On other sites they have better facilities for new players..... here you get shoved in the deep end or sit in free play on your own. Low 28p 50p turbo's, dym's are where they go, so no wonder there bingo . They are not for winning money, just start up company. Sky listened to this argument before and kept the 28p game ...... they are fun (for) not much money and newbies can afford while starting to learn poker.
My thoughts on RAKE! So for a while now there has been a misconception that I think raising the rake in poker games is “good for poker.” I’ve never actually said that, but I understand where the confusion may come from because I was talking about some things (facts) that a lot of pros don’t want to hear, and like a game of broken telephone, my position has been distorted. I do not believe that raising the rake is good for poker. Rake increases take more money out of the game and benefit whoever is collecting the rake. That is my position on rake. Period. (Insert Sean Spicer jokes here)
Now, let’s take a deeper look at how an increased rake affects players. I’m going to discuss a real world example from my early days as a professional poker player in Toronto. The casino I played at charges a $5 session fee every 30 minutes in a $10-$20 limit hold’em game, while the game across the street charged $10 a hand! Excluding tips, in the game I played in, $100 came off the table every hour. In the game across the street, they were taking $300 out of the game per hour!
So obviously I chose to play in the game with the lower rake as did many other pros I know because we didn’t really think we would be able to beat the rake across the street. What ended up happening was the game I played in consisted of eight pros and two recreational players, while the game across the street had no pros in it at all. The game with the higher rake was obviously juicier, but because the rake was so high it wasn’t really worth it for me and my other pro friends to play it. Our win rate was still better overall playing in the game with the lower rake.
We used to have this recreational player named Bhupan come play with us and while we did what we could to ensure he had fun at the table, he was so bad at poker that he got absolutely destroyed when he played with us. In our game, he was constantly playing in heads up or three way pots, while the game across the street routinely saw eight players limping in to see the flop and chasing all the way to the river.
Bhupan also played across the street, and while he lost there too, he didn’t get humiliated and crushed nearly as hard as he did when he was facing a table full of regs. He paid a lot more in rake across the street, but also lost less money. His hourly loss rate was better in the game with the higher rake because the competition he faced was more on his level.
So if you are reading this, ask yourself the following question and be honest: given the choice of these two options, which is a better game to choose if you are Bhupan? Sitting with the sharks, or paying the extra rake and facing off against weaker opponents? Be honest.
I know you don’t want to hear this but it just happens to be true. I get why you would scoff and get your pitchforks out when this point is illustrated and not want to believe it, but its true. For Bhupan and other players at his skill level, HIGHER RAKE WAS BETTER FOR THEM than paying a lower rake in a game against pros. Oh no! Did he just say that? How dare he! Turncoat! Shill! Ahhhhhhhh. Say what you will, but it is true.
I understand why me saying this would lead people to believe that I think raising the rake is good for poker. I get it, I really do, but it is not the same thing. I do not think raising the rake is good for poker. No rake is “good for poker.” But you need to understand that a game full of pros is far worse for the game than a high rake. To the extreme, if a game is nine close to equally skilled pros and no weak link, guess what happens to the game? POOF. It doesn’t exist. They won’t play.
Now, if you are the guy running the poker game its in your best interest that your players/customers don’t go broke. They go broke, you have no games, you have no rake. If you are the guy running the game, the number one cause of players going broke is WINNING PLAYERS. Professionals who bust weaker players. When the weaker players go broke, the winning players don’t play each other, then you are left with no game, and no rake. The primary cause of a losing player losing is WINNING PLAYERS. The secondary cause, usually by a wide margin, is RAKE.
If you think about it, nothing I’m saying here should be all that controversial. It’s common sense, but obviously pros don’t want to hear it. For the professional poker community, RAKE is enemy #1, but for recreational players, what busts them is the better players they are facing. If the balance in an ecosystem swings too far in the direction of a pro dominated poker game, the ecosystem as a whole suffers. I don’t think raising the rake is the solution to fixing the ecosystem, but I do think reducing or eliminating reward bonuses to high volume winning players is a no-brainer.
