I have moved away from stars in terms of spend. The data shows EXACTLY that.
Well according to Sharkscope you never "spend" a dollar, since you won more from freerolls, than you paid in rake for other regular tournaments.
My point is that it used to be fun. Full of challenges. I used to play cash games, zoom, as well as knock-outs and bounty builders. Used to play Sunday storm a lot too.
If all you see are freerolls, it demonstrates I've moved away from investing money in poker stars...as I indicated.
Sharkscope show your entire playing history as far as tournaments go. It does not track cash games, casino games or sportsbetting though. However just because you provoked me, I did a bit of googling and found a site called Statname, which track cash game players. And according to that site you have only played 146
hands in cash games on PokerStars with your favourite limit being 10NL. With 8BB / 100 being a typical rake, you have only paid a dollar and change in rake in cash games, so it does not change the conclusion at all.
You don't have to approach the question like you're some sort of private detective trying to catch people out.
If you don't understand the data, ask. No need to be a jerk about it. Or do you love driving people away from CC too?
I just think, people should check themselfes before posting things like the quote below.
I encourage everyone to vote with your feet and show the sites that they cannot function without us. They need us. Its high time we start using our power.
I am tired of reading these "PokerStars should burn down, because they no longer give me as much money, as they used to in the past" comments. Do you really think, you are an indespensable customer, when your main activity has always been to play freerolls?
Also -- you are incorrect about Stars being in a better position if I left. They would not. Your logic is flawed. They would not continue to get Rake. If I had never played there, they would have lost my rake, but would not have saved any money as all those winnings would still go to someone else.
If less people play freerolls, then sites can offer less of them or cut down on the price money and still give the remaining players the same chance of winning. So your reasoning is just as flawed as saying, it does not cost anything for an airline to offer you a free seat, since the plane is flying anyway. In the very short term this might be true, but in the longer run airlines adjust their schedule to the number of paying customers. And so do
poker sites.
the only way they lose money is when rake does not cover prizes (OVERALL) + fully loaded business costs (ie people, buildings, servers, electricity, etc.,)
Yes like in freerolls, where the income is zero.
If you run a business and your customers stop spending money on you and only take the free road, then you've done something wrong.
But this is, what you have been doing the whole time. The overwhelming majority of your tournaments played on PokerStars are freerolls, and this is not just something, that began recently. Maybe you are playing even less regular games now, but you never played a significant number of them at any point. This is a list of your most commonly played games according to Sharkscope:
1) Scheduled ST+SAT $0 - 4799 games
2) Scheduled TSAT $0.33 - 1184 games
3) SnG T $0.5 9 player - 715 games
4) Scheduled ST+SAT £0 - 403 games
5) Scheduled N $0 - 267 games
6) Scheduled ST+SAT6 $0 - 184 games
7) SnG T $0,1 360 player - 119 games
8) SnG ND $0,25 - 117 games
So basically a bunch of freerolls and penny games, with the latter obviously generating very little rake. And this is why, your total rake payment is only $557 over a period of 4 years despite also playing a few more expensive games like Sunday Storm.
