IMPORTANT - Changes at the blonde Cardroom.

[Dino]

Not quite,playtech own 30% of william hill online,which is a subsidiary of william hill.

[TightEnd]

ipoker do not want their cash rooms full of rakeback grinders and professionals.

Which makes sense when you look at the big picture. Ie new, amateur players are the lifeblood of the network, if they stumble across a 6 max cash game with 5 professional sharks, they are going broke, usually very quickly, in a maximum of 4 weeks, possibly never to return to the game, which is devastating for the long term growth of the network

on the other side of the coin, you have smaller sites, strugglng to make ends meet, paying under the counter rakeback deals in excess of 50% with the sole reason of attracting the same players that ipoker does not want, the high volume pros

the result being an unavoidable collision beween site owners and struggling smaller ipoker skins

unfortunately i cant see any compromise, the industry is not growing anymore, ipoker is continuing to clamp down on what they perceive to be the the parasites of game, and smaller skins have no other viable routes to make a living

ipoker wants the smaller sites out, they have the legals all tied up, it looks like game over im afraid

I must address this, the thrust of which I agree with, and put blonde's card-room in context with it

blonde originally started a card-room in 2006, via a company called Bowmans on the Tribeca software (RIP, long gone but never forgotten)

Subsequent to that Aqua bought Bowmans and a blonde shareholder at the time negotiated a new contract. Also IPoker bought the Tribeca software and closed it down

We thus inherited a relationship with IPoker rather than actively sought one. I personally through two years have found them virtually impossible to work with.

In October 2008 IPoker began its process of cracking down on unscrupulous competitive activity from its skins via fines policies. After an initial hiccup becuase our configuration of players was not naturally aligned with the interests of the network, I am actually proud to say we have not incurred a fine since November 2008 because we have done what we can to stay within the policies.

Now IPoker is introducing a new network policy from January 2010, which characterises each of their players as "sharks" or "fish". I kid you not. No matter that we operate within the previous policy our mix of players (you are all sharks) is such that the auto fine generated by the calculation they are introducing makes it impossible for us to make any money from the card-room.

Returning to clarkatroid's post, we've not put in place unacceptable levels of rakeback. Indeed many of our players play with us to support us despite better inducements elsewhere on IPoker, we're not "parasites" leeching off the marketing efforts of the big boys and nicking their customers. It just so happens that we have some customer loyalty and a forum that helps us promote cheaply.

However under Ipoker's policy we are lumped in as "undesirable"

You really couldn't make it up, and its been an unwinnable battle for some time now, at substantial cost to the company and personal cost to its staff and shareholders and then you have to consider the chargebacks with no audit trail available to us which have cost us thousands. These chargebacks have been a bit like trying to put a big balloon into a small box. You squeeze one part in, try and close the lid and another part pops out. Completely unmanageable.

As to Ipoker ownership, well its a matter of public record that Wm Hill bought Playtech, and a matter of firm speculation that IPoker owns Titan. Somewhere in deepest Tel Aviv where IPoker is based, all this makes sense. However logically insisting that every operator on the network has losing players overall does not lead to a successful and sustainable network.

[Jamier-Host]

Ah, the iPoker Network Policy.  The most recent incarnation is indeed a sight to behold.  Maths had always been a strong point of mine but I gave up halfway through reading it and will have to return to it later in the week.

As clarkatroid was saying, unfortunately Playtech have been somewhat forced into taking some drastic action to try and combat the rakeback cannibalisation in the network.  The ideal would naturally be that everyone played fair and stuck to a cap on "loyalty bonuses" etc. but this was never really going to happen.  Therefore they have come up with the "fine the shark pools and reward the fish tanks" idea.

Personally i'm not a fan, and after getting my head round the document will put my own thoughts across.  I actually quite like an idea that Jonas Odman from Bodog put forward recently as their new model to avoid rakeback wars on their newly launching network.  It is similar to what Playtech is doing, but just not as aggressive.  Basically the rake generated by players is redistributed according to their win/loss ratios.  Therefore a net losing player will earn the skin much more than a net winner, with the biggest winners actually earning very little for their skin "owner".