Think about it: if you are running a poker game why would you want to add extra incentive for the best players in your game to play more often and longer? Doesn’t it make far more logical sense to incentivize recreational players to redeposit and play longer? If you incentivize the winning players to play more, then its only natural that each game available will be more dominated by winning pros and how is that good for you if you are the one running the poker game? How is that good for the recreational players? The only group who benefits from giving rewards to high volume winning players is… high volume winning players. Everyone else in the ecosystem suffers.
In closing, NO I do not think higher rake is good for poker, but YES, I do think it makes sense to give the majority of the bonuses or rewards to recreational players.
Bhupan also played across the street, and while he lost there too, he didn’t get humiliated and crushed nearly as hard as he did when he was facing a table full of regs. He paid a lot more in rake across the street, but also lost less money. His hourly loss rate was better in the game with the higher rake because the competition he faced was more on his level.
So if you are reading this, ask yourself the following question and be honest: given the choice of these two options, which is a better game to choose if you are Bhupan? Sitting with the sharks, or paying the extra rake and facing off against weaker opponents? Be honest.
If Bhupan was so bad and a rec why did he bother to work out his hourly? If he got completely crushed at $10 - $20 why did he continue to play so high if it was for fun? Why did Bhupan not take one buyin and get some decent coaching so he did not get crushed?
Bhupan seems a bit silly if you ask me.
Maybe he is rich but Rich people generally are not stupid and would understand actually its better if all sites were raked at equally fair levels so pros and recs could spread around.
I think you underestimate how important the regs maybe to Sky are (And I could be wrong on this I am not an economics expert) but the difference in losing regs from a site with 2-4k player base and a 100k - 200k player base is going to be astronomical.
The same case for regs who play sats for cash... guess what without those regs.... 95% of the sats wont run.
In this specific format turbo lets say on avg you get 4 regs and 2 recs per game avg - If you lower the rake I bet you would get close to exactly the same spread.
I appreciate this post is a well thought out but we cant compare the ecosystem of Sky to the ecosystem thats stars talk about- its not comparable.
For clarity the article I quoted was from Daniel Negreanu...
Canada Daniel Negreanu TOTAL LIVE EARNINGS $39,830,194 BEST LIVE CASH $8,288,001 ALL TIME MONEY LIST 2nd CONNECT WITH DANIEL
Nationality: Canada Canada Born: Canada Toronto, ON, Canada Residence: United States Las Vegas, NV, United States $39,000,000 milestone
Canada All Time Money List 1st All Time Money List Current Rank 2nd All Time Money List Best Rank 1st Global Poker Index Ranking 250th Popularity Ranking 1st
Pretty much respect his opinion on poker related matters .
I just simply don't buy into the pokerstars ecosystem ****. Do recs make there deposit last longer with the whole line of casino slots they introduced? or by "the deal" which effectively stops them ever saving enough points to get free mtt entries etc
For clarity the article I quoted was from Daniel Negreanu...
Canada Daniel Negreanu TOTAL LIVE EARNINGS $39,830,194 BEST LIVE CASH $8,288,001 ALL TIME MONEY LIST 2nd CONNECT WITH DANIEL
Nationality: Canada Canada Born: Canada Toronto, ON, Canada Residence: United States Las Vegas, NV, United States $39,000,000 milestone
Canada All Time Money List 1st All Time Money List Current Rank 2nd All Time Money List Best Rank 1st Global Poker Index Ranking 250th Popularity Ranking 1st
Pretty much respect his opinion on poker related manners .
For clarity this is the same Daniel Negraneu who is paid millions and millions of dollars a year to become pokerstars brand ambassador?
Nothing against him I would probably abandon some of my morals also for that’s sort of money
Lol at the Negreanu comment. Have you followed nothing in poker in the last few years?
