On December 30 2014 16:23 diggerflopboat wrote:
You might undestand baalim why I think it is not correct to suggest that the pros follow the recs. It might be true in the past but its really only superstition. In the near future we are going to see a dramatic shift in this...the recs will look to the pros for advice on where to play. And this time the pros will learn to be happy to the educate the "fish"...
The simple fact is, we destroyed the game by teaching players to rape the game while hidding strategy from bad players...
We are simply now realizing what is ideal is to teach the recs that playing in lower effective rake environments is more profitable for pros AND recs!
Its not a myth, who in the hell are you to come make these ridiculous claims that go against the most common of knowledge to any freaking poker player, professionals looking for softer games is not a freaking superstition, professionals dont go to casinos for their pretty carpeting, they go where the juicier games are, period, and again, that has nothing to do with the marketability of poker celebs for an overall growth of poker.
No that is not a simple fact, its a ridiculous claim by you and opposite to reality, we didnt destroy anything by not educating the fish, in fact one of the biggest factors about how poker is harder today is CardRunners and educational video sites.
We arent realizing anything now... oh its better to play with lower rake for Pros AND recs? zomg!!! discovery of the century.
Im done with this pseudo-discussion this person clearly has no idea what he is talking about, he has no clue about poker, and he has no clue about how to run a poker site and he is only interested in pushing and talking about crypto currency.
On December 30 2014 16:20 diggerflopboat wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 30 2014 15:47 Baalim wrote:
bitcoin is a protocol/network that allows us to create a secure an anonymous database that can be searched without revealing any information to any 3rd parties. So we can implement intensive collusion detecting algorithms. So in the near future SOME players win poker money from detecting cheating methods and solving them for the rest of the society.
So thats your answer? we create algorithms? you clearly have no idea what is required to run a poker site
No Baalim, you are mistaken. Amaya does not know how to run a poker site. This is why new models like bitnplay are going to rapidly start arising and take over. I am not talking about what is "going" to happen, I am pointing out our reality. You are spending your time dismissing the facts and information I present, while others are thanking me for the connections I have been making with the literature in relation to the next evolutions of poker.
On December 31 2014 03:26 diggerflopboat wrote:No Baalim, you are mistaken. Amaya does not know how to run a poker site.
On October 25 2014 11:48 Defrag wrote:
<img src="http://admins.liquidpoker.net/staff/Defrag/pokerstars_office.jpg" align="right" style="margin:5px; border:1px solid black;">Directors at Amaya Gaming are for sure happy after their newest and very expensive acquisition of PokerStars, which they paid $4.9bln for. Amaya just released their financial reports for the first half of 2014 and PokerStars/FullTilt combined made $706.5 million in combined revenues.
Those numbers are also higher then last years revenue: for the first half this year PS/FT made $567.9mln in revenues (compared to $545.9mln in 2013), $218.4mlnin net income (compared to $189.9mln in 2013) and $246.4mln in net cash from operating activities (again, up from $207mln in 2013). This is quite a heavy growth rate.
Amaya and Oldford Group(official owner of PokerStars and FullTilt) combined revenues for the first half of 2014 were $706.5 million and $276.3 million in net income.
They also spent quite a bit of money: $78.7mln to be exact. Combined player funds held on their accounts are worth $606mln in the first half of the year.
Amaya CEO David Baazov commented:“We’re very pleased with the performance of PokerStars and Full Tilt in 2014. The core poker business continued to grow during the first half of the year and recorded strong cash flow. More recently, we have broadened our rollout of casino, including into Spain, and introduced an exciting new poker game that has proved very popular on Full Tilt and which was recently launched on PokerStars.”
In the same report we could also see that recently launched Spin&Go tournaments are a huge success for the company (over 7.5mln games played in first two weeks after the format was introduced).
Everything else aside, I've been reading this thread for awhile and I have to admit you are a terrible ambassador for this so called 'next big thing'. You should probably stop because all you're doing is turning people off of the idea. You don't defend your arguments, you have confusing answers to the most simple of questions, and you attack your target audience.
If I were you, and I actually believed this is the next big thing - I'd stop promoting it immediately. Insulting your audience because of your inability to adequately explain an (albeit complex) idea is extremely immature and unprofessional.
On December 31 2014 03:26 diggerflopboat wrote:No Baalim, you are mistaken. Amaya does not know how to run a poker site.
On October 25 2014 11:48 Defrag wrote:
<img src="http://admins.liquidpoker.net/staff/Defrag/pokerstars_office.jpg" align="right" style="margin:5px; border:1px solid black;">Directors at Amaya Gaming are for sure happy after their newest and very expensive acquisition of PokerStars, which they paid $4.9bln for. Amaya just released their financial reports for the first half of 2014 and PokerStars/FullTilt combined made $706.5 million in combined revenues.
