How are they benefiting if they are giving away all rewards including SP they receive?

This alleged bait and switch is far from clear either.

UPDATE EDIT: Well .. now that I have read the fine print, I can see that it does say that they will be liquidating all the AUTHOR REWARDS for EACH AND EVERY one of these Re-Distribution Game posts, and giving it all to the handful in the 'prize pool' .. well, that's awesome. It still does not change the fact that the initial gains they made were based on an offering that made a great many people, 'something', instead of enriching a few. It may not be about amassing @steemsport's STEEMPower it may just be a way to continue to promote themselves .. fine .. but wow, now I am thinking it is just plain stupid! I mean, imagine the work they are going to put into this, so that a handful of people can be made phat? Silly.

I stand by the claim of "Bait-and-Switch" as it is still the case .. the gained support based on the false-assumption that the model would continue to exist - it no longer does, because it does not 'serve their purposes'. They want to give a little back to a handful of people .. great .. for the majority of us, it is an entirely empty and irrelevant gesture, paid for with our curation. :)

I did and what you claim in your headline is not supported by the contents of this article. Would you care to elaborate on what is being baited and what is being switched?

THE ENTIRE THING IS !!!

But Nevermind .. you WIN! :-) Let them continue to powerdown all the SP you give to their non-curating juggernaut, while chasing your 10% chance to be in their illustrious spread pool!? lol f**king ridiculous

I am sure they will put that liquified SP to good use ...funding their.'outside-the-community' purely-4-the-profit-of-very-few project. The only people who should be defending them should be in on that cheesecake, otherwise they risk appearing very silly. :)

You can't even name exactly what is being baited and what is being switched, hardly compelling. Trying to make sense of your non-sequitur isn't defending them either. You have failed to make a coherent argument in support of your sensationalist headlines.

Haha asking you to elaborate on your point is aholey, that's a new one. Let's be real if anyone here is being an asshole it's obviously you. I'm just asking you to clarify your allegations.

You claim a bait and switch and yet are unable to demonstrate the bait or the switch.

You repeated yourself again cj :)

Do you not see any point to what is being said here, because I sure as hell do! In-fact I agree entirely!

I believe the bait-and-switch is also fairly obvious. @steemsports presented itself to the community in a particular way, gained support with that, amassed a great deal of STEEMPower (SP) - the support they gained was in no-small part from a great many smaller members who found it a 'fun' way to continuously add to their modest SP holdings. Everyone who had a vote bot listed them, because it was also profitable for curators.

Then they said no more and compelled people to put money at risk. The immediate response was that their posts stopped receiving support, dropping to all-time lows. THEN, when they realized that they would not be missed if they left STEEMIT entirely .. this game .. which is, kind of a mess.

@free2play may be wrong about the STEEMPower thing .. they do say that they will be liquidating it and distributing it to the winners, but a prize, no matter the size, going to a handful of knuckleheads, that is not SERVING THE COMMUNITY .. it is serving a handful of knuckleheads. ;-)

RESTEEMED!

Thanks @kurtbeil for making an attempt to clarify the perceived bait and switch. I disagree about there being any sort of bait and switch though. They came up with an idea and became popular and were rewarded by the system. I often played their games for the tiny bit of steem I might win, the curation rewards and fun. Yes they got rewarded and amassed a nice little warchest but that was always completely transparent and the 104 week power down made awarding funds from vested rewards prohibitively complicated.

There was no bait and switch in that.

The rest seems to be entirely speculation. I would like to see evidence supporting that the move to paid bets was a part of a diabolical scheme since on the surface it looked like nothing more than trying to adapt to popular requests as well as pressures from factions of the community criticizing them.

They did a trial of paid betting on election night and it was very successful. Paid betting and a dedicated interface were touted long ago. Then more recently we saw flags from Steemit Inc's CTO and others over vote buying and it making the front page look like a sports betting forum or because they thought the rewards were too high etc. Add on the catastrophe that was Steemygames which was a poorly thought out attempt to address the sports betting optics issue.

They had whale supporters drop out or make demands for more complex games so that bots aren't being rewarded. They also had writers drop out because of their caving to demands. That is what gave way to the current shit show of complicated, low-odds rules we see now.

Nowhere is there a bait and switch though. There has just been a long history of trying to acquiesce to community and whale supporter demands.

I don't like the structure of the new games and the odds but in no way feel scammed or that a bait and switch has transpired.

I will let you in on a loose secret, steemsports is controlled by the whales listed as supporting them. They are the ones responding to community pressures and making demands of various changes to the structure and amount of posts from steemsports at threat of removing their support. Various whales have various opinions and demands.

If you really have an issue with something you should be taking it up with the supporting whales that have steemsports by the balls with their support.

Cheers @contentjunkie .. I'm a fan!

You are correct I believe - if these Re-Distribution Games were presented by an entirely new individual or group, everyone would and should give a standing ovation. Unfortunately, @steemsports has some baggage. People may not be happy, with reason, but you are also correct .. it is their baby, and although we can be critical, we can not ask them to stop what they are doing - that is what freedom is all about, and the market will decide. Judging by the # of people participating the market has decided. :) I for one very much enjoyed the old @steemsports .. I was a rabid supporter, totally willing to throwdown with their adversaries. I wish, for the sake of everyone who feels the way I do, to have something like it return, so I will support @free2play if they continue - but they should really chill out and gather all the facts before flying-off - maybe just having a rough start and did not like the fact that @steemsports returned with this 'thing'.

Cheers man!

Oh damn, now I am going to have to admit it. I admit that when I saw the new game I freaked out, without absorbing the detail. I apologize for not doing the same with your comments @contentjunkie, please accept. I was working hard to gain some support and have been rushing thing, will be slowing down to build a more solid base. I edited my initial reply to your first comment, I do still believe that they abandoned their supporters as soon as they met a little resistance, that negatively impacted their individual bottom-lines, and that they had planned for this change to pure-profit based on players taking on risk, from the start - so this is the source of my accusation.

I will do as @kurtbeil suggests and chill-out now.

Thank you for your patience and understanding.

We understand, you want to do something for those who do not have a lot, and you feel these big players have cut and run with the town's gold - you are not alone, but if we reserve the right to behave badly from time to time, we also have to allow others to do the same. :)

Keep at it, you will have my votes - which unfortunately are worth very little. haha

We all make mistakes. It is very big of you to own it.

This post has been ranked within the top 50 most undervalued posts in the first half of Jan 11. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $4.61 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.

See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Jan 11 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.

If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.