Death of the 'Big 4' [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

Sundevils21

11-15-2004, 09:09 PM

what about the new site that Daniel Negreanu is sponsoring, Pokermountain? here is what he has to say about the site and the people involved...
"It's up right now for play money and should be up for real money any day
now.

I'm extremely excited about the site and waited a long time for a winner
like Poker Mountain to come around. I've turned down several deals with
online poker sites because they lacked in one area or another.
Poker Mountain doesn't lack in any areas in my opinion. They are
extremely well funded and dedicated to providing a top notch product. All
of the people involved, while knowledgeable poker players themselves have
proven themselves successful in other business ventures in the real world
and that attracted me.
Poker Mountain developed an alternate payment option called Securus that
allows for speedy transactions as well as accepting all major credit
cards.
As for what will make them better? Well, I am confident that they are
willing to spend the kind of money it takes to fully promote a site
properly by giving back to the players in various ways.
Of course the one thing that will seperate Poker Mountain from the rest
is the speedy transactions. You can get money in your account quickly,
and will recieve your money faster than any other site on the net. From
what I can tell by reading RGP, that seems to be a pretty important factor
for most players."

I am in no way affiliated with Poker Mountain, Im just intrigued by what DN had to say about it.

Alobar

11-15-2004, 09:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
serious question alobar.

why do you think this? i know nothing of pokerchamps and don't understand why you think they are going to be so big.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been playing there alot the past week and I'm just really impressed with the software. The ability to multitable up to 6 tables with no overlap is a big plus for those recreational players who don't have a bitchin monitor.

I think their rake return and affiliate program is the best there is. The fact that EVERYONE is an affiliate and EVERYONE gets a rake return is huuuge IMO. If party is where it is today because of its affiliate program, then champs with a better program should do quite well. The rake structure is also much better than party.

I'm also impressed with the customer support so far. I've sent numerous emails and they were all answered in less than an hour, and by a real person, not some cheese dick form letter. But then I guess thats easy to do when you are still a young site and don't have a ton of emails. They've only been open real money I think for like 3 weeks now and already there are times when over 600 people are on the site. Mostly micro limit and NL, but there is usually always a 3/6 and 5/10 game going. And more often than not a 10/20 and 30/60. I've also seen the 100/200 game in action a few times.

The software is still in its infancy, right now you cant take notes, or get hand histories, and a few other things. But plans for all that are in the immediate future, as is poker tracker support, I've been told.

I just think its obvious that whoever is in charge of things over there actually knows something about poker and what it takes to run a poker site. As long as they are commited to spending the money on advertising, which I don't doubt they are as they paid for Gus's name/time, I think they will have a player retention far higher than any other site and grow to big levels.

jek187

11-15-2004, 09:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
what about the new site that Daniel Negreanu is sponsoring, Pokermountain?

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is what they're hanging their hat on:

[ QUOTE ]
Of course the one thing that will seperate Poker Mountain from the rest
is the speedy transactions.

[/ QUOTE ]

They'll just be another also-ran. We're in an age where speedy transactions are a necessity, not a differentiating factor. Silly thinking like this is why many sites will ultimately fail.

jek187

11-15-2004, 09:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'll put $100 even money on top 5

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, Alobar is wagering $100 to win $100. Here are my terms:

If PokerChamps is listed in the top 5 on www.pokerpulse.com (http://www.pokerpulse.com) at 1159PM EST on November 15th 2005 Alobar is the winner of this bet. If it's not, I am the winner.

If pokerpulse does not exist on November 15th 2005, the bet is void.

If PChamps is not listed on November 15th 2005, I win.

An agreed upon party will hold our $100 each. I offer the following list to choose from:
Granny Mae
Lorinda
Mike Haven
(pending their approval)

The holder of the money will also be called upon to arbitrate any dispute that comes up, and we agree to abide by that decision.

Should I win, I will give 10% to the holder.

GrannyMae

11-15-2004, 10:13 PM

Should I win, I will give 10% to the holder.

12% or stick it up your ass

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/a0/tease.gif

GrannyMae

11-15-2004, 10:19 PM

if your answer is customer service, i don't buy the fact that people will move. party & skins get bigger everyday, and it would take superbowl advertising to move that population.

if you say the software, when complete, will be a draw for people, then we will see soon i guess.

cracking top 5 in a year with the current marketing restrictions is a tall order to fill imo.

busguy

11-15-2004, 11:05 PM

Granny,

What I took out of what he was saying was that a big advantage of this site (IHO) is that everyone gets rake back (and is an affiliate in that sense).