He's essentially paid a lot of money to make outrageous claims on behalf of Stars. 'More rake is better' springs to mind.
Pretty much respect his opinion on poker related manners
His opinion is not respected in the poker community any more.
Also, live earnings don't equate to live profit. Sorry can't remember the year, but some time in the past few years he tweeted that he had cashed that year for x million dollars but still had a losing year.
For clarity the article I quoted was from Daniel Negreanu...
Canada Daniel Negreanu TOTAL LIVE EARNINGS $39,830,194 BEST LIVE CASH $8,288,001 ALL TIME MONEY LIST 2nd CONNECT WITH DANIEL
Nationality: Canada Canada Born: Canada Toronto, ON, Canada Residence: United States Las Vegas, NV, United States $39,000,000 milestone
Canada All Time Money List 1st All Time Money List Current Rank 2nd All Time Money List Best Rank 1st Global Poker Index Ranking 250th Popularity Ranking 1st
Pretty much respect his opinion on poker related manners .
For clarity this is the same Daniel Negraneu who is paid millions and millions of dollars a year to become pokerstars brand ambassador?
Nothing against him I would probably abandon some of my morals also for that’s sort of money
Lol at the Negreanu comment. Have you followed nothing in poker in the last few years?
He's essentially paid a lot of money to make outrageous claims on behalf of Stars. 'More rake is better' springs to mind.
Pretty much respect his opinion on poker related manners
His opinion is not respected in the poker community any more.
Also, live earnings don't equate to live profit. Sorry can't remember the year, but some time in the past few years he tweeted that he had cashed that year for x million dollars but still had a losing year.
If you actually took the time to read the article then he says categorically that he has never advocated " more rake " . The article has got nothing to do with stars , and neither does he mention them. As far as his opinion not being respected in the poker community anymore , outlandishly ridiculous comment to make with zero foundation. People can make up their own minds if his opinions are valid , I know who I'm with .
If you actually took the time to Google anything on Negreanu and rake you might have more of an understanding.
Got to assume at this point you're just trolling.
I've posted an article by someone who's opinions I concur with . You take time out of your busy schedule of " non posting " , to diss his opinions and my support of those views ....pretty clear who's trolling !
Lol at the Negreanu comment. Have you followed nothing in poker in the last few years?
He's essentially paid a lot of money to make outrageous claims on behalf of Stars. 'More rake is better' springs to mind.
Pretty much respect his opinion on poker related manners
His opinion is not respected in the poker community any more.
Also, live earnings don't equate to live profit. Sorry can't remember the year, but some time in the past few years he tweeted that he had cashed that year for x million dollars but still had a losing year.
If you actually took the time to read the article then he says categorically that he has never advocated " more rake " . The article has got nothing to do with stars , and neither does he mention them. As far as his opinion not being respected in the poker community anymore , outlandishly ridiculous comment to make with zero foundation. People can make up their own minds if his opinions are valid , I know who I'm with .
Have had the good fortune to share a table with Mr Negreanu a few years ago.
He is personable, good for the game generally, and is obviously one of the very best players of all time.
However, his comments were pretty outrageous, and misleading at best.
He forgets to mention that he is paid considerable sums by Stars. He conveniently uses just the 2 types of live player. Not the myriad of different levels that are on Stars. He forgets to mention that, as well as reducing rakeback for the top pros, they were simultaneously reducing rakeback for every single player. At every single level. The "treasure" chest thing must be the nut worst scheme in the industry. And the rake itself remains high.
Do I respect his opinions generally? Of course. Just not the ones where he pretends to be the referee while he has a dog in the fight.
1 thing that needs saying in relation to poker generally, and DYMs in particular, is that higher stakes players have always subsidised lower stakes. And so they should. It costs Sky exactly the same amount of money to run a 28p DYM as a £55. One runs at a loss, subsidised by the 1 that runs at a profit. And so it should. It is the size of the profit that seems wrong.
