Black Friday and the aftermath: Online Poker Implications

[pleno1]

Thanks for posting that link Alun - I couldn't remember if I'd read that Laddies were scaling back on poker, or had heard it from within, so didn't like to post on thread if I wasn't sure where I'd got the info from.

Whilst poker is guaranteed margin (to an extent), it's thin margin if you have to use bonuses/rakeback to retain players (which you'll have to do if you're not massive like Stars).

I would say if you have to use bonuses and rakeback to retain or attract players then you're doing it wrong.

1,000,000%

My title at work is basically "Poker Ecologist" the way that these mutli million/billion pound companies/networks/skins run their business is just absolutely ridiculous. The whole system is basically fucked now, if only party hadn't added a sub skin... sigh.

[AndrewT]

Supernova on Stars is only worth something like 27% at base level?

That's Supernova to get a rakeback level half that which other companies used to hand out like sweets.

[pleno1]

Thanks for posting that link Alun - I couldn't remember if I'd read that Laddies were scaling back on poker, or had heard it from within, so didn't like to post on thread if I wasn't sure where I'd got the info from.

Whilst poker is guaranteed margin (to an extent), it's thin margin if you have to use bonuses/rakeback to retain players (which you'll have to do if you're not massive like Stars).

I think that's less & less the case, Andrew, the whole structure of the market is changing, & unsustainable rakeback deals will continue to gradually disappear.

If you don't have a USP as a company (Stars' software/liquidity, 888's fishpool, Sky's Help the Aged employment programme) then you're always at risk of losing your bigger players to other rooms, which is why it's the companies on networks who are suffering the most.

The reason those big rakeback deals are disappearing is because they cut margin to very thin levels, meaning you're relying on volume to make money.

a guy deposits $10k, after 1 month has raked 8k and won 30k, takes 25k off the site, is he really a vip? why? hes just slowly decreasing the sites liquidity.

[pleno1]

Supernova on Stars is only worth something like 27% at base level?

That's Supernova to get a rakeback level half that which other companies used to hand out like sweets.

Rakeback doesnt matter though its ALL about hourly.

Playing 20 tables on great software against soft players on stars getting 27% rb AND lower rake >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  playing 7 tables agianst regs on a shitty, slow software and paying 2x the rake but getting 50% rb.

[AlunB]

Supernova on Stars is only worth something like 27% at base level?

That's Supernova to get a rakeback level half that which other companies used to hand out like sweets.

At base level, sure. But not at the higher levels. I think it's closer to 50% for the really high rakers.

You can, for sure, get much higher rakeback at lower levels of play elsewhere. But I was talking specifically high rakers.

[AlunB]

Supernova on Stars is only worth something like 27% at base level?

That's Supernova to get a rakeback level half that which other companies used to hand out like sweets.

Rakeback doesnt matter though its ALL about hourly.

Playing 20 tables on great software against soft players on stars getting 27% rb AND lower rake >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  playing 7 tables agianst regs on a shitty, slow software and paying 2x the rake but getting 50% rb.

It's like listening to an interview I did with Dominik 2 years ago 

[tikay]

Supernova on Stars is only worth something like 27% at base level?

That's Supernova to get a rakeback level half that which other companies used to hand out like sweets.

Rakeback doesnt matter though its ALL about hourly.Playing 20 tables on great software against soft players on stars getting 27% rb AND lower rake >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  playing 7 tables agianst regs on a shitty, slow software and paying 2x the rake but getting 50% rb.

I could not disagree more. 90%+ of the "base" of the poker player pyramid consists of recreational players, & I'd suggest they have no interest whatsoever in "hourly", they just want to enjoy a little fun poker, or at least, that would be my strong view. "Hourly" & such like is the province of a very small minority of hardcore players, who, in volume terms, mean very little to a commercial business.

"blonde" Membership is NOT representative of the poker market as a whole, anything but.

[AndrewT]

But (as pleno1 said) high rakers are not where poker rooms make their money. They tend to be good players who remove money from the system.

Rake is a terrible way to determine the value of a poker player - the fact it became standard has blinded most companies to who their actual valuable players are.

[AlunB]

Supernova on Stars is only worth something like 27% at base level?

That's Supernova to get a rakeback level half that which other companies used to hand out like sweets.

Rakeback doesnt matter though its ALL about hourly.Playing 20 tables on great software against soft players on stars getting 27% rb AND lower rake >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  playing 7 tables agianst regs on a shitty, slow software and paying 2x the rake but getting 50% rb.

I could not disagree more. 90%+ of the "base" of the poker player pyramid consists of recreational players, & I'd suggest they have no interest whatsoever in "hourly", they just want to enjoy a little fun poker, or at least, that would be my strong view. "Hourly" & such like is the province of a very small minority of hardcore players, who, in volume terms, mean very little to a commercial business.

"blonde" Membership is NOT representative of the poker market as a whole, anything but.

I think you're talking at crossed purposes here.

[AlunB]

But (as pleno1 said) high rakers are not where poker rooms make their money. They tend to be good players who remove money from the system.

Rake is a terrible way to determine the value of a poker player - the fact it became standard has blinded most companies to who their actual valuable players are.

If you're talking to me. I totally agree. I was just clarifying my point from earlier that Stars competes on bonuses/rakeback too. It just is smarter about it.

[AndrewT]

Tikay - pleno was talking about value from a player's point of view, not from the poker room's viewpoint.

[tikay]

But (as pleno1 said) high rakers are not where poker rooms make their money. They tend to be good players who remove money from the system.

Rake is a terrible way to determine the value of a poker player - the fact it became standard has blinded most companies to who their actual valuable players are.

(In reply to Alun).

Perhaps, yes - Andrew has said it spot on.

[tikay]

Tikay - pleno was talking about value from a player's point of view, not from the poker room's viewpoint.

My apologies, I misread that.

[AlunB]

Thanks for posting that link Alun - I couldn't remember if I'd read that Laddies were scaling back on poker, or had heard it from within, so didn't like to post on thread if I wasn't sure where I'd got the info from.

Whilst poker is guaranteed margin (to an extent), it's thin margin if you have to use bonuses/rakeback to retain players (which you'll have to do if you're not massive like Stars).

I think that's less & less the case, Andrew, the whole structure of the market is changing, & unsustainable rakeback deals will continue to gradually disappear.

If you don't have a USP as a company (Stars' software/liquidity, 888's fishpool, Sky's Help the Aged employment programme) then you're always at risk of losing your bigger players to other rooms, which is why it's the companies on networks who are suffering the most.

The reason those big rakeback deals are disappearing is because they cut margin to very thin levels, meaning you're relying on volume to make money.

This deserves more love.

[tikay]

Thanks for posting that link Alun - I couldn't remember if I'd read that Laddies were scaling back on poker, or had heard it from within, so didn't like to post on thread if I wasn't sure where I'd got the info from.

Whilst poker is guaranteed margin (to an extent), it's thin margin if you have to use bonuses/rakeback to retain players (which you'll have to do if you're not massive like Stars).

I think that's less & less the case, Andrew, the whole structure of the market is changing, & unsustainable rakeback deals will continue to gradually disappear.

If you don't have a USP as a company (Stars' software/liquidity, 888's fishpool, Sky's Help the Aged employment programme) then you're always at risk of losing your bigger players to other rooms, which is why it's the companies on networks who are suffering the most.

The reason those big rakeback deals are disappearing is because they cut margin to very thin levels, meaning you're relying on volume to make money.

This deserves more love.

The debate was going so well, too......