I think a site that has good software, good advertising, good customer support, frequent and juicy bonus offers AND offers a percentage of rake back to EVERY player, is going to do VERY WELL.

I think the rake back might be a big seller.

my 2 cents

/images/graemlins/smile.gif busguy

BradleyT

11-15-2004, 11:16 PM

Well I think if gus starts wearing pokerchamps.com t-shirts or hats (he's not a hat type of guy though) on the WPT events you'll easily win your bet. People I know who aren't "into" poker but watch WPT love to watch him play.

Mike Haven

11-15-2004, 11:34 PM

i would hold the money at stars again if you are both ok with that, jek (thanks for the generous and class offer, but i'm certain i speak for all of us when i say it is totally unnecessary)

if i'm picked as the holder i'll post it here for the record, but i'm off to Nice, France, for three days in three hours so will be off-site until thursday evening

GrannyMae

11-15-2004, 11:57 PM

rake back?

first off, rake back is happening at party to the regular players. fish don't know/care about rake and party is 90% non-pro fish. second, take a look at the last business model having to do with rake back. rake free was a flop.

i'm probably gonna get jumped for this, but alobar was a big believer that rake free had a shot and predicted good things. i'm not saying he is not credible in judging a good site, but i think it has been proven that rake don't mean shiit, squatola, nada in internet poker. the site with the highest rake is the leader and it always will be. marketing and affiliates cost money and rake stays high, but that's the price to pay for 90% fish. no internet pro will leave party for more than a week.

i ignored the rake part of his reply because it was irrelevant IMHO.

Lamby2

11-16-2004, 03:52 AM

Hi,

one thing. Rake-back to all players will not work. Because that is the same as lower rake to everybody.
Of course some players will play more because they will have more back but thats is not enough.

I strongly belive that the only reason they have this is to educate the fish at other sites that they are scrued when they are paying full high rake at low limit tables.
If they reach the fish at Party with this message the fish will thing that Party is stealing thier money and move to another site with lower rake and then Pokerchamps can if marketing correctly be an option.

Pokerchamps is going with low rake
Absolutepoker are going with reloads

Next new site will try something different. Sooner or later we will see a site that will have success and break in to top 5 but top 2, no. If that are going to happend PP oc PS must screw up big time in the area of ringgames or tournies.

Just my 2c
Lamby

Alobar

11-16-2004, 04:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
rake back?

first off, rake back is happening at party to the regular players. fish don't know/care about rake and party is 90% non-pro fish. second, take a look at the last business model having to do with rake back. rake free was a flop.

i'm probably gonna get jumped for this, but alobar was a big believer that rake free had a shot and predicted good things. i'm not saying he is not credible in judging a good site, but i think it has been proven that rake don't mean shiit, squatola, nada in internet poker. the site with the highest rake is the leader and it always will be. marketing and affiliates cost money and rake stays high, but that's the price to pay for 90% fish. no internet pro will leave party for more than a week.

i ignored the rake part of his reply because it was irrelevant IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Zerorake proved that the average fish doesnt know/care/understand rake. (Tho I still think if they knew WTF they were doing as a pokersite, they could have had a shot). The beauty of pokerchamps is that the fish don't have to understand. All they are going to see is that if they play there, they get money back at the end of the week. Sure lots of players are getting rakeback from party right now, I'd be willing to bet that maybe less than 5% of party players are aware that there are rakeback deals tho. The ones that do are players who understand rake. They also have to have a trusted affiliate, and lose a percentage of their "profit" to the affiliate. At champs, they don't have to do anything or understand anything, all they have to do is play, and they get a percentage (up to 50%) of their rake back. And for the people that actually know and understand rake, champs has a much better rake structure than party. This is the reason I think champs will be in the top 5 in a year. The customer service is just a refreshing welcome from the crap that party serves out. I'm not clueless enough to think that any site would succeed on customer service alone. If that were the case stars would be the number one site over party.

Alobar

11-16-2004, 04:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll put $100 even money on top 5

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, Alobar is wagering $100 to win $100. Here are my terms:

If PokerChamps is listed in the top 5 on www.pokerpulse.com (http://www.pokerpulse.com) at 1159PM EST on November 15th 2005 Alobar is the winner of this bet. If it's not, I am the winner.

If pokerpulse does not exist on November 15th 2005, the bet is void.

If PChamps is not listed on November 15th 2005, I win.

