Black Friday and the aftermath: Online Poker Implications

[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.

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 was referring to people who are thinking about winning. I.E  Cmabridge Alex decides to play 6max for a living, and he goes out to find a good room and his only intentions are HIGH RAKEBACK deal, this is wrong.

I have already expressed my opinions regarding "vip's" in the thread and think they are really bad for networks and most skins on these networks are in no way shape or form contributing and are basically just canabalistic affiliates who re-direct traffic throughout the network, allowing players to benefit and profit from bonus deal to bonus deal, where they should really be spenidng their time&efforts doing good marketing for NEW player aquisition for the network. This obviously all boils down to the fact they get paid by the amount of rake they produce rather than the deposits vs withdrawls system.. therefore skins cannot profitably do marketing meaning everyone is fighting (basically auctioning) over the "rakeback pros"

[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.

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

 

[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.

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 was talkign more about VIP player retention, sorry to be unclear.

[AlunB]

Haha! Sorry tikay. It did make me laugh though.

From my perspective as an observer/analyst/whatever I think the problem most sites have is they try and compete with the likes of Stars without offering any reason why people should play on their site beyond financial enducements. And then blame the market, or the competition or the recesssion or anything but themselves when they fail.

[pleno1]

Haha! Sorry. It did make me laugh though.

From my perspective as an observer/analyst/whatever I think the problem most sites have is they try and compete with the likes of Stars without offering any reason why people should play on their site beyond financial enducements. And then blame the market, or the competition or the recesssion or anything but themselves when they fail.

Ha it's fine obv. I do this workshop (internally & externally) on a daily basis

Agree fully with this post too.

[AlunB]

Haha! Sorry. It did make me laugh though.

From my perspective as an observer/analyst/whatever I think the problem most sites have is they try and compete with the likes of Stars without offering any reason why people should play on their site beyond financial enducements. And then blame the market, or the competition or the recesssion or anything but themselves when they fail.

Ha it's fine obv. I do this workshop (internally & externally) on a daily basis

Agree fully with this post too.

Was apologising to the man who doesn't know who I am for lowering the tone, but happy to apologise to you too. We should have a beer when you're next in London btw.

[AndrewT]

Alun, it's because making a better proposition for the players (though better software, for example) is expensive and time-consuming, whereas doing a bigger bonus or offer is quick and has the illusion of cheapness, so that's what sites traditionally do.

[pleno1]

I'm going to say a statement.

"Winning players don't pay rake.  Every dollar of (net)rake that is paid has been deposited and lost by a losing player"

Please discuss.

[tikay]

Haha! Sorry. It did make me laugh though.

From my perspective as an observer/analyst/whatever I think the problem most sites have is they try and compete with the likes of Stars without offering any reason why people should play on their site beyond financial enducements. And then blame the market, or the competition or the recesssion or anything but themselves when they fail.

Ha it's fine obv. I do this workshop (internally & externally) on a daily basis

Agree fully with this post too.

Was apologising to the man who doesn't know who I am for lowering the tone, but happy to apologise to you too. We should have a beer when you're next in London btw.

I know you now, but it's still a 70/30 shot that I'll have forgotten by the time we meet again......see you @ the next AGCC!

[tikay]

Alun, it's because making a better proposition for the players (though better software, for example) is expensive and time-consuming, whereas doing a bigger bonus or offer is quick and has the illusion of cheapness, so that's what sites traditionally do.

Historically, yes, now, I don't think so.

[AlunB]

Alun, it's because making a better proposition for the players (though better software, for example) is expensive and time-consuming, whereas doing a bigger bonus or offer is quick and has the illusion of cheapness, so that's what sites traditionally do.

Without doubt. Short termism ftw!

[AndrewT]

I'm going to say a statement.

"Winning players don't pay rake.  Every dollar of (net)rake that is paid has been deposited and lost by a losing player"

Please discuss.

Ding, ding, ding - gold star for pleno.

If you're a winning player (ie net not putting money into the system) how can you be valuable to that network? (Aside from the value of keeping games going when it's quiet, which is not massive)

Winning players are actually competing with the sites for the money from the losing players.

[AlunB]

Alun, it's because making a better proposition for the players (though better software, for example) is expensive and time-consuming, whereas doing a bigger bonus or offer is quick and has the illusion of cheapness, so that's what sites traditionally do.

Historically, yes, now, I don't think so.

What did Party do in response to Tilt going (temporarily?) out of business?

[AlunB]

Haha! Sorry. It did make me laugh though.

From my perspective as an observer/analyst/whatever I think the problem most sites have is they try and compete with the likes of Stars without offering any reason why people should play on their site beyond financial enducements. And then blame the market, or the competition or the recesssion or anything but themselves when they fail.

Ha it's fine obv. I do this workshop (internally & externally) on a daily basis

Agree fully with this post too.

Was apologising to the man who doesn't know who I am for lowering the tone, but happy to apologise to you too. We should have a beer when you're next in London btw.

I know you now, but it's still a 70/30 shot that I'll have forgotten by the time we meet again......see you @ the next AGCC!

Absolutely. Next time we are in the same room I will come over and say hello. I just hope I don't accidentally introduce myself to Jim Bowen...

[tikay]

Alun, it's because making a better proposition for the players (though better software, for example) is expensive and time-consuming, whereas doing a bigger bonus or offer is quick and has the illusion of cheapness, so that's what sites traditionally do.

Historically, yes, now, I don't think so.

What did Party do in response to Tilt going (temporarily?) out of business?

1-0 to you. They upped the rake, via a rake-free Tourney offer. Temporarily......

Are you assuming that Tilt will return? How, & in what form, or guise?

Anyway, enough for now, (for me) I gotta work Online tonight from 7pm until Midnight, & I've been here since 6am, so power-nap awaits. Loving the debate, excellent.