Finally, Sky have SNGs that run at half the rake of DYMs. I cannot understand why no-one plays the SNGs.
Lol at the Negreanu comment. Have you followed nothing in poker in the last few years?
He's essentially paid a lot of money to make outrageous claims on behalf of Stars. 'More rake is better' springs to mind.
Pretty much respect his opinion on poker related manners
His opinion is not respected in the poker community any more.
Also, live earnings don't equate to live profit. Sorry can't remember the year, but some time in the past few years he tweeted that he had cashed that year for x million dollars but still had a losing year.
If you actually took the time to read the article then he says categorically that he has never advocated " more rake " . The article has got nothing to do with stars , and neither does he mention them. As far as his opinion not being respected in the poker community anymore , outlandishly ridiculous comment to make with zero foundation. People can make up their own minds if his opinions are valid , I know who I'm with .
Have had the good fortune to share a table with Mr Negreanu a few years ago.
He is personable, good for the game generally, and is obviously one of the very best players of all time.
However, his comments were pretty outrageous, and misleading at best.
He forgets to mention that he is paid considerable sums by Stars. He conveniently uses just the 2 types of live player. Not the myriad of different levels that are on Stars. He forgets to mention that, as well as reducing rakeback for the top pros, they were simultaneously reducing rakeback for every single player. At every single level. The "treasure" chest thing must be the nut worst scheme in the industry. And the rake itself remains high.
Do I respect his opinions generally? Of course. Just not the ones where he pretends to be the referee while he has a dog in the fight.
1 thing that needs saying in relation to poker generally, and DYMs in particular, is that higher stakes players have always subsidised lower stakes. And so they should. It costs Sky exactly the same amount of money to run a 28p DYM as a £55. One runs at a loss, subsidised by the 1 that runs at a profit. And so it should. It is the size of the profit that seems wrong.
Finally, Sky have SNGs that run at half the rake of DYMs. I cannot understand why no-one plays the SNGs.
All very well and fair , but what if anything , do you disagree with on the article of his I posted several posts up ?
Am emotive topic, I agree, but let's keep it cool please. It's certainly not trolling, even if we disagree with the points made.
Can this discussion be limited to one thread then please? I started a thread on downswings last week that seemed to do quite well until it was derailed by this same topic (which has nothing to do with the thread I started) being brought up by the same poster
Am emotive topic, I agree, but let's keep it cool please. It's certainly not trolling, even if we disagree with the points made.
Can this discussion be limited to one thread then please? I started a thread on downswings last week that seemed to do quite well until it was derailed by this same topic (which has nothing to do with the thread I started) being brought up by the same poster
You have my sincere apologies for inadvertently derailing your thread , the nature of online conversations /threads is the natural evolution and expansion of topics. That said , you have my assurance I will do my best to make sure it doesn't happen again .
Am emotive topic, I agree, but let's keep it cool please. It's certainly not trolling, even if we disagree with the points made.
Can this discussion be limited to one thread then please? I started a thread on downswings last week that seemed to do quite well until it was derailed by this same topic (which has nothing to do with the thread I started) being brought up by the same poster
All understood, it was maybe relevant on both threads, but it's certainly relevant on this one.
It's been debated endlessly on other Poker Forums & Social-Media, & it always get super hot, so I'm sure some warmth will arise here & that's fine.
Lol at the Negreanu comment. Have you followed nothing in poker in the last few years?
He's essentially paid a lot of money to make outrageous claims on behalf of Stars. 'More rake is better' springs to mind.
Pretty much respect his opinion on poker related manners
His opinion is not respected in the poker community any more.
Also, live earnings don't equate to live profit. Sorry can't remember the year, but some time in the past few years he tweeted that he had cashed that year for x million dollars but still had a losing year.
If you actually took the time to read the article then he says categorically that he has never advocated " more rake " . The article has got nothing to do with stars , and neither does he mention them. As far as his opinion not being respected in the poker community anymore , outlandishly ridiculous comment to make with zero foundation. People can make up their own minds if his opinions are valid , I know who I'm with .
