Effectiveness of the PokerStars Boycott Questioned
10 December 2015
High stakes and high volume players on PokerStars staged a boycott for the first three days of December, and it's not clear how effective it was. While they definitely brought attention to their complaints, the main effect was in the high stakes games, and how much that effects the company or the general player pool is difficult to measure. Overall, it would seem that the timing was poor and that there are too many variables to determine its effectiveness.
The Problem With the Boycott
The key problem with the boycott, at least in terms of showing an impact on the number of players in the games, was that the first three days of December were a part of a big promotion on the online poker giant. Because of this, a lot more players than usual were logged in to play, and this obfuscated the numbers by virtually hiding any impact that the boycott may have had on the total number of players logged in or in the game. To give an idea, they peaked at just under 38,000 active ring game players, which is 65 percent more than last week's peak.
If you analyze last year's numbers for the same promotion, and if you look at high stakes traffic in particular, then it would seem there was some impact. High stakes cash game play was down by about 30 percent on at least one of the three days, and a decline was found for the Super Tuesday $1,050 buy-in tournament that had 13 percent fewer players than usual.
The Greed Problem
Another difficult problem to deal with is the simple fact that a boycott of strong players makes the games more tempting for other strong players, and this provides an incentive to break the boycott in the first place. In a poker game, keeping the strong players out is just as important as keeping the weak players in, and that's the reality of the situation that they're facing.
So far, Amaya hasn't really made any comments about the boycott, and it doesn't seem like they need to since there was such an increase in traffic as a result of the promotion. If this boycott continues at a future time, however, then it'll be more and more likely that they speak out, probably with some small concession to the problems that the players have.
29 October 2016No Merger for Amaya and William Hill
Over the past several months, we have heard everything from rumors to press releases about talks involving a potential merger between the Amaya Gaming Group and William Hill. These two entities combining would result in the largest online gambling company in the world. However, talks have come to a halt after William Hill's shareholders showed little interest. Huge Problems on Both SidesRead full article
03 April 2016Amaya CEO Baazov Takes Leave of Absence
In late March, it was announced that the Amaya Gaming Group CEO David Baazov was facing insider trading charges related to events that happened leading up to their purchase of the Rational Group. A number of those around him were also charged. As a result, Baazov has now decided to take a leave of absence from the company, and the timing is about what most people in the industry expected. Nature of the Situation The reason that Baazov is taking his leave of absence is pretty simple.Read full article
28 March 2016Amaya CEO David Baazov Charged With Insider Trading
The Amaya Gaming Group's rise to prominence in the online gambling industry has been a pretty big story over the past few years. Starting out as a relatively small company that seemed to specialize in buying up undervalued online gambling software companies like CryptoLogic and turning them around, they really broke out in 2014 when they purchased the Rational Group in mid-2014 for a huge sum of around $5 billion.Read full article