An agreed upon party will hold our $100 each. I offer the following list to choose from:
Granny Mae
Lorinda
Mike Haven
(pending their approval)

The holder of the money will also be called upon to arbitrate any dispute that comes up, and we agree to abide by that decision.

Should I win, I will give 10% to the holder.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couple of things...

I'm sort of ignorant to the way pokerpulse works, so if these are stupid stipulations, just tell me.

My view of the wager was that champs will be in the top 5 in a year. So If they crack the top 5 at anytime in the next year I should win the bet. To avoid it being just some fluke thing where they had alot of players for one day, say once they make 7 consecutive days in the top 5, I win.

If they aren't listed on pokerpulse (again, i'm ignorant to how pokerpulse works, I don't see their name on there now, and they have enough players to at least be ranked) then some other form of tracking should be used.

If pokerpulse isn't in existence, but another such site is, and it's numbers are found to be accurate, then that site should be used for judging.

I'd prefer the bet to be among two gentlemen bound by honor. We've both been around long enough that neither of us is going to disappear in the next year. A hundred bucks also isn't the type of money either of us is going to "vanish" over. If you still want a 3rd party to hold onto it tho, I'm fine with any of the names you listed. I'd just prefer to hold onto my money myself, I have no doubt you'll make good on your debt, and no doubt I'll make good on mine.

daveymck

11-16-2004, 06:12 AM

I am surprised Prima is on there cos going off the games during the OIC at gaming club it just doenst seem that busy to me. Obviously on UK times so perhaps it comes alive american peak hours.

47outs

11-16-2004, 06:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I predict that in a year, pokerchamps will be 2nd only to party in numbers, and I think eventually will become the number one site.

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of odds are you giving for this prediction?
I want some action!

outs

_And1_

11-16-2004, 10:14 AM

"What I took out of what he was saying was that a big advantage of this site (IHO) is that everyone gets rake back (and is an affiliate in that sense). I think the rake back might be a big seller."

I have to agree with Granny on this one, the majority doesnt know what rake is, the rest doesnt understand rakeback, so for this to be a seller, how coudld it be? they are offering a product that very few ppl understand...

Freebucks for everybody that sign up and skyhigh rake is a far better bisnis plan (thou already taken)...

GrannyMae

11-16-2004, 10:32 AM

Zerorake

oops, this is what i meant obviously. my bad

jek187

11-16-2004, 12:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My view of the wager was that champs will be in the top 5 in a year. So If they crack the top 5 at anytime in the next year I should win the bet. To avoid it being just some fluke thing where they had alot of players for one day, say once they make 7 consecutive days in the top 5, I win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker Pulse updates their rankings ~monthly based on the prveious month's action. But I can agree that anytime PPulse has PChamps in the top 5, we say you won.

[ QUOTE ]
If they aren't listed on pokerpulse (again, i'm ignorant to how pokerpulse works, I don't see their name on there now, and they have enough players to at least be ranked) then some other form of tracking should be used.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is not a site in the top 11 that's not listed on PPulse. If PChamps can't get on PPulse, there's virtually no chance they are in the top 5.

[ QUOTE ]
If pokerpulse isn't in existence, but another such site is, and it's numbers are found to be accurate, then that site should be used for judging.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree to this, if there's a 3rd party to make this distinction.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd prefer the bet to be among two gentlemen bound by honor. We've both been around long enough that neither of us is going to disappear in the next year. A hundred bucks also isn't the type of money either of us is going to "vanish" over. If you still want a 3rd party to hold onto it tho, I'm fine with any of the names you listed. I'd just prefer to hold onto my money myself, I have no doubt you'll make good on your debt, and no doubt I'll make good on mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Besides the benefits of having an arbitrator who we have to abide by, a year is a long time for internet forum posters. I may get in a fight w/the new BW owner, quit, and lose all interest in poker. You may grow an 8 inch schlong and not be able to keep it in your pants long enough to continue blessing us w/your prescence. [censored] happens, and I just want to be prepared for it.

Anyways, if these terms aren't acceptable to you, you are welcome to bet w/any of these other guys clamoring for action. I honestly don't care if we do or not, since I feel my point was already made when you declined to take top 2 at 2.5-1. (I think according to your post, you should of been happy with 1-1.)

Alobar

11-16-2004, 01:49 PM

Thanks for explaining pokerpulse. I'm down with everything then.

