blonde poker forum

I was going through the blonde Online Casino Reports today. Our Online Casino is an attachment to our Cardroom, bpc, about which I've Posted seperately.

The Online Casino includes a set of table games - Roulette, Blackjack & suchlike.

I've never played any of them, not even opened them. Almost forgot we had them.

So I was quite surprised,  pleasantly - I think - by the amount of revenue that goes through them. It's a very significant proportion of bpc income indeed, & a 50/50 split quite soon is not beyond possibility at current growth rates.

The oddity about this is that we have never, even in the smallest way, spammed or promoted them. We push the Cardroom as hard as we can, day after day, and it's tough, everyone is chucking rake deals around, there is not much loyalty to Online Cardrooms, & the market is mature. And yet, without any prompting, our Online Casino is turning over a very substantial (relatively) amount of money.

So it begs the question, should we promote it better/harder/louder?

And THAT begs the question, is it morally & ethically correct so to do? Urging folks to play Roulette or Blackjack, is that really a morally decent thing to do? On the face of it, no. But promoting poker is OK........?

Thoughts & comments please, & in all probability, insults too.

I really do not know the answer.

you are welcome

 ;popcorn; ;popcorn;

I gotta be honest i dont think it is right!

I started reading the thread and i dont like to think about blonde getting almost 50% of its revenue from the table games!

But it does, without much (any?) prompting from us. And that in turn helps to keep us independent, & towards the goal of not having to carry adverts.

A tricky moral dilemma if ever I saw one.

The revenue is certainly going to help pay the bills, but if people are prepared to play such games without any advertising, why advertise them ?

They have sought out these games, are playing them, so no need to enter the murky depths of "Is it ethical ?" right now.

most people play them when they are stuck and want to try and donk a quick strike to get even, or when they are hammered and want a gamble without needing to think, so I dont think that marketing the games would make much difference, and marketing it would seem to violate the blonde ethos. Saying that, we are all adults, and its only down to us if we blow money in there, and if blonde benefit when we lose, its ok with me.

 :goodpost: ;iagree;                   ;boltpp;

If someone loads $50 into the casino site and blows it blonde gets $50 ,if  someone blows $50 on poker blonde get the rake on the games played,?

Do you want blonde to be a forum/website supported by a business or a business supported by a forum/website?

The casino income comes from poker players who enjoy a punt. Concentrate on growing the card room and you'll get the same growth in the casino.

Promoting the casino, is probably a waste of effort. It would look greedy and does not sit easily with the general feel of what is a site that is supposed to serve the best interests of poker players in general and it's members in particular.

Let the casino quietly earn it's corn without tacky and ethically questionable tactics.

We don't get the $50 in either case.

In the Casino, we get a % of any "win", NOT the lot, but Loyalty Bonus or whatever does not exist, thus a bigger % drops straight through to the bottom line. On the flip side, we have to stand any losses we make - if a punter wins big, we cop for it. It's the punter versus the "house". (blonde).

On the Cardroom, the punter/player does not play against the house (blonde) he plays against other punters/players, blonde effectively charges a fee (rake, or reg fees), but blonde does not expose itself to any risk, as the player is playing against other players, not the house. We have to give away Loyalty Bonus, thus reducing our income, but it's risk free, assuming we are covering overheads. (Staff & promotional costs).

In both cases, the Service Provider (Bowmans/i-Poker) take a slice.

I forgot that people sometimes win at the casino

I just don't know what to think, but I like this reply a lot. Especially.....

Concentrate on growing the card room and you'll get the same growth in the casino.

And.......

Promoting the casino, is probably a waste of effort. It would look greedy and does not sit easily with the general feel of what is a site that is supposed to serve the best interests of poker players in general and it's members in particular.

The fact is, this dilemma struck me today, & not all the major Shareholders take the same view on the way forward.

So far, I feel pretty comfy with your response, though I'm a bit mixed up about the whole thing, hence the thread - I need help to make my mind up.

If it really does grow at the same rate as the Cardroom, I'd settle for that. Do you have evidence to support this view?

In the long run, the House must win, providing we have the critical mass. But in the short-term, we are exposed to big winners, who can win big some days. And do, trust me!

I didnt even realise that Blonde had a casino but personally I wouldnt go there anyway.

I used to have a paddypower account and discovered they had a Deal or no Deal equivelent and when i was errr "tired" I would play for "fun" and managed to demolish my bankroll on there chasing the bigee...we live and learn.

I have to admit I have done the same on other sites playing Blackjack which I have a very limited knowledge of and roulette which was shut my eyes and click.

I dont think you need to promote the casino because really you just want idiots like me to pop in now and again dont you?

 

I won £5k on 32red's casino about 2 years ago, fruit machine it was.
I get constant spam from them to this day (on my email.com account that i check every month or so) as i am a "valued VIP member".

"Valued" because they want their £5k back!

TK,

When you look back to when Blonde began, why you started it and your vision for what it could be what do you see?

Blonde has surley been more sucessful than you could have hoped for(maybe not financially, but money isn't everything, far from it) and will continue to go from strength to strength. Incidental income from table games is fine and dandy but I really don't think that advertising or pushing these fits quite right.

ps

I'll have £100 on black and let it roll!

All the best

Jezza

Really!! Thats interesting.

Obviously there will be one or 2 big winners playing slots but as your average slot player is just a pure gambler its rare to find someone who walked away winning. Good on you  :)up

I have no evidence, but as you know I have some experience in the gambling industry. I suspect that at the moment your customer base is quite small and therefore predicting that you would maintain a 50/50 split in revenues could be way off the mark. However I think it is reasonable to assume a direct correlation in the growth of the cardroom and the growth of the casino action, but given the small customer base this may well be subject to large deviations. Perhaps Bowmans might be able to provide you with data that would enable you to make more reliable guesstimates?

As you mention in another post casinos are subject to large short term fluctuations. I have worked in casinos that have lost money over quarterly periods (I'm talking about the win/loss here, before overheads are deducted). Running a small casino is a risky business, the edge over the punter is not that great and one lucky streak can be extremely damaging. Making sure you are not over exposed is very important, just as it is important for a winning poker player to exercise bankroll management a casino needs to take precautions to protect itself.

Your dilemma therefore involves more than just the question of the rights and wrongs of pushing the casino, but also the need to grow the business in order to limit the 'standard deviation'.

