Pokerstars RB change again *soon* - Page 2

On April 05 2017 08:04 northsails wrote: And Phil Galfond's site while being a good idea imo is doomed to fail, simply because it will not be able to attract fun and rec players on its platform. It does not matter if they have great program with small rake, when there is no fish, there is no party and an eco system with mostly pros is simply unsustainable.

Not saying he will succeed in doing so, but i highly doubt the guy raised shit tons of money and invested a huge chunk of his own, without having to address this issue. So clearly the man must have a plan ^^ Or at least i fucking hope he does !

Did you get 100% rakeback Baal. Just curious

PS d have to be quite retarded to not make him sign NDA, meaning he wont be able to disclose such info

@northsails you are talking as if Galfond isnt aware of all the facts and what he needs to make his project work properly

I am sure he is well aware of this. Just because he is aware does not make it possible for him to compete with multi billion dollar companies established on the marked for decades. Rec players don't give a fuck about rakeback, decreased rake and the other things that he is going to offer for better gameplay and competition. Not to mention that 90% of pro poker players don't have a competitors mentality but more of bumhunter mentality . They don't want to compete with the best and get better all the time, more like wanting to skin the fish and make some money.

All of the big poker networks have some kind of a platform where they are bringing in rec and fun players to the site to play. Either being online casino, sporstbook or in other forms this players join the tables and create action while losing their money. When you don't have fish in, games simply don't run.

I am all for his site to be successful but can't see it happening.

itt baal acting reasonably and some butthurt entitled people

On April 05 2017 09:05 VanDerMeyde wrote: Did you get 100% rakeback Baal. Just curious

no, I wish I did.

who would've thought 15 years ago that playing in a " no rake poker "was such a dream job for most of us

On April 04 2017 01:56 whamm! wrote: I think theyd rather have deposits than rake because they've turned the business model into a ponzi scheme instead of a poker room

it seems more like the site is now starting to accept that they wont be getting that much deposits like they did in the past. so they need to keep more money locked in the economy.

if the economy grows via more deposits, we could see the return of the reg grinders' perks.

overall this is good for the platform. if they keep losing money, they could close down.