I'm just throwing that number (I thought I was generously high with it) out there to show that their employees are a small % of their total revenue.

Its more than likely I underestimated many expenses such as banking fees, transferring funds, permits, etc. But I have less than 0% of a clue how much that kind of stuff would cost, so I can't even begin to guess.

As for taxes, I was under the impression they located in Isle of man so as to circumvent them? Even if their margin is 25-30%, that is pretty damn awesome imo.

Again, I didn't look through the slides, nor their financials, and yes I did look at your numbers. All you posted was their revenues for the last few years. I don't really know how that relates to an 'acceptable' amount of rake to be honest.

I guess all we're arguing about is their profit margin. And to be honest, yeah, I always thought (without real thought or analysis) that they did have a ridiculously high margin. I would have guessed 60-80% tbh heh. Even if it is ~30% (I doubt they're getting taxed ~10% ...), that's outrageously great *for them*.

All that being said, they have a monopoly, and like I said, I'd rake the shit outta us as well if I was them. It really is too bad there's not 5-6 solid, reputable, decent traffic sites out there. I'm positive rake would go down. Or bonuses/rakeback would go up, whichever.

All that being said, I'm still a firm believer that it's a cash cow.

edit - and yeah, they probably do spend a BOATLOAD more on marketing than the '10s of millions' I previously said. It's just hard to quantify, ya know? I forget that they're also advertising all around the world, having events all over the place, etc.

It does feel ridiculous debating about something that I really have no clue about haha, so I'm gonna stop.

On June 15 2014 17:05 devon06atX wrote: When I said nil, I meant nil compared to the revenue the company takes in. Of course they have to hire coders and do market research to see what people like, etc. Even if it costs them ~10 million a yr. to upgrade their software, I consider that 'nil' considering that's ~3 days of rake. And their software *is* their product imo. Well yeah, and customer service, reputation, etc. etc. And no, I had no idea they had 1500 employees. I just did a quick calculation, giving all of the employees a salary of $50k, that's roughly 75 million. That equates to the revenue they'd generate in ~25 days. Obviously some people will make much more, and some people would make much less, but again, I'm just throwing that number (I thought I was generously high with it) out there to show that their employees are a small % of their total revenue. Its more than likely I underestimated many expenses such as banking fees, transferring funds, permits, etc. But I have less than 0% of a clue how much that kind of stuff would cost, so I can't even begin to guess. As for taxes, I was under the impression they located in Isle of man so as to circumvent them? Even if their margin is 25-30%, that is pretty damn awesome imo. Again, I didn't look through the slides, nor their financials, and yes I did look at your numbers. All you posted was their revenues for the last few years. I don't really know how that relates to an 'acceptable' amount of rake to be honest. I guess all we're arguing about is their profit margin. And to be honest, yeah, I always thought (without real thought or analysis) that they did have a ridiculously high margin. I would have guessed 60-80% tbh heh. Even if it is ~30% (I doubt they're getting taxed ~10% ...), that's outrageously great *for them*. All that being said, they have a monopoly, and like I said, I'd rake the shit outta us as well if I was them. It really is too bad there's not 5-6 solid, reputable, decent traffic sites out there. I'm positive rake would go down. Or bonuses/rakeback would go up, whichever. All that being said, I'm still a firm believer that it's a cash cow. edit - and yeah, they probably do spend a BOATLOAD more on marketing than the '10s of millions' I previously said. It's just hard to quantify, ya know? I forget that they're also advertising all around the world, having events all over the place, etc.

before you were saying marketing was the only significant expense running into the "tens of millions", as if that is a benchmark for a significant expense, now you do a back-of-envelope calc and figure employee salaries is in the high tens of millions and claim that is insignificant. not very consistent.

I agree with you by the way employee salary by itself is not significant compared to revenue (<10%). The trouble is you're still estimating costs that you can identify and ignoring all the unknown unknowns. While employee salary by itself not a double figure % of expenses, there are plenty of other expenses in the same order of magnitude that you haven't even thought about which are insignificant by themselves but all add up really fast. You have no idea of the true costs of running a business of this scale that operates in and has locations in many countries, and you just assume all the costs for the masses of things you don't know about are zero. Just in terms of employees alone, salary paid is just what workers get, employers pay more: pension contributions, buildings/offices where they can work, resources/training for employees, significant hiring/firing costs. Software is probably 5x what you think it is because they have so much to lose in terms of customer trust/goodwill if they get any one small thing wrong with regard to security, bugs, etc. It wouldn't make sense for them to try and cut costs here if the alternative is reducing risk. So far they have gotten virtually nothing wrong. You can get guys like genjix coming here saying software can be developed for free, stars are robbing us etc, but then he gets one of his sites hacked and loses ppl mass money like immediately. Any btc poker site associated with him has its credibility destroyed forever.

the software is not the product. it is a source of competitive advantage over other sites but by itself it's nothing without people playing on it. online poker has strong network effects and the player liquidity is the product. the trust and perceived safety of your funds and of game integrity is the product. go play on the bitcoin site for free and see how many fishy games you can find at your limit at any given time and how many tables you can play. Go play on shady sites and see if you feel as happy to play.

anyway the numbers on the slides don't lie, stars have healthy margins like I said but they're not robbing us blind and creating an unsustainable situation. They've directly had an extremely significant role in the large growth of online poker outside usa. Your rake dollars are paying for growth of players, and paying stars a generous cut in profit so they have incentives to create that growth which benefits players. Don't get the impression that worldwide growth in online poker happened by itself and dont get the impression it would happen if the leading business isn't making healthy profits it can reinvest. Look at that rate of revenue growth! that's directly linked to the amount of play happening.