My feeling is that actively promoting the casino would not be in the best interests of anyone. I'm only guessing when it comes to the amount of business the cardroom and the casino do, but I would suggest that if you continue to grow the cardroom that will be the driver that increases the casino business, and in consequence reduce exposure to an acceptable level. In the short-term you'll just have have to cross your fingers and hope that totalise doesn't go on a tear.

I don't see much problem in highlighting it. There are people out their who play sensibly and will enjoy the experience of the house games. There are avariety of other ways for addicts to lose their money on the net, it might as well go to blonde.

When you look back to when Blonde began, why you started it and your vision for what it could be what do you see?

I cannot take the credit for starting it. It was Dave's baby, he asked me to join as a Partner before it opened, so from there on in, it was "ours", not mine. I was just immensely flattered to be invited on board, & I don't think I really thought it through much further at the time.

Now, of course, we have a much wider shareholder base. And as Shareholders, we have a duty to optimise earnings, yadda yadd yadda.

My vision? I just wanted a fun place, without all the flaming & insults I saw on other sites, something we could grow & develop into a worthwhile venture - worthwhile (in my case, not necessarily the others) meaning just that - "satisfying", a place to be proud of & have fun, to hang out, & to promote poker with a smile. Note, money was not in there. But it takes money to run, fact. And shareholders invest in it, via Shares, & expect those shares to appreciate. I'm quite chuffed at some of the things blonde has done. The Live Updates, the blonde Bashes, the "campaigns" (better deals for Tournament players, better structures, helping get APAT off the ground, the P4C affair), so yes, it's been immensely satisfying - more than anything else, for the friends I've made & met. And of course, because of blonde, I've been lucky to get some other significant poker income, from Poker 425, Poker Night Live, Sporting Odds, Sky, Poker Week, Wm Hill, etc, & the APAT Chairmanship (which is Honorary of course, no income there, but hugely satisfying), all of these things came from blonde, really. So in one sense, though I've never done anything except put money & hard work into blonde, never taken a penny in exs or salary, I've actually had a financial benefit from other places because of blonde. Been some pain, too though, I gotta say......


Blonde has surley been more sucessful than you could have hoped for(maybe not financially, but money isn't everything, far from it)

Absolutely, I agree, yes.

I never imagined for a moment how time-consuming it would become though. And how much personal abuse I'd have to suffer, from folks who are happy to use a free Forum, but who think they have the right to tell us what we can & can't do with it. I guess it's rain & rainbows.

That is a GREAT Post, you clearly understand the industry extremely well, & the maths of it. Oh that I did.....

We all like to think of poker as gambling with a very large dose of skill, allowing one to be a long term winner if ones skill factor is high enough. So, we promote it comfortable from a moral standpoint (even though it must be causing some people damage) - but.. there's enough of a grey area to not get to antsy about it.

Using an extreme to illustrate a point I think pushing the casino would be like pushing cigarettes, drugs or any other form of potentially addictive and then damaging activity - don't really see where the dilemma is unless one lives in a Pablo Escobaresque state of mind.

I made the mistake of clicking the blackjack icon one.  Think I had about $600 in my blonde account at the time.  10 minutes later it was $300.  Enjoy the bucks, but I won't be donating through the casino again :D

The casinos attached to online poker rooms are almost a dirty little secret. With minimal promotion you will be surprised just how much money you make. Because the poker room gets nearly all (minus the network's cut) the money the player loses it racks up quickly, particularly if someone starts playing blackjack for $100 a hand. As much as a lot of people here would consider themselves not to be a casino player, it doesn't take very many to have a punt for it to make some real money.

As long as it's easy for the gamblers to find it, you don't really need to push it much, particularly considering that a large proportion of your users might feel almost offended at being viewed as a casino games player.


I'm only guessing here Claire, but considering you are mostly a low limit/small buy-in player, Blonde may well have earned more from you in those ten minutes than from the whole of the rest of your poker play. Powerful stuff.

We've all seen gamblers drop large amounts in a live casino. Exactly the same thing happens on the internet, except an online casino has virtually zero overheads.

As for the moral aspect, I can understand Tikay's reticence about pushing the casino games. Is there a difference between running a shop which sells cigarettes (among other things), and saying 'Would you like to buy some cigarettes?' to someone as they pay for their paper?

Online casinos are a slippery road downhill imo, it's too easy to get hooked and lose loads in a very short period of time.   It's not something that I'm going to partake in, tried it, enjoyed it, found it too easy to carry on.

I know someone that owes over £45k from online roulette.

surely the casino runs to a guaranteed win % like a fruit machine?

i cant believe that every number spun on roulette is totally random please correct me if im wrong

It is all genuinely random - they're not fixed like fruit machines. You can win on roulette just like you can at a live casino. Of course, the zeroes will get you in the long run.

Surely it HAS to be random.  Even if it is, the house still has the edge.  Or are you saying that the software purposefully selects the winning number based on the bets that the user places?

I don't have a problem with the promotion of table games, but at the end of the day it is your business and we are all (well, mostly) grown up enough to ignore any casino-type plugs or ads you may wish to put up. I don't think poker players can be too sniffy about the subject!

But the problem is solved anyway: by having this thread, Blonde has got all the advertising it will ever need for its casino table games..... result!

PS (I know this was not your intention)

The 'guaranteed win %' comes through the inbuilt mathematical advantage to the house of the games you play.  However, like any probability exercise (e.g flipping coins) the results only approximate to the theoretical figure over a large number of trials.  That's why players can win over a short-term period (e.g. a few spins of the roulette wheel) from the short-term fluctuations.  The house, however, can sit back safe in the knowledge that the long-term results will follow the maths of the game.

Consequently, there is absolutely no need for them to 'rig' the random number generator in any way.  The maths will take care of itself in the long-run.

Blonde needs to fund itself or it will die, everybody understands this and also people who wish to play the table games will do somewhere so you might as well benefit from the house edge. Having said that I agree with the other posters that intentionally pushing the casino to blonde regulars will have a detrimental affect on the ethos of the site and is not such a good idea.