I think if I had an 8" schlong the reason I wouldn't be posting here anymore isn't because I wouldn't be able to keep it in my pants. It's because I would be so depressed at how much it shrunk that I wouldn't be able to cope with life anymore, and I shut myself away in the attic or something /images/graemlins/smile.gif

When it came to putting my money where my mouth was on a top 2, I actually thought about it, and a year isn't enough time for that kinda jump for anyone, odds or no odds. But I'll gladly take even money on a top 5.

Lemme know who you want to hold on to the money, Haven has already offered to do it, so he is probbly the best choice.

jek187

11-16-2004, 03:20 PM

ok, I'll send to Haven in the next 30 minutes. He says he'll post Thursday (I assume you got his PM as well.)

Worst of luck to you /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Mike Haven

11-19-2004, 01:23 AM

i have received the following two e-mails from stars:

"Hello Mike Haven,
We have transferred $100.00 to your account as requested by 'jek187'.
Good luck to you both.
Regards,
PokerStars Cashier"

"Hello Mike Haven,
We have transferred $10.00 to your account as requested by 'Alobar'.
Good luck to you both.
Regards,
PokerStars Cashier"

is this correct, jek and Alobar?

lorinda

11-19-2004, 01:38 AM

is this correct, jek and Alobar?

If so, I'd like some shorter term evens bets with jek about maybe throwing a die, I'd happily take jek-evens about a six coming up.

Lori

Alobar

11-19-2004, 05:06 AM

I'm hoping it was a typo, as I actually transfered $100

Guess the typo was on my end, I checked my Pstars acount and it had $90 in it. Transfered you the rest mike. oops.

course, not that it matters, since im going to win anyway /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Mike Haven

11-19-2004, 08:05 AM

thanks - i have now received:

"Hello Mike Haven,

We have transferred $90.00 to your account as requested by 'Alobar'.

Good luck to you both.

Regards,

PokerStars Cashier"

i pledge to pass the winner of your bet the $200 i hold, when you both instruct me so to do

jek187

11-19-2004, 12:46 PM

Everything looks in order. Thanks again Mike!

alittle

11-19-2004, 04:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well I think if gus starts wearing pokerchamps.com t-shirts or hats (he's not a hat type of guy though) on the WPT events you'll easily win your bet. People I know who aren't "into" poker but watch WPT love to watch him play.

[/ QUOTE ]

No logos allowed at WPT events.

Mike Haven

04-10-2005, 10:13 AM

< Bump >

It seems an opportune time to confirm I'm still holding your money, guys.

Jim Kuhn

04-10-2005, 10:58 AM

What money? Mike who?

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4u
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

Met Knup

04-10-2005, 11:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What money? Mike who?

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4u
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Really, I'd trust Kaz to hold the money. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Mike Haven

04-10-2005, 11:40 AM

Actually, I was gonna ask them to send another $100 each as there's another big game on Sunday - but I think maybe I'll leave it for a day or two, in the circs. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

adanthar

04-10-2005, 12:45 PM

So what's the status of Pokerchamps now anyway?

TylerD

04-10-2005, 01:30 PM

Out of the "original" Big 4, only 2 remain, Party and Stars. PokerRoom has taken 3rd and Prima 4th. UB is 5th with Paradise in 6th! I don't think it will stay like this for long though.

Shoe

04-10-2005, 02:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is not a site in the top 11 that's not listed on PPulse. If PChamps can't get on PPulse, there's virtually no chance they are in the top 5.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about Absolute? I have yet to see them listed on pokerpulse, or are they under a different name?

mosquito

04-10-2005, 05:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is not a site in the top 11 that's not listed on PPulse. If PChamps can't get on PPulse, there's virtually no chance they are in the top 5.

[/ QUOTE ]
-----------------------------------------

What about Absolute? I have yet to see them listed on pokerpulse, or are they under a different name?

[/ QUOTE ]

They are listed, but not tracked. Ergo, no ranking.

MicroBob

04-10-2005, 05:48 PM

interesting observations.

Guy I know recently learned of my internet-poker playing ways. He doesn't know very much about it but has played on the play-money tables at party before (and I think maybe has deposited $100 before).

When he found out that I play online-poker for income he asked something like "do you play on party or pacific?"
I think he just threw out the names of the only two sites that he has heard of.

Another kid I know says he likes to play online-blackjack for play-money at bet888.com (the casino side of pacific).

I just found it interesting that two random non-poker players I know are more familiar with pacific than the other sites.

