After a great deal of hype in the media and across the internet, the boycott that was to have shown the online gaming giant Amaya Gaming and its PokerStars brand who had the “force” in the way the game is offered appears to have had no apparent impact, with PokerStars’ overall numbers surging over their usual levels.
The boycott of PokerStars, which began on Tuesday and is expected to conclude today, was a walkout led by Dani ‘Ansky’ Stern. Stern, who has complained about the recent changes by Amaya Gaming to their PokerStars brand – including the discontinuation of the Supernova Elite program on the site – led the charge for a boycott of PokerStars through a post on the Two Plus Two forums. In that post, he laid out the plan and what he was looking to do.
Stern asked players not to play “one hand” of online poker on PokerStars from Tuesday through today, saying it was a “demonstration of force” aimed at showing Amaya Gaming who has the power in the game today. “We have the ability to act as one, to make our voices heard, and to rally players behind a fair grievance,” Stern opined. “PokerStars has made it clear they do not respect us, so we need to demonstrate that we are able to fight back with volume and force… The fight is on, this is the first battle and we will continue fighting as long as we need to.”
From the start, the boycott has been the subject of ridicule from many in the community. A “boycott” by definition is staying away from something permanently to assert pressure until a particular demand is met; setting an arbitrary three day period on this boycott circumvents that pressure. Secondly, the timing of the boycott – away from any of the major Sunday tournaments – has been pointed out by many (there was also talk of boycotting the European Poker Tour event coming up later this month in Prague, but that fell through). Finally, the lack of any support from the pros sponsored by PokerStars – Daniel Negreanu has talked about it (but is not taking part), Bertrand ‘ElkY’ Grospellier or a host of other top names in the game – was something that many found concerning. Remember, two-time EPT Champion Vicky Coren gave up her PokerStars sponsorship slightly more than a year ago because she had issues with Amaya Gaming’s operation of PokerStars.
So what has been the response to the massive “boycott?” The numbers on PokerStars have actually gone up rather than down.
According to the industry tracker PokerScout.com, the numbers on Tuesday were heavily in favor of PokerStars – or at least players taking advantage of a softer game with the “pros” out of the way. After peaking for well over 10 days in the 21,000-22,000 player range, Tuesday saw the peak numbers hit 37,758 cash game players (the industry standard due to players actually staying on the site for a lengthy period of time), more than 15,000 more than Sunday’s peak and 13,000 more than Monday.
For those that might have thought it was an anomaly, Wednesday’s numbers also went against the “boycotters.” Peaking on Wednesday at 25,847 according to PokerScout, it was quite a bit lower than the first day of the boycott but still significantly over the Sunday numbers on the site. With the first two days to extrapolate from, there is no reason to believe that, as Thursday afternoon and evening play out in the United States, the numbers internationally will continue to peak at larger than normal figures.
So what has been the reason behind the failure of the boycott? PokerStars is running a $10 million Christmas promotion, but it actually started more than two weeks ago (November 16, to be exact) and will continue to run through December 27. A scanning of the PokerStars website doesn’t demonstrate any other major promotions going on that would be a key indicator of why the player numbers would jump at this time.
The factor is that the “pros,” including Stern, may have overestimated their power in the deal. Poker players have long been people that operate on their own terms and, when faced with the potential to either make a political statement or make money, 99 out of 100 will opt to take the money with the “political statement” be damned. Thus, Stern’s “demonstration of force” is lacking in the “force” part of the equation. It could also be a backlash against the “1%” by the rest of the online community, who may believe that there is a disproportionate amount of promotional attention given to the “elite” of the game.
There has often been talk about boycotting different segments of the poker world for various transgressions by a certain body or organization. The World Series of Poker, the World Poker Tour, the Venetian poker room and others across the U. S. have been targeted by “boycotts” that all failed (or let’s say “didn’t reach their goal”) due to the general apathy of the poker player. Calls to actually boycott any Las Vegas Sands Corporation property – due to owner Sheldon Adelson’s drive to ban online poker – haven’t had any effect on the overall games at the Venetian as players vote with their feet and their cash and continue to frequent the establishment.
By no means did Stern expect that the boycott would affect PokerStars. “No one has any illusions of sinking PokerStars stock with a three day strike, or bringing down the company,” Stern wrote on Two Plus Two. But if the purpose behind the boycott was a “display of power” of the Supernova Elite and the players overall, as Stern believed it to be, then the boycott has massively failed.