As for how much money you make from the table games, well its like the old saying you can shear a sheep many times but skin it only once. Most of the site regulars are reasonably low stakes players with bank rolls figuring in the hundreds rather than the thousands. The rake they earn per month if they are high volume players will be a significant proportion of there bank roll and if they are break even or small winners or losers this can carry on almost indefinitely. So 10% of a 600 dollar bankroll a month would work out at 60 X 12 a year for the life of the account. Where as if they blow that 600 in twenty minutes at black jack you might get 90% of the sum but they might never come back.


  

If you do decide to spam the casino games, afterwards try closing your eyes, holding your breath, and taking a step backwards whilst clicking your fingers and shaking your head from side to side. (Well it works for me when I do something embarrassing)

then my uderstanding is wrong.

have worked with the roulette machines in the betting shops and always seems that after a machine has had a good run it will then payout a few bob after to level its percentages up.maybe just co-incidence

It is so easy to do isn't it Claire, lol.   I have done the same .  I start betting $1 and before I know it I am throwing in $50 bets, I left Party one night completely broke after having a nice poker BR earlier in the evening.

Did you ever go back?

No,  I only play poker now.  I only play on sites with no casino games on offer .   Blackjack is a lot of fun sadly, but it is too damaging. At least with STT you only lose $5 bucks an hour,  Blackjack can wipe you out in 1 hour .

Did you ever reload on party poker? I blew 600 that took months to build up on UB in twenty minutes and have never been back. As I understand the practicalities of the blonde network (Ipoker) is that’s its shared by multiple skins so Blonde do not require a high number of players to keep reloading to fuel the tanks as it were as other sites will acquire new depositors and reloads. I might be wrong but it seems to me it’s better for Blonde to keep there players in action rather than on a bust/reload cycle. I get RB on a few sites and its significant proportion percentage wise of your bank roll.   

Do we get points for playing them like rake in poker games?

I donked my chips in the League last night and had a dabble at the casino, thank god :)

I went back and did the same again.  Then I realised that casino games are too much fun and were going to keep drawing me in.  I am lucky that I don't agree with betting on animals, so that has never been a problem outside the online world.  But the casino games may have the ability to pull me in again,  so I just stay away from them now and only play on stars.  Poker is my only form of gambling, although I may put a tenner on the next Tour de France .  I would like to play and support Blonde, but I know if I was on the verge of going broke, I would try my luck at the casino games on offer.

I think it's wrong to lump the casino software in with the card room software, not too long ago if you wanted to play house games you had to specifically look for an online casino, e.g. Pacific Poker has 888.com.
These days it's integrated with links within the poker software, this (IMO) is exploitative and rather sad.
If folks go to a poker site it should have poker only.
This (for my mind) applies to sportsbooks too, having your bankroll one click away from the sickness that gambling can be to some folks is a sickness in itself.

The roulette thing is interesting as within a casino with a live dealer you can predict the area where the ball will go to a certain degree, i know that mathmatically it is a perfect game housewise but some can glean a slight improvement of the odds that way.
Also a sympathetic dealer (and a good one) can hit within a very narrow section, there was a guy somewhere in Birmingham that would do this for a cut.

I know of an ex-croupier..probably why he is an ex-croupier, that swears blind he could land the ball in a 5 number section!

Anyway, the tricky thing here is that when we switched to ipoker the casino suite of games (6 currently) was a mandatory take for all skins, so to an extent all of them are grappling with the same issues we are here

Personally I struggle a bit with the casino games in the sense that I find them difficult to resist. Manage to control this most of the time but somehow I find them far more tempting online than when in a bricks and mortar casino where I can walk past straight to the poker room and not feel the lure at all.

I have rationalised this as a boredom factor when at home online.

Personally again, I struggle with the ethics of us as a business (given our communtiy feel.ethos) promoting such games actively


Most people will not have seen, but we now carry a responsible gambling statement link on the front page. I will copy it across in a minute. I wrote it. Given this, this thread has a lot of food for thought for me

http://www.blondepoker.com/index.php?q=node/8452

All casino games are open to cheating/collusion of this sort (rigged wheels, loaded dice, etc).  You hear many scare stories about online games being rigged but any site worth its salt will have its RNG generator subject to some form of audit procedure.  Cheating of the nature described above needs some sort of 'inside' human intervention to achieve it so is likely to be more prevalent in a B&M casino than at a reputable online site, although I suspect it would be very difficult to convince the majority of players that this is the case as there is a natural 'mistrust' of online gaming, particularly amongst the long-time players.  This 'mistrust' extends to online poker too, although there's a far greater chance of cheating being detected in an online game (where hand histories are available) than in a live game.



All you're describing there is the natural variance in the game.  The casino industry exists and flourishes because millions of people misunderstand the basic maths of the games and the laws of probability (if they did, no-one would play them other than for fun).  Just consider the number of people who have some sort of 'system' for beating games which are mathematically impossible to beat over the long run.  Assuming the game isn't rigged in some way then no system in the world will let you beat a roulette wheel, but many people are convinced that they can.

The one exception to this is card counting in blackjack.  Funnily enough, the casinos consider this to be cheating (when in fact its actually being exceptionally good at understanding the game and the maths) and will ban anyone they suspect of doing it.  When was the last time you heard of anyone being banned for using their roulette 'system'?

The sequence of events you've just described on the roulette machines is just the natural variance occuring in the fall of the numbers, exactly the same as if you get 5 heads in a row if you flipped a coin.  Contrary to popular belief the coin-flips don't carry a 'memory' of previous events but as you increase the sample size the numbers will 'even out' in the long run.  This is because, over time, you'll get the same number of 5 tails in a row sequences occuring as you did for the heads, but it will take longer than any person can play the game for to spot this.  Consequently, players are naturally focussed on the recent sequences they see occurring and base their superstitions/systems on this.  The casinos milk this for all its worth on roulette by displaying the last few numbers hit on the board and giving people sheets of paper to log them on.

I agree with this, and its a sad development that's occurred on most sites now.  I think Paradise were the first one I remember who put blackjack links on their poker software.  Party then went completely OTT with it and had all sorts of intrusive links appearing on the table (to the extent that I stopped playing there for a long time, particularly when the animated 'Monster' banners kept appearing all over the place).

Unfortunately, for the poker-only players, the financial results to the sites of doing this were huge, so its become the norm nowadays.  Consequently, we get an interface full of all these intrusive links as they generate a lot of money for the sites.

Ah, that's what happened to all the fish, they lost their money playing blackjack!