This avoids the unfortunate scenario that Blonde find themselves in, as there would be no fines and possibility for losing - winning players just wouldn't earn them very big profits.  Interestingly this also massively affects loyalty schemes, because effectively you wouldn't be able to offer much at all for the custom of a winning player.  In some ways it is like the Betfair changes that charge the most profitable traders for using their service.  In this Bodog model, the big cash game winners will be sacrificing loyalty rewards or rakeback in return for nice fishy games created by skins spending money on marketing to bring in the casual players that will earn them the most revenue.

I wish Blonde the best of luck in finding a suitable new partner.  Happy to chat anything through if you want another opinion, although Flushie did try that on the weekend but left it too late and i was too battered to say anything sensible  

[riverdave]

lol deleteaments

[Royal Flush]

although Flushie did try that on the weekend but left it too late and i was too battered to walk or talk

fyp

[ViiperUK]

i've been trying to get my head round all of these algorithms and stuff laid out by iPoker and i generally would say im good with numbers but like jamie i think im gonna take some time out tommorow to properly read through the document and see if i can make light of it tbh.

hope you guys can get this sorted out :/

[Dale]

we need to find a way to get Guy Laliberté to sign up for a blonde account, problem solved!

[tikay]

ipoker do not want their cash rooms full of rakeback grinders and professionals.

Which makes sense when you look at the big picture. Ie new, amateur players are the lifeblood of the network, if they stumble across a 6 max cash game with 5 professional sharks, they are going broke, usually very quickly, in a maximum of 4 weeks, possibly never to return to the game, which is devastating for the long term growth of the network

on the other side of the coin, you have smaller sites, strugglng to make ends meet, paying under the counter rakeback deals in excess of 50% with the sole reason of attracting the same players that ipoker does not want, the high volume pros

the result being an unavoidable collision beween site owners and struggling smaller ipoker skins

unfortunately i cant see any compromise, the industry is not growing anymore, ipoker is continuing to clamp down on what they perceive to be the the parasites of game, and smaller skins have no other viable routes to make a living

ipoker wants the smaller sites out, they have the legals all tied up, it looks like game over im afraid

I must address this, the thrust of which I agree with, and put blonde's card-room in context with it

blonde originally started a card-room in 2006, via a company called Bowmans on the Tribeca software (RIP, long gone but never forgotten)

Subsequent to that Aqua bought Bowmans and a blonde shareholder at the time negotiated a new contract. Also IPoker bought the Tribeca software and closed it down

We thus inherited a relationship with IPoker rather than actively sought one. I personally through two years have found them virtually impossible to work with.

In October 2008 IPoker began its process of cracking down on unscrupulous competitive activity from its skins via fines policies. After an initial hiccup becuase our configuration of players was not naturally aligned with the interests of the network, I am actually proud to say we have not incurred a fine since November 2008 because we have done what we can to stay within the policies.

Now IPoker is introducing a new network policy from January 2010, which characterises each of their players as "sharks" or "fish". I kid you not. No matter that we operate within the previous policy our mix of players (you are all sharks) is such that the auto fine generated by the calculation they are introducing makes it impossible for us to make any money from the card-room.

Returning to clarkatroid's post, we've not put in place unacceptable levels of rakeback. Indeed many of our players play with us to support us despite better inducements elsewhere on IPoker, we're not "parasites" leeching off the marketing efforts of the big boys and nicking their customers. It just so happens that we have some customer loyalty and a forum that helps us promote cheaply.

However under Ipoker's policy we are lumped in as "undesirable"

You really couldn't make it up, and its been an unwinnable battle for some time now, at substantial cost to the company and personal cost to its staff and shareholders and then you have to consider the chargebacks with no audit trail available to us which have cost us thousands. These chargebacks have been a bit like trying to put a big balloon into a small box. You squeeze one part in, try and close the lid and another part pops out. Completely unmanageable.

As to Ipoker ownership, well its a matter of public record that Wm Hill bought Playtech, and a matter of firm speculation that IPoker owns Titan. Somewhere in deepest Tel Aviv where IPoker is based, all this makes sense. However logically insisting that every operator on the network has losing players overall does not lead to a successful and sustainable network.

Not QUITE true Rich.

In the middle of algorithms & equation that made made go dizzy ( & I am pretty cute at Maths, C & G & all that), & legalese eveywhere, it suddenly reverts to forum Kidz-Speak & refers to the future categories as.....


Large Fish

Medium Fish

Small Fish

Small Sharks

Medium Sharks

Large Sharks

Note also the Registered Company is a Registered Comapny!