Those numbers are also higher then last years revenue: for the first half this year PS/FT made $567.9mln in revenues (compared to $545.9mln in 2013), $218.4mlnin net income (compared to $189.9mln in 2013) and $246.4mln in net cash from operating activities (again, up from $207mln in 2013). This is quite a heavy growth rate.
Amaya and Oldford Group(official owner of PokerStars and FullTilt) combined revenues for the first half of 2014 were $706.5 million and $276.3 million in net income.
They also spent quite a bit of money: $78.7mln to be exact. Combined player funds held on their accounts are worth $606mln in the first half of the year.
Amaya CEO David Baazov commented:“We’re very pleased with the performance of PokerStars and Full Tilt in 2014. The core poker business continued to grow during the first half of the year and recorded strong cash flow. More recently, we have broadened our rollout of casino, including into Spain, and introduced an exciting new poker game that has proved very popular on Full Tilt and which was recently launched on PokerStars.”
In the same report we could also see that recently launched Spin&Go tournaments are a huge success for the company (over 7.5mln games played in first two weeks after the format was introduced).
Everything else aside, I've been reading this thread for awhile and I have to admit you are a terrible ambassador for this so called 'next big thing'. You should probably stop because all you're doing is turning people off of the idea. You don't defend your arguments, you have confusing answers to the most simple of questions, and you attack your target audience.
If I were you, and I actually believed this is the next big thing - I'd stop promoting it immediately. Insulting your audience because of your inability to adequately explain an (albeit complex) idea is extremely immature and unprofessional.
I don't know what you mean to point out but Amaya is losing key and core customers by the droves. 2p2 is filled with threads, and more and more everyday of disgusted and unsatisfied customers. And now they are starting to leave. Paper looks nice for unwares shareholders but the reality of the situation is that it is a sinking ship.
The money that players hold on Amaya in their bankrolls is a hidden cost to the players. Or in other words as crypto becomes popular and players do not have to store a bankroll on ANY site, this is more value that will remain in the game (ie players can now invest the 100's of millions they previous held stagnant on stars bank rolls.
Your attitude and sentiments towards me do not reflect the future of the game nor the driving force behind it. I simply point out the economic inevitability. When bitcoin's price goes up, you will buy it. As better alternatives to the "status quo" arise, you will leave to play on the alternatives. Easy game.
I'm not affiliated its just they are doing the next evolution, exactly what I have been explaining. I realize it is difficult. Its a new question the players are asking "What is the value of a rake free account". I don't care about all the bullshit...its magic, the collective player consciousness is growing...
Expect more big giant countdown "rake-o-meters"...
Expect that every time the "giant machine" tries to impose the status quo, a phenomenon will arise to maneuver us free from it...
I don't really care about the main topic of this thread
I'm just here to point out how funny it is that Baal defends PS, while digger is trying to promote somewhat of a poker anarchy, and if it were a case of governance he'd be taking digger's side :D
It's like PS is the government and we're all getting fucked except the cool sponsored players and guess who s sponsored
Not saying you're not right, just saying its funny :D
edit:
Also blah blah about the OP claims, but if networks like prima can virtually offer 80% rb to players with flat rakes/perm bonuses/rake races/rake chases and still be a profitable company then fuck PS and their 10% rb
You nailed it! Exactly. That is the obvious observation.
How much rake I had to pay so that Danial N could tell the plays that higher rake is good for the game. And how many players somehow found math and logic to support such absurdity
Players are slowly starting to get cypto wallets and receive Na.j Coin. If you want to be an early adopter and try it out, sign up for a wallet and post your public address in the 2p2 thread on post 134 (or here if you don't have an account. Any questions feel free to ask!
Its just like email 2.0, its not really money, and there is no value or cost, just learning how to play with the new programmable email technology and understanding how it helps the players!
The crucial point that gets missed in these rake discussions is that the health of the games and the rake taken are dependent, NOT independent. The amount of rake taken in bb/100 seems to be the single biggest factor influencing game health. I appeal to an intuitive argument for this point; if (in a zero rake environment) winrates fall roughly around a normal distribution (or some other distribution of your choice), with the peak being at 0bb/100, then picture a line on this distribution where the rake is set, say 10bb/100. The portion of the curve above the rake line will be the winners. Currently, the rake is 10+bb/100 at low stakes, and so only a tiny fraction of "giant" winners are beating the games.
PokerStars makes the claim that the rake has stayed relatively constant throughout the history of online poker (Zoom notwithstanding), and then makes the hand wavy argument that the current poor game conditions can't be caused by current "high" rake because rake was always as high as it is now. It's true that rake has always been high, but the conclusion doesn't follow. What Stars' argument misses is that if the rake was set at a lower level in the Boom era, then games might have been even better during the Boom era, and good (or at least better) game conditions might have lasted far longer. The great games from the boom era should be explained by the massive influx of new players and the lower skill disparity between professionals and recs, which allowed games to thrive even in a high rake environment. I don't think PokerStars has ever addressed why a Boom era rake level will be sustainable in a more competitive poker economy.