The only way recording your numbers on that little bit of paper at the roulette tables would give you an advantage is if the wheel was slightly off level favouring one quarter, where it would be possible to recognise a slowly emerging pattern but it can be safely said that casinos check the level regularly so there is no way this is a long term winner. Plus online of course the numbers are completely randomly generated so there is no way to predict the outcome.
The same can be said with blackjack. As Sheriff said the only sysytem with blackjack that is known to work is card counting which without wishing to get caught you have to be extremely good at, (i believe the worlds best can memorise a deck in under 10 seconds) and also have to vary your bet amounts not so your just betting big when you think the aces/picture cards are coming otherwise it will be obvious to the floorstaff and security cameras what you are up to. But again this system is absolutely impossible to carry out online, whereas in most casino they will have 5 decks of cards in the shuffler, 3 if your lucky!, then it is possible to use the count system as they dont get shuffled until the 5 decks start getting depleted but online they shuffle the cards after every hand giving you no pattern and no system to follow.

If you really feel like donking off your money where you have no edge at all then more fool you i say!
I dont consider myself a gambler so have never seen the attaction with purposefull and willfully throwing money away at a game where you have no chance of winning over a lifetime.
Use the loix theroux (sp?) programme as an example!

I see where some people are coming from with the 'if people are going to play these games, the money might as well go to blonde' arguments.  The thing is, that people that play these games through a site that they have joined with the sole intention of playing poker, wouldn't necessarily be playing elsewhere.  I wouldn't go as far as IFM in saying that poker sites should not offer casino games, what I don't like is the way the blackjack icon is right there on the table, ready for you to click on after going on tilt after a bad night at the tables. 

I did it once, got burned, learnt my lesson and won't go back again, so not too much damage done there.  I'm almost certain, however, that if going to play blackjack on the site had involved actually navagating through a menu or website to get there, rather than just clicking that little button, I'd be $300 to the good today.

very likely indeed.

Terrific responses, thank you, & keep them coming.

I'm much more comfy about where we are now, because it seems to me most of you think the same.

To make a profit you'd only need to eliminate 2 numbers, wouldn't you?

I've written about 10 different posts and deleted them all.

Trying to say what I think without sounding like a pompous arse is impossible.

So I best just keep my big mouth shut.

Shame, as I've just thought of a great slogan for you.

"DO YOUR B*LL*CKS AT THE BLONDE CASINO"

I remember watching a documentary on Sky (probably on Challenge or similar channel) about a Spanish musician who managed to 'beat roulette' and won hundreds of thousands.  It was based on patterns and the fact that a roulette wheel over time will develop tendencies (as the wheel 'wears' over time), and these tendencies would manifest themselves in certain numbers coming up more than others.  He monitored the wheels for ages, and plugged the results into computers to give him an edge.

I've just done a quick search on Google for details, but couldn't find anything.  I'm sure someone on here will know more about it.  Unless I dreamt the whole thing...:dontask:

Croupiers cannot hit sections, those that claim they can are as deluded as the the punters that believe them. Think about it for a moment, the wheel rotates at 20-40 miles per hour and ball is propelled even faster in the opposite direction. Even if you drop a ball straight into a moving wheel it rarely ends up in the section that it intially lands. Any croupier with the skill required to hit sections would not be working night shifts for six and a half quid per hour.

Some roulette wheels may be slightly biased to wards a certain area but this bias only shows after many thousands if not millions of spins. I doubt that any bias would be enough to overcome the house edge. Casinos do check their wheels regularly with a spirit level to ensure that they are sitting level.

Out of the many thousands of roulette players that I have encountered I have known roulette players who have won very large amounts of money over extended periods. These players have done nothing special, they have just been very lucky.

PM me your thoughts please Keith

I'll then put them up for your anonymously!

seriously though, tikay and I would like to hear your point of view

Hi all,

Just to give you my opinion. And before I do let me say that I am the one responsible for us using the Ipoker software.
We had no choice like many other sites when Playtech took over from Tribeca. As part of the new software the casino was one part. Blonde like all the other Ipoker skins have no choice in this matter. Their is no opt out of the software for casino.
The reason I Think Tikay has started the thread was to see if his opinion on this area of business was the same as all of yours. I might be wrong but I doubt it, his feeling is that their should be no promotion of the casino to the public. For the record neither do I or any of the other major shareholders.  As ever though Tikay likes to discuss this on the forum. I think this is a very healthy attitude and position to take.

You know how important your support of the poker room is to us. Our long term aim is to not promote any other site etc. We are not their yet.  I know they wont thank me for saying this but since the day that Blonde was started neither Dave or Tikay has received one penny in income from Blonde. In fact it has run at a loss for a long time with them putting in their own money.
 I have been involved in Blonde for some six months. Between Kev and myself we run the cardroom.  I became involved because I love the site. I could see the financial and mental strain it was putting on the guys and I felt I could help. The idea is for the cardroom to pay for the updates of the site. We want to be able to offer the live reports and results service. We intend to continue the open nature of the forum and allow debates such as this.

What we don't want is for their to be any spam or over promotion to you. If we are self sufficient then we will be saying no to anyone who asks us to advertise on the site. We know you all understand this and we thank you for your support. To this end I add my support to Tikay in not advertising the casino.

Any questions then fire away.

It would just be nice if you could have an option to not offer casino games in the lobby (each persons option I mean)

I've clicked on the BJ link by accident before when I've been multitabling and before I know it, there's a blackjack board in front of me - should I have a quick go????

Just a tick box in the options menu would be great.

I don't have a problem with blonde making money, I can't see how you can survive without it and the cardroom/casino are obviously going to be the big and regular earners.   It would be good to have other things set up like the blonde shop though.  I know selling a few tops and hats here and there isn't going to generate that much, but every little helps.

Are you a mind reader Silo....The shop is only days away. You are right that this is not done for commercial gain. We want folks to be able to get Blonde gear. I feel really proud when I see folks in the Blonde logo.

a few "blonde" days away. ETA of shop Dec 2008. Its been a tough one, the shop

Nice one, I thought the polos that the blonde crew were wearing at bb4 looked pretty smart - looking forward to getting one.


oh not so close then

seriously though, I have a trial order going through now. Assuming it arrives and its as I wish, we will open the shop

Sometime this month.