[Dale]

just shark and fish? no category for break-even rakeback pros?

[ViiperUK]

ipoker do not want their cash rooms full of rakeback grinders and professionals.

Which makes sense when you look at the big picture. Ie new, amateur players are the lifeblood of the network, if they stumble across a 6 max cash game with 5 professional sharks, they are going broke, usually very quickly, in a maximum of 4 weeks, possibly never to return to the game, which is devastating for the long term growth of the network

on the other side of the coin, you have smaller sites, strugglng to make ends meet, paying under the counter rakeback deals in excess of 50% with the sole reason of attracting the same players that ipoker does not want, the high volume pros

the result being an unavoidable collision beween site owners and struggling smaller ipoker skins

unfortunately i cant see any compromise, the industry is not growing anymore, ipoker is continuing to clamp down on what they perceive to be the the parasites of game, and smaller skins have no other viable routes to make a living

ipoker wants the smaller sites out, they have the legals all tied up, it looks like game over im afraid

I must address this, the thrust of which I agree with, and put blonde's card-room in context with it

blonde originally started a card-room in 2006, via a company called Bowmans on the Tribeca software (RIP, long gone but never forgotten)

Subsequent to that Aqua bought Bowmans and a blonde shareholder at the time negotiated a new contract. Also IPoker bought the Tribeca software and closed it down

We thus inherited a relationship with IPoker rather than actively sought one. I personally through two years have found them virtually impossible to work with.

In October 2008 IPoker began its process of cracking down on unscrupulous competitive activity from its skins via fines policies. After an initial hiccup becuase our configuration of players was not naturally aligned with the interests of the network, I am actually proud to say we have not incurred a fine since November 2008 because we have done what we can to stay within the policies.

Now IPoker is introducing a new network policy from January 2010, which characterises each of their players as "sharks" or "fish". I kid you not. No matter that we operate within the previous policy our mix of players (you are all sharks) is such that the auto fine generated by the calculation they are introducing makes it impossible for us to make any money from the card-room.

Returning to clarkatroid's post, we've not put in place unacceptable levels of rakeback. Indeed many of our players play with us to support us despite better inducements elsewhere on IPoker, we're not "parasites" leeching off the marketing efforts of the big boys and nicking their customers. It just so happens that we have some customer loyalty and a forum that helps us promote cheaply.

However under Ipoker's policy we are lumped in as "undesirable"

You really couldn't make it up, and its been an unwinnable battle for some time now, at substantial cost to the company and personal cost to its staff and shareholders and then you have to consider the chargebacks with no audit trail available to us which have cost us thousands. These chargebacks have been a bit like trying to put a big balloon into a small box. You squeeze one part in, try and close the lid and another part pops out. Completely unmanageable.

As to Ipoker ownership, well its a matter of public record that Wm Hill bought Playtech, and a matter of firm speculation that IPoker owns Titan. Somewhere in deepest Tel Aviv where IPoker is based, all this makes sense. However logically insisting that every operator on the network has losing players overall does not lead to a successful and sustainable network.

Not QUITE true Rich.

In the middle of algorithms & equation that made made go dizzy ( & I am pretty cute at Maths, C & G & all that), & legalese eveywhere, it suddenly reverts to forum Kidz-Speak & refers to the future categories as.....


Large Fish

Medium Fish

Small Fish

Small Sharks

Medium Sharks

Large Sharks

Note also the Registered Company is a Registered Comapny!

ye its the fact that its even in the header of the bloody letter!

[ViiperUK]

just shark and fish? no category for break-even rakeback pros?

nope the break down is pretty silly really im just currently attempting to read through this again and try get my head around it a bit more.

[tiltdonkey16]

So what skins/Networks are you now looking at?

[TightEnd]

So what skins/Networks are you now looking at?

I'd prefer to keep that private for the time being. As soon as we have something concrete to announce we will. It is the nature of these things that a lot of phone calls are made, meetings undertaken etc and there are a few ideas from tikay in the early posts on the thread of the sort of things we are looking at

[amcgrath1uk]

Just a quick question. Does anyone know when the withdrawal options were changed?  The way I've always done it seems to have disappeared

[tikay]

just shark and fish? no category for break-even rakeback pros?

Hush you - it's you buggers that have the temerity to win that caused this problem. Can't you try a bit harder to lose? You'd be very welcome if you did.