And another thing, it's amazing how many times I hear entitled grinders talk about the amount of rake they're paying and how that means stars owes them something. Is stars forcing you to play so much volume? Would you play that much for the fun of the game if you were somehow guaranteed a breakeven result at the end of it? You play for self-interest, because you figure you might win some money for yourself. Stars offer you the product for a price and you choose to buy it because you figure you'll make some money and it'll be worth your time. They have to let you make money to get your contribution to rake. In the same way you have to let stars make decent profit if you want them to exist and to continue tempting casual players worldwide into your games through lots of advertising and handling their money etc.

As soon as you start talking about what a "fair" distribution of the fish money between grinders and rake is, you have started talking shit. It's a meaningless concept in a free market system. Fair is the market price. Any other interpretation you care to have about what's "fair" is your own, and when it comes to "fair" every side in every debate will have their own version with their own self-interested bias attached. It's meaningless to even talk about.

I hope you enjoyed writing your holier-than-thou posts, because, I didn't disagree with a word you said. Yet, you felt the need to come back writing condescendingly anyway.

If you re-read my post, you'll see I agree with most of what you wrote. Especially the market system. I would quote it, but I doubt that would make a difference, as writing it the first time didn't do much good.

However, like I also said, without knowing their actual expenses and their real profit margin, there's no sense talking about how paying ~80$ of rake a day is 'too much'.

Sincerely,

Another entitled grinder.

not really against you specifically.. there are plenty of entitled grinders here. my initial comment you replied to in the beginning was aimed at them.

It's a monopoly but yes you rely on the kindness of Pokerstars' hearts to give you something fair.

incorrect. there are clearly other players so it's not a monopoly. it's possible for new players to enter the space so it's not a monopoly. it happens to enjoy dominant market share now because it gives you a better proposition than other existing players. it didn't happen by accident. partypoker used to have the lion's share once but players went to the better proposition. nothing to do with kindness of any hearts, it's just good business. if they doubled their rake overnight you think that situation would last long? Even in the best case where it leads to higher revenues and profits, it just makes the space that much more attractive for a new entrant or rival firms to be in and undercut, and those huge margins will get competed away.

Monopolies are usually built or helped by the state and require a immense ammount of infrastructure however on PokerStars case, a software to play poker is as free as the market goes, if a company can offer an alike product quality at a lower price (rake) then it will quickly start eating its user base, however we see the opposite happening, competing softwares go down when they cut their price and have never been able to remotely offer the quality of service PokerStars does.

So no my friend, saying PokerStars is a monopoly is denying the most basic workings of a capitalist economy, PokerStars dominates the market because they offer a quality product people are willing to pay for, you simply have absolutely no clue about PokerStars expenses, and how would you?, you are just being silly having such strong opinions on things you simply dont know about.

On June 19 2014 04:14 Baalim wrote: Monopolies are usually built or helped by the state and require a immense ammount of infrastructure however on PokerStars case, a software to play poker is as free as the market goes, if a company can offer an alike product quality at a lower price (rake) then it will quickly start eating its user base, however the we see the opposite happening, competing softwares go down when they cut their price and have never been able to remotely offer the quality of service PokerStars does. Its a monopoly because its the best hands down, by far. when its taken from you (black friday) - you learn stars is 500x better i'd pay more rake to play on stars tbh. my 2 cents, agree w/ baal here obv So no my friend, saying PokerStars is a monopoly is denying the most basic workings of a capitalist economy, PokerStars dominates the market because they offer a quality product people are willing to pay for, you simply have absolutely no clue about PokerStars expenses, and how would you?, you are just being silly having such strong opinions on things you simply dont know about.

A monopoly can most definitely exist resulting from superior service and product. Whether or not PokerStars is a monopoly is too complicated for me to judge, but I don't see how it isn't at the very least in the running for being one. Additionally even if they were one, being a monopoly isn't necessarily unlawful that all depends on the type of conduct and whether anti-competitive measures are applied. As I'm sure you understand having a superior product is in no way mutually exclusive with anti-competitive conduct. In fact the both of them make for a great combo.

Can you give an example of what you mean by anti-competitive measures or anti-competitive conduct specific to pokerstars?