Maybe.

is it safe?

and can we get rakeback :D

 ;applause; ;applause;

I have to echo what alot of people have said in this thread, promoting the casino would cause more trouble than it would be worth, it is totally against the blonde ethos and is totally different to promoting the cardroom. It would be like when Tony G became part of blonde, but about 5 times more controversial.

As far as im concerned it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference, i only believe in enganging in +ev forms of gambling. I do play 1000's hands of blackjack a month but this is taking up sign up bonuses and monthly bonuses that are in +ev longterm. So if you want to send me a sign up bonus, count me in, lol.

i once met a norweigen poker player, who had a previous life being a computer programmer, specialising in online gaming. he said to me "never play online casinos" and the look he gave when he said it was if he knew more than he was letting on, tho he also said online poker was fine.

no wonder you were surprised to find a card game and not what you really wanted!

XXL polo shirt please

I'd disagree with this.

I used to work as a croupier, and although I personally couldn't hit certain sections I never done it long enough I worked along side folk who could get to within 3 numbers either side of said numbers.

I know a guy that was sacked from one of the casinos in Glasgow when he was caught in a scam with one of the bigger punters. 

In regards to the promoting of the casino, as a degenrated gambler I feel uneasy at the number of poker rooms that are now advertising all sorts of games on their sites where they have the edge.  its too easy when your hitting a bad spell to dump the chips on say roulette and aim for that double up so you can get back in about the cash game.  I haven't given into that urge yet but I can understand why some people do.

I hope Blonde doesn't go down the route of promoting the casino.  I have a blonde account haven't played on the new site much but I will start playing their reguarly as its same skin as Bet Fred and I find the cash game so soft.

If it will help keep Snoopy in pink shoes then, please, advertise the hell out of the wheels of death.

lol :D

Anyone can hit a seven number section.





Approximately 19% of the time...

There are plenty of people who lose a small fortune at poker. Some people will overdo things and lose more than they can afford whether you advertise it or not and whether it's on poker or the casino and whether it's on your site or not...

I don't see a problem with advertising the casino, noone if forcing anyone to play. I also don't think you need to advertise the casino though, how have the current players gotten there?

What some of the above posts have started me thinking about is whether the income is 'stolen' from the card room or whether it actually generated much more of its own income. Does the casino actually draw any new players? And does anyone deposit to specifically play at the casino? Just because half of the revenue came from the casino this month, how much higher would the card room revenue have been if there was no casino? Also how many players lost too much money on the casino and aren't going to come back at all becuase of this, causing damage to the prospective card room revenue?

I think that the casino will of course be making your money, but not as much as the 50/50 it might initially appear.

If someone loses $100 in the casino instead of losing $100 playing poker, it is highly likely Blonde will make far more from the casino loss than the poker loss.

My 2p's worth ... three points:

1.) No 'Casino players' are going to be attracted to the blonde casino, other sites offer a larger array of games, loyalty bonuses, reload bonuses etc. etc.

2.) Therefore the only 'extra' income you generate through advertising will be the current crop of poker players losing money at the table games. I for one do not want to hear of some of the low limit players (and regular posters) blowing their entire roll on blackjack in half an hour, especially when through blonde they have improved there game to the level where they are regularly winning at poker.

3.) It doen't fit well with the blonde ethos. I like Rob Young's vision for DTD ... "A poker room for poker players, no table games"

TBH I was a bit dissapointed when I read Tikay's post, I know that he has shareholder's interests to look after but this seemed an unsavoury u-turn from the grandad... until I read Irish Den's post, this implys TK was against it but thought it should be discussed ... fair enough.

Personally I think casino profits will increase proportionally with poker player numbers and that is where the advertising budget should be spent.

THIS IS WHAT WORRIES ME ... TK stated in one of his previous posts that blonde are directly liable for wins at the casino ... Is that to say if I bet the max five times at roulette and hit each number that comes out of the blonde budget ...and Jen and Snoops can't go to vegas for the live updates??? (This seems a big risk with a small player pool)

The $100 at poker would usually have done the rounds a few times, how many pots could it have been in before it actually gets cashed out? As soon as the money is lost in the casino that's it, no more.

i done in a few bob on the casino

hurt like hell

havent played it since but if there was an option to remove i certainly would

I doubt it, the maximum bet is £15. At 35-1 you can win £525. In the unlikely event that you string along 5 in a row you will win £2625. Hopefully blonde can cover this much at least once  ;)

Caribbean poker has the higest risk (not for definate, just what I could tell), £200 max bet with a possible 100-1 for a royal. They could lose £20,000 in one hand, but if the chances of that were any good, I'd be playing it.

TBH I was a bit dissapointed when I read Tikay's post, I know that he has shareholder's interests to look after but this seemed an unsavoury u-turn from the grandad... until I read Irish Den's post, this implys TK was against it but thought it should be discussed ... fair enough.

What U-turn? Where did I say I was in favour of promoting it?

Please read the opening Post on the thread again, you have misread it, I think.

I laid out both sides of the argument, then said "I really don't know the answer".

It was my attempt to try & find out the rights & wrongs.

In fact, I do have an opinion, but you must read between the lines to decide what it is.

tikay is not for turning.

u-turn? What u-turn?

...... I know that he has shareholder's interests to look after......

This is a very interesting point actually.

As a major shareholder in blonde, I have an ABSOLUTE DUTY (as do all other Shareholders, in this or any other Company) to optimise or maximise blonde's revenues. The problem - theoretically, shall we say for now - comes when a financial obligation clashes with an (un)ethical or (im)moral personal belief.

I Posted the matter because it IS an awkward one in which to find the right position.

But I certainly have not said, in this thread, or ever, that I'm in favour of promoting the Casino. Or against it....

But I have said that I feel very comfortable with the majority of the feedback from the Members.

blonde is liable for all winnings/losings in the casino? im really shocked at that.



public companies have this obligation, not sure about LLC's

Blonde are running a casino. Whoever runs a casino pockets the money people lose, and is liable for the money they win.

Is the casino configurable to maybe hold black jack tournaments rather than playing cash?  That could be fun to have a blonde blackjack tourney where you only fork out maybe $10 to enter and you play against other people - bit like Real Life touneys :D

Could just be a slippery road down hill though...

I've not really got time to write too long a post here but there were a few things in this thread that caught my attention.

As most of you know I also manage one of the iPoker card rooms and had a very similar dileema myself when we moved to the new network - should we take the side games or not?