Dariel86

04-10-2005, 05:54 PM

Really have to admit, that pokerchamps software looks really nice. Partypoker looks oldschool compared to that ( ain't claiming oldschool is bad though /images/graemlins/cool.gif )

I'm going to deposit some money there for sure and try it out

Greg J

04-10-2005, 05:59 PM

If Pacific would get thier act together that would really kick ass. But due to slow and craptabulous software, no PT, multitabling, etc... you know the rest.

playersare

04-10-2005, 07:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Out of the "original" Big 4, only 2 remain, Party and Stars. PokerRoom has taken 3rd and Prima 4th. UB is 5th with Paradise in 6th! I don't think it will stay like this for long though.

[/ QUOTE ]
which part do you mean "won't stay like this"? Pokerroom and Prima are adding players faster because they are adding more skins to their networks. UB and Paradise probably seem like tired old brands to any prospective new player who is just getting online. Pacific can get by with its crap software thanks to such strong online and offline marketing from CON/888 (they pay the highest CPA to affiliates too).

[ QUOTE ]
When he found out that I play online-poker for income he asked something like "do you play on party or pacific?"
I think he just threw out the names of the only two sites that he has heard of.

[/ QUOTE ]
these two companies have the two big double-page ads in every issue of Cardplayer magazine. I'm sure that's reflective of their overall marketing budget compared to the other sites as well, hence wider mainstream appeal.

I've never had athlete's foot before, but if I did I'd probably go buy some of that "tough actin" tinactin. is there a "Poker Stars" equivalent of antifungal cream that I'm unaware of?

TylerD

04-10-2005, 07:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
which part do you mean "won't stay like this"? Pokerroom and Prima are adding players faster because they are adding more skins to their networks. UB and Paradise probably seem like tired old brands to any prospective new player who is just getting online.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well Pokerpulse has acknowledged that it isn't tracking the Paradise numbers correctly. Also the PokerRoom figures (peak players, peak ring games) always seem lower than Prima and Paradise, so I expect they're more of a fourth or fifth room. UB seems to be fading fast.

MicroBob

04-10-2005, 07:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
craptabulous

[/ QUOTE ]

good word.

Kind of like 'donkeylicious'

bholdr

04-10-2005, 07:37 PM

it's not that suprising that pacific gets so much recognition. I can't find the link right now, but somebody posted an article showing that 888.com is currently the largest online gambling company, in terms of numbers of distinct users and total wagering, it beats even Party and all the other IGM skins and casinos put together.

i was a little suprised to learn this, given that party is so huge, but it does account tor the recognition that pacific gets.

Beavis68

04-10-2005, 08:39 PM

Has anyone asked? Why is UB dropping the ball? No TV ads that I have seen, they could easily improve their bonus clearing and get more traffic.

The site is still where it was x months ago, while PokerStars has tripled in traffic, and party has probably doubled, hell, AP is getting close to them in traffic.

jek187

04-11-2005, 12:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So what's the status of Pokerchamps now anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

Looking like they'll earn me a C-note.

And Mike, let that money work for you, least we can do. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

2ndGoat

04-11-2005, 02:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
it's not that suprising that pacific gets so much recognition. I can't find the link right now, but somebody posted an article showing that 888.com is currently the largest online gambling company, in terms of numbers of distinct users and total wagering, it beats even Party and all the other IGM skins and casinos put together.

i was a little suprised to learn this, given that party is so huge, but it does account tor the recognition that pacific gets.

[/ QUOTE ]

I found it interesting to learn that iGlobalMedia and 888 have office space in the same building in London.

Billman

04-12-2005, 12:56 PM

My prediction is that if the US ever allows online poker, everybody but Party is gone within 6 - 12 months. Some might get bought out which I would consider being gone because the buyer would simply be purchasing the name and would completely revamp the company. At least one US b&m casino has set up a UK-based online operation (which they later closed since they couldn't take bets from US citizens) which goes to show that these guys are looking at that market very seriously. I don't think it unrealistic to think that one of the major casinos couldn't dump $100 million+ into a major ramp up and marketing campaign. Most of the existing online casinos can't even dream of doing that.

I also wanted to comment on some of the ideas expressed regarding rackback. The reason that some of the previous rakeback sites failed is because they had no budget. Wow, you think you're really going to draw in the fish with a few banner ads on 2+2 and some ads in CardPlayer? I could easily see a more marketing savvy casino billing it as cash back program or some other consumer-friendly name. Equate it to the Discover Card cashback program or something like that.