Stars makes an additional argument that continued high rake is necessary in order for Stars to invest in ways to improve the poker economy, notably by attracting new players and pushing for legalization/regulation throughout the world. There's certainly some truth to this, and we as pros should realize that in many respects Stars' interests coincide with our own, and some sizable fraction of the money raked by Stars gets reinvested into our business via Stars' efforts at marketing poker. PokerStars Michael J summarizes this view here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...75&postcount=1).
I disagree that Stars' efforts towards marketing and legalization can fully justify the current rake being charged. It appears that Amaya is "operating on a a profit margin of approximately 38 percent after taxes and operational expenses" http://www.cardschat.com/news/amaya-...#ixzz3YQmXcc00
which I think shows that Amaya is operating at an excellent short term profit even while spending money on player acquisition and pushing for regulation.
Summing up, poker is a negative sum game, and the magnitude of the negative sum is determined by how much rake is taken. It's silly to argue about qualitative reasons why games are getting tougher when a quantitative one is staring us right in the face. Stars' twin justifications for high rake, (1) 'that high rake doesn't cause poor games because rake has always been high and games used to be better', and (2) 'that current high rake is necessary to attract new players and help fund Amaya's efforts to re-create good game conditions' do not tell the whole story. The simplest way to make games better over time is to lower the rake.
The crucial point that gets missed in these rake discussions is that the health of the games and the rake taken are dependent, NOT independent. The amount of rake taken in bb/100 seems to be the single biggest factor influencing game health. I appeal to an intuitive argument for this point; if (in a zero rake environment) winrates fall roughly around a normal distribution (or some other distribution of your choice), with the peak being at 0bb/100, then picture a line on this distribution where the rake is set, say 10bb/100. The portion of the curve above the rake line will be the winners. Currently, the rake is 10+bb/100 at low stakes, and so only a tiny fraction of "giant" winners are beating the games.
PokerStars makes the claim that the rake has stayed relatively constant throughout the history of online poker (Zoom notwithstanding), and then makes the hand wavy argument that the current poor game conditions can't be caused by current "high" rake because rake was always as high as it is now. It's true that rake has always been high, but the conclusion doesn't follow. What Stars' argument misses is that if the rake was set at a lower level in the Boom era, then games might have been even better during the Boom era, and good (or at least better) game conditions might have lasted far longer. The great games from the boom era should be explained by the massive influx of new players and the lower skill disparity between professionals and recs, which allowed games to thrive even in a high rake environment. I don't think PokerStars has ever addressed why a Boom era rake level will be sustainable in a more competitive poker economy.
Stars makes an additional argument that continued high rake is necessary in order for Stars to invest in ways to improve the poker economy, notably by attracting new players and pushing for legalization/regulation throughout the world. There's certainly some truth to this, and we as pros should realize that in many respects Stars' interests coincide with our own, and some sizable fraction of the money raked by Stars gets reinvested into our business via Stars' efforts at marketing poker. PokerStars Michael J summarizes this view here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...75&postcount=1).
I disagree that Stars' efforts towards marketing and legalization can fully justify the current rake being charged. It appears that Amaya is "operating on a a profit margin of approximately 38 percent after taxes and operational expenses" http://www.cardschat.com/news/amaya-...#ixzz3YQmXcc00
which I think shows that Amaya is operating at an excellent short term profit even while spending money on player acquisition and pushing for regulation.
Summing up, poker is a negative sum game, and the magnitude of the negative sum is determined by how much rake is taken. It's silly to argue about qualitative reasons why games are getting tougher when a quantitative one is staring us right in the face. Stars' twin justifications for high rake, (1) 'that high rake doesn't cause poor games because rake has always been high and games used to be better', and (2) 'that current high rake is necessary to attract new players and help fund Amaya's efforts to re-create good game conditions' do not tell the whole story. The simplest way to make games better over time is to lower the rake.
The proposal ideal poker as an extrapolation of ideal money is difficult to understand, partly because of its disjoint presentation but also because of the difficultly of evolving our own paradigm of what poker is or what money is. A new platform called Fermat's Library allows different peoples to contribute annotations to certain lines of certain writings. Here I think the dialog benefits from this platform so any peoples interested in created a global unit for a rake standard can start to understand and participate in the discussion here:
I should think a small bump would be warranted. It seems to me the players are ready and encouraging each other to revolt. Joey asked Ansky what he would do, but Ansky admitted he has no answer, no plan. There is an extensive plan outlined on theweatlhofchips. I should think it could at least be a discussion point, as well as "What is Ideal Poker?" because I think a lot of players have never asked or answered that question.