There is the facility to have anywhere from 0-9 different games available in the client and we were advised by Playtech to fill it up with a mixture of different games (table games, slots etc.) but I wasn't so keen.  I enjoy the fact that I do not need to plump for customers to lose money for the business to make a profit, unlike some of my colleagues who work with the sportsbook/casino etc.  I know many of the regular players personally and genuinely want them all to win as it makes no difference whatsoever to our profit (rake) from the games. Winning players are in fact better for a poker business.

Eventually though it was decided to take only the popular basic games of blackjack and roulette after many discussions within the company.  The consensus was that people who like to play these games will still play them elsewhere - therefore it is more efficient to have them offered as part of one package.  However I have been pushing hard for a way to exclude certain players from having access to casino games (by players themselves or by us in the back end) and this is due in a future software release.

Additionally these games have not been promoted at all to the players and I have no plans to do so.  If someone decides to play them then fair enough but I personally do not want to encourage players to lose money.  (hmmm, I see what you mean about sounding pompous Keith!)


I think that is a roundabout way of saying that I agree with those who have suggested not promoting the Blonde Casino games.


As an aside - the comment about croupiers being able to hit sections of the wheel at a whim.  *cough* b****cks *cough*   :)

I have not had a great deal of experience with live casinos but from what I have read/heard this is nonsense.  Many have claimed to have this ability but so far no one has agreed to take part in a controlled test to prove it.  I'll believe it when I see it.....


Good luck at the (poker) tables.

Jamie.

The why do I get promo mails from Blue Square Casino?

I know that (I suspect) to play I'd have to download a different piece of software, rather than just click on a button in the poker software, but making a big deal out of taking the high moral ground is a bit empty if you know you can rely on someone else within the organisation to push the casino games on players.

Seems like blonde and blue square were given different advice when moving across.  


This is something I would support, particularly if users could request it themselves.  Is this something blonde might consider?

Jamier said......

However I have been pushing hard for a way to exclude certain players from having access to casino games (by players themselves or by us in the back end) and this is due in a future software release.

And Claw responded....

This is something I would support, particularly if users could request it themselves.  Is this something blonde might consider?

Yes, we would certainly consider it. We believe & support "responsible gambling", & if someone asked to be barred/excluded from our Casino, we'd certainly comply. This assumes the software has a button that allows it to be done.

blonde is liable for all winnings/losings in the casino?

Correct.

As a major shareholder in blonde, I have an ABSOLUTE DUTY (as do all other Shareholders, in this or any other Company) to optimise or maximise blonde's revenues. [/quote]

public companies have this obligation, not sure about LLC's[/i]

In fact, you may be, technically, correct there. I apologise if I've misled anyone on this point. But in general, that is the Shareholders Duty.

I actually think this could be a "best of blonde" Thread.

It's a difficult & emotive subject, & yet every single response from Members has been intelligent, reasoned & well argued, reflecting the real character of blonde Members.

I began the thread because I really was not quite sure of the ethicacy of this matter. It's nice to know we can discuss these things openly, & without hoohah.

I too don't regularly play casino games, either online or live, they just don't do it for me.  I understand that these are huge revenue makers and in a lot of cases (live anyway), poker is almost a lost leader to get punters into casinos and, when they crash out of tournaments earlier than they hoped, have a high likelihood to drop a lot more into the side games than they do in the tournament they showed up to play in.

Regards position on non-poker casino games online, there has been a huge difficulty for online sites with regards US punters due to the legislation that has gone through in the USA.  From what I gather, a lot of the momentum for such legislation getting to the ear of congress was due to some horrific stories of sums of money being lost in "online gambling" (and of course the money laundering opportunities!!!).

The poker sites stance has always been largely built around poker being a game that includes a significant degree of skill and so should exempt themselves from the law that addressed online gambling.  I think such a stance gets increasingly weakened everywhere with the greater inclusion of these pure gambling "add-ons".

Ask punters to stand up in a courtroom and relate their experience of blonde poker room versus punters to stand up and relate experiences of any blonde casino games and I think the divide would be obvious.  Not sure where legislation will go ultimately with online sites, but the gambling aspect will never receive a warm (or acceptable) reception from some influential Joe Public bodies imo.  Poker - meh, I think that can be achieved.

stoneii

LOL ;)

In context, he means it's his duty to optimise blonde's revenue, not to mislead people.

Oops!

Thanks fella.

FWIW, I used to play Blackjack & Roulette big time until about 20 years ago. (Can still remember my magic wheel numbers - 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31 - note, all Prime Numbers, I am fascinated by Prime Numbers). And I was a card-counter at Blackjack. Jeez, I've done some daft things in my life.

I have not touched either since, Live or Online, & I am never likely to.  I may, if stuck in a Casino with time on my hands, play a little three-card poker to while away the time, but I don't enjoy it, but I do find idle time in Casinos numbingly boring.

Basically when you register for an account you're details are entered into our central database and (assuming you accepted correspondance) are accessible by our marketing team for all areas of the business.

However should you wish to be excluded from specific product emails then this can be done by using the unsubscribe option at the bottom of all marketing emails.  To be honest I'm not entirely familiar with how this works though so if you have any problems with it then let me know.

Apologies if what I wrote made me sound hypocritical but hopefully those who have met me will know that I have always done what I can to look after our players best interests.

I'm not disputing that - I know you're one of the good guys. :)

Of course, at the heart of all this debate is the question 'How much do/should we need to protect people from themselves?'

Here's a question for Tikay (or anyone else to answer).

Which would you rather happen.

1) A member of the Blonde forum loses $2000 playing roulette through giving it a go following a Blonde mailing/promo message, and then the $1500 or so of Blonde's cut from that is used to help pay for an extra day of live tournament updates.

2) The promo activity doesn't happen, the player's $2000 stays in their account, and the day's live update doesn't happen.

I suspect it's a tough decision for many people (but not me, as I'm quite clinical about such matters).

depends on how much the player had in their account.  For some $2000 won't make much of a dent, so I'd not be too bothered about them essentially funding the live update.  If it was someone's entire bankroll blown in a moment of madness, I'd much rather scenario b.

The question is hypothetical, because we have never spammed or promoted the casino, & I doubt we ever will.