Have had the good fortune to share a table with Mr Negreanu a few years ago.
He is personable, good for the game generally, and is obviously one of the very best players of all time.
However, his comments were pretty outrageous, and misleading at best.
He forgets to mention that he is paid considerable sums by Stars. He conveniently uses just the 2 types of live player. Not the myriad of different levels that are on Stars. He forgets to mention that, as well as reducing rakeback for the top pros, they were simultaneously reducing rakeback for every single player. At every single level. The "treasure" chest thing must be the nut worst scheme in the industry. And the rake itself remains high.
Do I respect his opinions generally? Of course. Just not the ones where he pretends to be the referee while he has a dog in the fight.
1 thing that needs saying in relation to poker generally, and DYMs in particular, is that higher stakes players have always subsidised lower stakes. And so they should. It costs Sky exactly the same amount of money to run a 28p DYM as a £55. One runs at a loss, subsidised by the 1 that runs at a profit. And so it should. It is the size of the profit that seems wrong.
Finally, Sky have SNGs that run at half the rake of DYMs. I cannot understand why no-one plays the SNGs.
All very well and fair , but what if anything , do you disagree with on the article of his I posted several posts up ?
Winning players suck the life out of poker.
Says the man who wins the most. And gets paid extra to tell it to the little people. Effectively, with their money. Twice.
While the recs get less and less.
A great player. But not so great that he can bluff us all when his cards are face up.
Am emotive topic, I agree, but let's keep it cool please. It's certainly not trolling, even if we disagree with the points made.
Can this discussion be limited to one thread then please? I started a thread on downswings last week that seemed to do quite well until it was derailed by this same topic (which has nothing to do with the thread I started) being brought up by the same poster
Lol at the Negreanu comment. Have you followed nothing in poker in the last few years?
He's essentially paid a lot of money to make outrageous claims on behalf of Stars. 'More rake is better' springs to mind.
Pretty much respect his opinion on poker related manners
His opinion is not respected in the poker community any more.
Also, live earnings don't equate to live profit. Sorry can't remember the year, but some time in the past few years he tweeted that he had cashed that year for x million dollars but still had a losing year.
If you actually took the time to read the article then he says categorically that he has never advocated " more rake " . The article has got nothing to do with stars , and neither does he mention them. As far as his opinion not being respected in the poker community anymore , outlandishly ridiculous comment to make with zero foundation. People can make up their own minds if his opinions are valid , I know who I'm with .
Have had the good fortune to share a table with Mr Negreanu a few years ago.
He is personable, good for the game generally, and is obviously one of the very best players of all time.
However, his comments were pretty outrageous, and misleading at best.
He forgets to mention that he is paid considerable sums by Stars. He conveniently uses just the 2 types of live player. Not the myriad of different levels that are on Stars. He forgets to mention that, as well as reducing rakeback for the top pros, they were simultaneously reducing rakeback for every single player. At every single level. The "treasure" chest thing must be the nut worst scheme in the industry. And the rake itself remains high.
Do I respect his opinions generally? Of course. Just not the ones where he pretends to be the referee while he has a dog in the fight.
1 thing that needs saying in relation to poker generally, and DYMs in particular, is that higher stakes players have always subsidised lower stakes. And so they should. It costs Sky exactly the same amount of money to run a 28p DYM as a £55. One runs at a loss, subsidised by the 1 that runs at a profit. And so it should. It is the size of the profit that seems wrong.
Finally, Sky have SNGs that run at half the rake of DYMs. I cannot understand why no-one plays the SNGs.
Hey Phil...am I missing something? Seriously not teasing, but I though the rake on regular SNG's and DYM's was the same? Just checked and they are OR am I missing it??
Comments
My thoughts on RAKE!
