GOOD AND BAD SIDES OF THE POKERSTARS STRIKE

Thursday, 05 May 2016

Amaya Games, PokerStars parent company decided earlier in the year to implement significant changes to its PokerStars VIP program. The reactions to these changes seem to have left a variety of different effects.

Let's start with the nature of the changes themselves.

One of the major turns is concerned with a considerable rewards reduction to high-volume players starting from January 1. 2016. The pros reasonable outrage resulted in a three-day strike organized from Dec. 1-3. More than 1000 unhappy players participated in the boycott thus showing their dissatisfaction with the company's decision.

Here is the rundown of the situation from several different angles!

One of the changes made by Amaya is a complete shutdown of the SNE (Supernova Elite) status in 2016. This change directly contradicts the PokerStars terms and conditions that clearly states that those who earn SNE status should retain the top VIP level throughout the following year. One of the key protesters behind the previously mentioned strike, Dani ‘Ansky’ Stern stated that

“They have deceived SNE players about benefits they would receive, are discontinuing the SNE program, and they have completely removed all rewards for high stakes (5/10+) cash games.”

Although it is commonly believed that PokerStars changes mainly impact high-volume grinders, the discussion around the impact on recreational players has also been widely discussed. For example, a TwoPlusTwo thread entitled “Strike/Boycott of PokerStars December 1st-3rd” highlighted some of these "problematic" changes as increased micro stakes, pros moving down in stakes due to rewards being cut for $5/$10 tables and above as well as the poker pro dream itself being undermined significantly.

Even though Amayas strategy might be well received by the a large number of recreational players it does carry some risk because it is known that the pros are often invaluable when it comes to luring players to large MTTs or for example, starting tables.

The issues with the reaction have also been raised. One of the main arguments in this case is the possible insufficiency of a three-day strike as well as a suggestion to avoid it and move to a different site completely. One user voiced his frustration very clearly: “Isn’t it kind of stupid doing this and not visibly switching to another site or something? This way they know you’ll always be back.”

Unless Amaya changes its mind, it is reasonable to assume this course of action might be very probable come January 1st when the changes are first implemented.

While some also claim that this three-day strike may have offered a preview of the site with fewer pros (which is basically Amaya's strategy to make the site more friendly to recreational players) it would be illogical to assume that pros from other sites did not take advantage of this opportunity. The effect is unfortunately impossible to measure but it is reasonable to assume Amaya may have had a chance to see how their site would function with fewer pros than usual. In conclusion, the occurrence of the strike itself was probably the most valuable thing to come out of the situation until now.

Amaya has not backed up on its intentions and we have yet to see it the act itself will yield any results but the fact that PokerStars community of users rose up, organized and voiced their opposition is important. It raises hope that large companies like Amaya could maybe stop seeing their users as some scattered group of individuals and start seeing them as a valuable, organized community of customers that deserve their full respect. The sheer fact that more than 1000 players boycotted the site during a three-day strike shows hope for a future in which "the customer is always right".