It's nice up here on that Fence the blondes gave me at bB3.

how much would someone need to lose in the casino to get their own child board

How much money does someone need to have for you to feel comfortable with them deciding for themselves how to spend it?

OK - i'll rephrase it.  It would depend whether $2000 was an amount which the person concerned was comfortable losing (in the same way I'd be comfortable gambling away a few quid on a night out at a casino).

No need when you can start a forum thread telling everyone about it...  :)


Confucius says 'He who sits on fence gets splinters in arse.'

Some people are comfortable gambling away every penny they have.

Welll asking, actually.......But yes, it has had the same effect, I'll grant you. Been a great debate, imo.

At least a quid, for a fiver they can have a proper Board.

I don't expect they would be the people described in your scenario as 'a member of blonde giving it a go following a mailing/promo message' though.  If someone's worked up a bankroll and are genuinely comfortable having blown it on roulette - no problem.

If the member in 1 is not me, then 2 would be my choice.

What is your clinical decision then Andrew?

Totalise - Claw's given you the green light!!!

*awaits introduction of 'Totalise Board'*

It's just as possible for people to lose their whole bankroll or more than they can afford at poker. Does anyone have a dilemma with someone losing money at poker? Peeople need to use their own restraint, whether it be the poker room on the casino. It's upto them what they do, it's their choice.

Personally I wouldn't like to see casino banners everywhere simply because it would be in the way and is pointless to me (as it won't attract me) but not becuase of any moral dilemma.

I think we're all intelligent people. We're all aware that casino games are -EV. With that in mind, and knowing that the money Blonde makes is not going to fatten up the already fat account of some scumbag on a tropical island somewhere, then I don't think Blonde should restrict a revenue stream just because it 'feels wrong'.

Obviously, they'd never go to the extremes of other casinos with unwanted spam, or continued pestering of players, but going out of your way to hide the games because you feel they're unseemly, or because you don't trust other people to be as grown-up and responsible as you are is not the way I'd go about things.

sounds good, I was thinking of sponsoring a "bad beats and blogs" child board, with moderator powers. It would be the only forum on the internet where all threads were deleted on sight and all posters insta-banned. I think it has potential

Your argument fell down there unfortunately.

Because Blue Square is a partner on the network, blonde is an affiliate of Bowmans who are the partner. Bowmans would have been given the option.

I don't like Roullette/Blackjack like gambling at all, online or offline. I can *kind* of see the argument for letting people do it if they want. I just think that people that do it are making the wrong choices. That's up to them. Overall, a society without this type of gambling is a better society, in my opinion. For every well off individual in a casino 'exercising his freedom' I see two people with lives wrecked by an addiction that they are chained to. Some 'freedom' that.

Not sure I swallow the 'Absolute obligation to shareholders' argument either. How do certain moral obligations become void when one is part of an organization with shareholders? When was that rule ever written down? Do the big Fag companies have an absolute moral obligation to peddle cancer sticks to Third World Kids?

I'm just interested in this 'absolute obligation' thing..

Tikay's believes in a Thatcherite style free market whereby the only responsibility a company has is to maximise profit.

This creates problems for him because his belief in the ruthless power of the market clashes with his character and his idea of social responsibility.


(He's a pinko in disguise)

he'd never win the apprentice

You are quoting me incomplete, & out of context, let's keep the debate straight.

What I said was.....

As a major shareholder in blonde, I have an ABSOLUTE DUTY (as do all other Shareholders, in this or any other Company) to optimise or maximise blonde's revenues. The problem - theoretically, shall we say for now - comes when a financial obligation clashes with an (un)ethical or (im)moral personal belief.

And that is precisely what I mean't.

PLC's Shareholders have an absolute duty to maximise earnings, & moral obligations don't enter into it. That is a clear, unarguable, FACT, & it's clearly written down. Apparently, that may not be the case with unlisted Ltd Companies. (For example, blondepoker web Ltd).

My position is quite clear. If I considered it to be immoral or unethical to trade in a particular manner, I'd refuse to trade thusly. And if that clashed with my fiduciary responsibilities, I'd resign from the Company. It's that simple.

PLCs also have moral obligations, and they make decisions that can reduce the profit they could have otherwise earned.

For example the building of a dam might affect people living in the area, so a company has to either locate their operations elsewhere (at a higher cost), or maybe even relocate the indigenous people to another place where they can live safely.

Well I may or may not believe in a Thatcherite style free market, that's irrelevant. What is relevant is Company Law, which in the case of a PLC, requires no concession to moral obligations in pursuit of maximising profits. That was my point, not what my belief was.

This creates problems for him because his belief in the ruthless power of the market clashes with his character and his idea of social responsibility.

That sums up my position absolutely & precisely.

Pinko? May be, maybe not......;)

It is the Duty of every British plc, enshrined in ther lst Companies Act, to have a statement of Social Responsibility. No PLC, in whatever industry, seeks to maximise earnings at the expense of all its stakeholders

yer, I'm certainly not having a pop. It's just that I've studied this matter in great depth (by that I mean I've watched 'Thank you for Smoking', twice), and am interested to know where things stand on all this. I did work for a big blue chip once, I'll never forget the VP's memo that ran 'do not be under the illusion that this company exists for any purpose other than to maximize the profits for shareholder value'.
Interesting debate, I shall keep a close eye for the opinion of those infinitely more qualified to speak on it than I.

They will & do build their dam or airport or whatever, where ever it's most cost-effective unless Instutional Investor Pressure or public/Government lobbying such that it becomes long-term -ev comes into play. How do you think Petroleum refinery & storage complexes come to exist in residential areas, waste-disposal plants ditto, or that tobacco Companies continue to make their death sticks? Because they have a fiduciary responsibility so to do. Their shareholders approve of such action!

"Social Responsibility" clauses are one thing, but if it was really the case, rather than just a sham token statement for the wets, how do tobacco compsnies survive? Because the responsibility to maximise earnings over-rides it.

lol yes you see that a lot when the directors have stock options written into their contracts

I think there are a few countries that haven't yet made methamphetamine illegal. Probably be some profit in that.

they survive because there is a stable (and in some markets growing) demand for their product. This allows them to generate a lot of cash and reward shareholders handsomely

Doesn't mean they don't have a Social responsibility statement though, they have to have one.

this isn't secondary to maximising earnings. If it was earnings would be higher

Yes, it exists, just as a statement of ethnic equality exists in our institutionally racist Police Forces, or a Statement of equal treatment for Disabled Employees or pregnant women exists in every Private Ltd Company - not because they believe in it, or want it, but because they are obliged to state it. Fudging it is the easy bit.