A monopoly is generally protected by barriers to entry and has free reign to do whatever they want with customers having zero choice of alternatives. Usually that results in them charging higher prices and serving fewer customers to maximise profit, because they can. Stars invest heavily in its dominant market share position and have very competitive pricing - from a customer pov they're the best value proposition by a country mile imo (prices similar to elsewhere for a safer, more liquid network). If stars became less competitive than it is now - went for more profits by cutting costs and raising prices, the big question mark is whether their profits would sustainably increase. If they were a true monopoly the answer would be yes. We saw in the past decade that when partypoker had the "monopoly" position and tried to capitalise on their "monopoly power", it turned out they weren't a monopoly after all.

I'm not saying they are one I'm saying that having a superior quality and product isn't supporting not being a monopoly.

Pretty sure the Pokerstars / Full Tilt entity is indeed a monopoly.

For example, they are by far the single largest provider of the online gaming service, where they control, what, roughly 90% of the market? That puts them on part with Microsoft. While there is technically competition, they make up a fragment of the market and have little to no impact on what Pokerstars does.

Pokerstars also adjusted its rake and VIP structure to match its market demand. Other sites with cash rake back have had zero influence, further proving my point. Sites that offer 'more desirable' rake back packages or VIP promotions still can't grab any more market share. Pokerstars sets the bar as far as service and the demand for it.

A monopoly is created when there is a lack of economic competition or the inability of others to produce similar goods or services. No one has the funds, creativity, staff, etc. to mimic Stars and no competitor has been able to take market share away - unless you count the DOJ freezing the US market.

On June 22 2014 09:58 chris wrote: For example, they are by far the single largest provider of the online gaming service, where they control, what, roughly 90% of the market?

59% of online poker market in terms of traffic. I'd be surprised if it turns out they've more than 25% of online gambling market. Online gaming is something completely different.

monopoly or not, its because they are the best, not because buy-outs, they were prior to fixing ftp if anyone brings that in

On June 22 2014 08:03 Nazgul wrote: I'm not saying they are one I'm saying that having a superior quality and product isn't supporting not being a monopoly.

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.

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.

For example Apple would be way closer to a monopoly than pokerstars

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 ?

On July 12 2014 07:14 Spitfiree wrote: 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

50% the fuck
that jesus godmode activated bro. Anything above 33% is great and you should could with 33% cash multiplier rly because of time spent

Play them in sunday, improve your winrate to god mode :D

bullshit
show proof you have 50% 6max hyperturbo fpp sats over large sample

nobody gets 50% in those hypher variance shovefests

ggplz, im just saying its still an amazing site and bitching about small things like this shouldn't really matter. Be thankful you have pokerstars.

yah, around 35% in those 6max hypers is sick good, 1-5% is great edge, 33% if 2 get a seat i believe, so 38% is ur highest sustainable winrate unless you've unlocked some secret 6max hyper strategy that nobody knows about, or you can increase your edge by playing at the right times, to maybe 40-42%

On July 14 2014 02:39 GoldRush wrote: Be thankful you have pokerstars.

for once i wholeheartedly agree with your post. Try grinding poker without rakeback and shitty mass grinders with no winrates will shut up realll quick.

It's not a small thing if it directly affects your rakeback. You think a guy grinding 375 FPP sngs is in the same RB tier as someone typically spending 100k FPPs? As I said, it doesn't affect yours and you don't care, gz. I'll never be "thankful" I have pokerstars, they should be thankful they have a playerbase.

On July 15 2014 03:00 ggplz wrote: As I said, it doesn't affect yours and you don't care, gz. I'll never be "thankful" I have pokerstars, they should be thankful they have a playerbase.

Exactly...


My sample isn't really big enough, but I am indeed running a bit under 50% thought thats sustainable, considering the player pool.


Anyway, has anyone tried registering w real $ and get a ticket then unregister?

On July 14 2014 02:39 GoldRush wrote:Be thankful you have pokerstars.

Keep keep spouting bullshit man. I didn't bother analyzing your numbers, because, you're a clown.

To people who live in this that think we are 'Lucky to PAY FUCKING RAKE TO THIS BILLION PROFIT COMPANY', go fuck yourselves.

Every one of you.

Sometimes I honestly think LP is full of smart intellectual individuals, other times I'm certain these are the first stupid fucks to go in an apocalypse.

its neilly what are you expecting

http://pokerfuse.com/news/industry/20...-amaya-pokerstars-casino-launch-year/

riiiiiiiiiiight

this'll be good for the games?

On August 20 2014 04:37 whamm! wrote: this'll be good for the games?

it would probably attract a lot of casino profits into the poker tables but that PS will have casino is certainly not a certain thing

AYA stock jumped to 20 when this thread came out and I wanted to buy but couldn't pull the trigger. Now it's at 30. Your cashed out bankroll could have grown 33%.

On July 16 2014 22:28 devon06atX wrote: Show nested quote + On July 14 2014 02:39 GoldRush wrote:Be thankful you have pokerstars. Sometimes I honestly think LP is full of smart intellectual individuals, other times I'm certain these are the first stupid fucks to go in an apocalypse.

while this is true, i think that the portion of LP that are smart intellectuals would prefer to go first in an apocalypse

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