So for a while now there has been a misconception that I think raising the rake in poker games is “good for poker.” I’ve never actually said that, but I understand where the confusion may come from because I was talking about some things (facts) that a lot of pros don’t want to hear, and like a game of broken telephone, my position has been distorted. I do not believe that raising the rake is good for poker. Rake increases take more money out of the game and benefit whoever is collecting the rake. That is my position on rake. Period. (Insert Sean Spicer jokes here)
Now, let’s take a deeper look at how an increased rake affects players. I’m going to discuss a real world example from my early days as a professional poker player in Toronto. The casino I played at charges a $5 session fee every 30 minutes in a $10-$20 limit hold’em game, while the game across the street charged $10 a hand! Excluding tips, in the game I played in, $100 came off the table every hour. In the game across the street, they were taking $300 out of the game per hour!
So obviously I chose to play in the game with the lower rake as did many other pros I know because we didn’t really think we would be able to beat the rake across the street. What ended up happening was the game I played in consisted of eight pros and two recreational players, while the game across the street had no pros in it at all. The game with the higher rake was obviously juicier, but because the rake was so high it wasn’t really worth it for me and my other pro friends to play it. Our win rate was still better overall playing in the game with the lower rake.
We used to have this recreational player named Bhupan come play with us and while we did what we could to ensure he had fun at the table, he was so bad at poker that he got absolutely destroyed when he played with us. In our game, he was constantly playing in heads up or three way pots, while the game across the street routinely saw eight players limping in to see the flop and chasing all the way to the river.
Bhupan also played across the street, and while he lost there too, he didn’t get humiliated and crushed nearly as hard as he did when he was facing a table full of regs. He paid a lot more in rake across the street, but also lost less money. His hourly loss rate was better in the game with the higher rake because the competition he faced was more on his level.
So if you are reading this, ask yourself the following question and be honest: given the choice of these two options, which is a better game to choose if you are Bhupan? Sitting with the sharks, or paying the extra rake and facing off against weaker opponents? Be honest.
I know you don’t want to hear this but it just happens to be true. I get why you would scoff and get your pitchforks out when this point is illustrated and not want to believe it, but its true. For Bhupan and other players at his skill level, HIGHER RAKE WAS BETTER FOR THEM than paying a lower rake in a game against pros. Oh no! Did he just say that? How dare he! Turncoat! Shill! Ahhhhhhhh. Say what you will, but it is true.
I understand why me saying this would lead people to believe that I think raising the rake is good for poker. I get it, I really do, but it is not the same thing. I do not think raising the rake is good for poker. No rake is “good for poker.” But you need to understand that a game full of pros is far worse for the game than a high rake. To the extreme, if a game is nine close to equally skilled pros and no weak link, guess what happens to the game? POOF. It doesn’t exist. They won’t play.
Now, if you are the guy running the poker game its in your best interest that your players/customers don’t go broke. They go broke, you have no games, you have no rake. If you are the guy running the game, the number one cause of players going broke is WINNING PLAYERS. Professionals who bust weaker players. When the weaker players go broke, the winning players don’t play each other, then you are left with no game, and no rake. The primary cause of a losing player losing is WINNING PLAYERS. The secondary cause, usually by a wide margin, is RAKE.
If you think about it, nothing I’m saying here should be all that controversial. It’s common sense, but obviously pros don’t want to hear it. For the professional poker community, RAKE is enemy #1, but for recreational players, what busts them is the better players they are facing. If the balance in an ecosystem swings too far in the direction of a pro dominated poker game, the ecosystem as a whole suffers. I don’t think raising the rake is the solution to fixing the ecosystem, but I do think reducing or eliminating reward bonuses to high volume winning players is a no-brainer.
Think about it: if you are running a poker game why would you want to add extra incentive for the best players in your game to play more often and longer? Doesn’t it make far more logical sense to incentivize recreational players to redeposit and play longer? If you incentivize the winning players to play more, then its only natural that each game available will be more dominated by winning pros and how is that good for you if you are the one running the poker game? How is that good for the recreational players? The only group who benefits from giving rewards to high volume winning players is… high volume winning players. Everyone else in the ecosystem suffers.