Plus tobacco companies fund most of the bloody government!!!!
So you could argue the more profit they make the more hospitals get built :D

thats a very cynical view, albiet understandable.

The vast majority of UK corporate directors take their social and non profit responsibilites seriously.

Good post.
Smokers/ex smokers should get Absolute NHS priority. They've coughed up enough for it.

tikay's view, not ifm's. which has some truth to it!

They do paragraph one, & fudge paragraph two, you well know that Rich! It would be impossible to market tobacco products otherwise. The fact that a demand exists means they will supply it, ethical or not, "Social Respohsibility" statement notwithstanding.

If "earnings could be higher", they would be.

I like Microsoft and Bill Gates. Despite their imperialism and crap products, at least you know that a bit of what you buy is stopping some third world kids dying at 3 months.

I am sorry, but that kite don't fly. They have to please the City, & the Institutions, & only profit matters. They simply pay lip-service to their social obligations - until & unless, of course, it affects their share price. Then they become all socially responsible & cooey-wooey.

Seconded.

Ditto google, who at no cost to anyone except themselves, are digitalising the entire human genome, such that the entire scientiftic & medical community can simply google such critical & vital information - for free. And digitalising thousands of books from the World's best Universities, so better for anyone, anywhrere in the world, to have free access to them.

Very interesting thread.

I've always hoped that Boss Media (software suppliers for my company's poker room) would introduce a blackjack / roulette button into their software, as I've heard that the casino part of a poker room can, initially, make up to 50% of the total income earned from that room, without reducing the poker part of the income by any significant amount (if that makes sense?). e.g. you can almost double your income by simply chucking in a "play blackjack" and "play roulette" option.

Incidently, we run a seperate casino to our poker room, but so far haven't cross-marketed it to our poker users - or vice versa even. We have marketed our poker room to an instant-win site we run (with tens of thousands of users) and the take up was abysmal (about 0.1% !). I assume that this is because those who choose to play instant-win type games (scratchcards, hi/lo style games etc) aren't interested in other areas of gambling like poker, or even casino based games. Perhaps the same is true in trying to convert poker players to play blackjack, and casino players to play poker - in any great numbers anyway.

Following on from this, I did hear some interesting facts from two seperate sources from two of the bigger poker rooms on the net. They both had implemented blackjack to their sites for over a year, and had found that to start with the profits soared. However, within 6 months they found they were only just operating above what they'd have been operating at if they hadn't introduced the games at all.

I guess the novelty factor wears off, and those that want to play poker stick to playing the poker. Those that want to play in a casino, will sign up to a site that offers a better incentive than a poker site. This might not be true of all skins of all software, but from the two operators I spoke to, it seemed to be true in their cases.

Thirded. Bill Gates, top bloke, is going to give his whole fortune (aside from a measly few million to his kids ;)) to a charitable foundation. lol philanthropistaments! :)

I dunno about that, when our company (part of TI) were bought by Smiths group we had to be environmentally friendly, if any TI company didn't achieve ISO14001 they were closed regardless of profit.
We have recently been bought by General Electric (one of the biggest companies in the world) and even though we comply with every environmental regulation there is we have had a huge audit and a list of 96 items that need to be addressed and GE have done this with EVERY company they own at enormous expense, sacrificing profit.
These are all items deemed unnecessary by environmental law.

I thought you worked for Rolls Royce Ian?

If not, I better sell my lovely shares in them. They were £5.05 at C0B today.

Not for them but we are their biggest supplier of engine rings and casings, also every other turbine engine manufacturer in the world.
Funny thing is GE are RR's biggest competitor and because of this we cannot have GE in our company name at all because RR may think we are taking the p**s :)
So we are going to be called Unison something or other.

I guess one can understand the "touchy" thing between RR & GE, who, with P & W, dominate the Aero Engine market but are fierce rivals. I believe RR have spent £12 billion on R & D in the last decade, most of it on the RB11 derivatives, that's a whole lot of dough. Fortunately, with the after-sales spares merket locked up for the life of the engine, I think they make more money from spares, over the engine's life, than the engine itself. Bully for them.  It has to be said, Aero-Engines are remarkably reliable & efficent. They use to test them over at Hucknall, I believe, also in Derby, Victory Road was it?

God Bless Mr Whittle, or Sir Frank as I believe he became.

I once watched their engineers firing chickens into an engine at hucknall, awesome sight!!
Aerospace is cyclical, every 7 years, it is now on a major upswing worldwide apart from RR to an extent because of all the delays with the europlane watsitcalled.
RR is a design house now, they do very little manufacturing and have closed most of their factories, the vast majority of machining is done in China.

They actually judge the markets by how many planes are parked up in the desert in Arizona (i think), the more parked up the less demand etc. it's incredibly accurate, always makes me giggle that.
We have monthly briefs and that is always reported on with graphs and pie charts :D

Spares is a bit misleading as they pretty much rebuild them every few years, we make spares for engines out of production for over 20 years!!!

Were they thawed out? http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blthaw.htm

Harsh, but fair.

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/norfolk/music/gigs/images/simply_red/mick_hucknall_270.jpg)

I'd pay to fire chickens at him.  A lot.  They'd be frozen as well.

I can assure readers that Corporate and Social Responsibility is not only a requirement as Tighty said, it is also high on list of expectations of many stakeholders. It is practised rigorously by many FTSE-100 companies as well as public sector bodies, and is a key principle to which I, as a procurement professional, am required to adhere.

"Procurement Official". We used to call them "buyers"!

FYP

""Procurement Official". We used to call them "buyers"!"

LoL in the same way that "Fuel Injection Engineers" used to be called petrol pump attendants.

For your information:

http://www1.cips.org/aboutcips/whatwedo/professionalcodeofethics/

Whilst I consider the acceptance of bribes to be gross misconduct and grounds for dismissal, as do all right thinking people working in purchasing and supply, I can accept the slanderous post-fix in the spirit intended.

I wish the Blonde cardroom and its parent organisation every success.

I am a procurement professional as well and corporate freebies is then one thing that gets a heated debate going. For me it is how to fit them in the diary.  :D