The blonde Online Casino

[RichEO]

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.

[AndrewT]

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.

[Jonboy]

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)

[RichEO]

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.

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.

[bhoywonder]

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

[RichEO]

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)

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.

[tikay]

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)

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?

[tikay]

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)

...... 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.

[totalise]

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

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.

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

[AndrewT]

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

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

[Graham C]

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

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

[Jamier-Host]

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.

[AndrewT]

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!)

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.

[Claw75]

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.

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

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

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.

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

[tikay]

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.