In closing, NO I do not think higher rake is good for poker, but YES, I do think it makes sense to give the majority of the bonuses or rewards to recreational players.
Bhupan seems a bit silly if you ask me.
Maybe he is rich but Rich people generally are not stupid and would understand actually its better if all sites were raked at equally fair levels so pros and recs could spread around.
I think you underestimate how important the regs maybe to Sky are (And I could be wrong on this I am not an economics expert) but the difference in losing regs from a site with 2-4k player base and a 100k - 200k player base is going to be astronomical.
The same case for regs who play sats for cash... guess what without those regs.... 95% of the sats wont run.
In this specific format turbo lets say on avg you get 4 regs and 2 recs per game avg - If you lower the rake I bet you would get close to exactly the same spread.
I appreciate this post is a well thought out but we cant compare the ecosystem of Sky to the ecosystem thats stars talk about- its not comparable.
Canada Daniel Negreanu
TOTAL LIVE EARNINGS
$39,830,194
BEST LIVE CASH
$8,288,001
ALL TIME MONEY LIST
2nd
CONNECT WITH DANIEL
Nationality:
Canada Canada
Born:
Canada Toronto, ON, Canada
Residence:
United States Las Vegas, NV, United States
$39,000,000 milestone
Canada All Time Money List 1st
All Time Money List Current Rank 2nd
All Time Money List Best Rank 1st
Global Poker Index Ranking 250th
Popularity Ranking 1st
Pretty much respect his opinion on poker related matters .
Nothing against him I would probably abandon some of my morals also for that’s sort of money
He's essentially paid a lot of money to make outrageous claims on behalf of Stars. 'More rake is better' springs to mind.
Pretty much respect his opinion on poker related manners
His opinion is not respected in the poker community any more.
Also, live earnings don't equate to live profit. Sorry can't remember the year, but some time in the past few years he tweeted that he had cashed that year for x million dollars but still had a losing year.
The article has got nothing to do with stars , and neither does he mention them.
As far as his opinion not being respected in the poker community anymore , outlandishly ridiculous comment to make with zero foundation.
People can make up their own minds if his opinions are valid , I know who I'm with .
Got to assume at this point you're just trolling.
You take time out of your busy schedule of " non posting " , to diss his opinions and my support of those views ....pretty clear who's trolling !
Enjoy
Am emotive topic, I agree, but let's keep it cool please. It's certainly not trolling, even if we disagree with the points made.
He is personable, good for the game generally, and is obviously one of the very best players of all time.
However, his comments were pretty outrageous, and misleading at best.
He forgets to mention that he is paid considerable sums by Stars. He conveniently uses just the 2 types of live player. Not the myriad of different levels that are on Stars. He forgets to mention that, as well as reducing rakeback for the top pros, they were simultaneously reducing rakeback for every single player. At every single level. The "treasure" chest thing must be the nut worst scheme in the industry. And the rake itself remains high.
Do I respect his opinions generally? Of course. Just not the ones where he pretends to be the referee while he has a dog in the fight.
1 thing that needs saying in relation to poker generally, and DYMs in particular, is that higher stakes players have always subsidised lower stakes. And so they should. It costs Sky exactly the same amount of money to run a 28p DYM as a £55. One runs at a loss, subsidised by the 1 that runs at a profit. And so it should. It is the size of the profit that seems wrong.
Finally, Sky have SNGs that run at half the rake of DYMs. I cannot understand why no-one plays the SNGs.
That said , you have my assurance I will do my best to make sure it doesn't happen again .
It's been debated endlessly on other Poker Forums & Social-Media, & it always get super hot, so I'm sure some warmth will arise here & that's fine.
Says the man who wins the most. And gets paid extra to tell it to the little people. Effectively, with their money. Twice.
While the recs get less and less.
A great player. But not so great that he can bluff us all when his cards are face up.