Should be interesting to watch how this whole thing plays out over the next few years.

solucky

04-12-2005, 01:03 PM

poker is a bubble !!!!!!! Its still a 95% - 96% game, a few really good players have over 100% and fishes have perhaps only 85%. Why dont play the fishes in 3 years Slot and poker tightened up. Would anyone play if it is break even or a loosing game ? Dont forget for one winner somewhere are 2-xx loosers, and i dont think that many can effort to loose more than 2-3000/ year. But in the moment many win 5-10K / year. I am definetely sure that in 2 years anyone think back what a great 2003-2006.

Wolfgang

MicroBob

04-12-2005, 01:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My prediction is that if the US ever allows online poker, everybody but Party is gone within 6 - 12 months.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't even begin to understand why would you would think this.

Billman

04-12-2005, 01:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
and i dont think that many can effort to loose more than 2-3000/ year.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's this place called Las Vegas that might disagree with you on your observation.

grinin

04-12-2005, 01:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My prediction is that if the US ever allows online poker, everybody but Party is gone within 6 - 12 months. Some might get bought out

[/ QUOTE ]
He is definitely not taking into account the effect of taxes on US corporations that none of these offshores are paying. Of course all of the marginally profitable rooms would probably have to make big changes to stay afloat facing the increased competition but the big guns would not be going anywhere.

I also doubt there would be many buyouts because any US gaming corps would be bringing so much money to the table they would not be interested in purchasing jo blow poker room. They will go full bore, name brand.

MicroBob

04-12-2005, 01:33 PM

Just like smaller poker-rooms in the US (in California or anywhere else) you don't need THAT many players tobe profitable.

I am guessing that if Party somehow got 95% of all online-poker players to come to their site (which seems pretty ridiculous to me) that Stars or Paradise could still be profitable even with only 1,000 players on during their peak hours.

When I signed up at Stars in Feb,2003 (my first site) I thought it was really cool that they had up to 1500 players on during weekend-evening hours. Although I don't know if they were profitable during this start-up time or not.

Billman

04-12-2005, 01:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My prediction is that if the US ever allows online poker, everybody but Party is gone within 6 - 12 months.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't even begin to understand why would you would think this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I touched on it in my post but I'll speak to it directly. Look to your right and note the crappy ads (InterPoker is a perfect example). Some of these guys can't even invest the $5000 it might take to design some really slick ads. Those PokerStars commercials look like they had a production budget of around $75 plus another $50 to buy the crew lunch.

Now, let's imagine the US lightens up on online gaming restrictions and Hilton, MGM, etc. all decide to get into online poker. These guys spend $75 million on a water fountain! Rake revenues are expected to reach approx. $4 billion within the next few years. That's a nice sized market that would justify throwing a few hundred million at. Now, on top of that you have the fact that most of these casinos actually know a thing or two about how to treat customers and I think the stage is set for a major shake-up with the victors being those with the deepest pockets.

Somebody mentioned that only someone capable of running SuperBowl ads would be able to upset Party, well . . . these guys have that kind of money.

Plus, as soon as the US allows online poker those very same casinos will be writing their congressmen checks to get laws passed that regulate the industry so as to keep others out. These guys operating offshore will probably not be able to operate, legally, in the US and the US casinos will promote that fact heavily. For every 10 people I talk to who like poker but haven't tried it online, 7 mention that it's because they don't know if they can trust the casino.

LSUfan1

04-12-2005, 01:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What money? Mike who?

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4u
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Really, I'd trust Kaz to hold the money. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Who wouldn't, have you seen his post count.

Sorry Granny, I still think he is the biggest prick around!

Billman

04-12-2005, 02:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Just like smaller poker-rooms in the US (in California or anywhere else) you don't need THAT many players tobe profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bob, I hear you but there's a difference between being profitable and being relevent. Maybe you could be profitable with 1000 players. You're probably not going to get rich though. If the total market size is 1 million players and you have a 1000 players . . . you're the small fish.

The other thing which was touched on in another post was the taxes. Yes, taxes suck but if it were legal the market size would double or triple (at a minimum) which would probably make up for the tax burden. Also, once it's legal it's easier for the US to demand tax payments from the offshore companies. I'm sure the US government's position will be that if you transact with a US citizen you pay US taxes on that revenue. Regardless, while being completely tax free would be nirvana, I would still much rather pay taxes on $4 billion than no taxes on nothing.

Bottom line, here are the advantages US b&m's have:

1. It's legal. They can advertise on prime-time television. They already have name brand recognition far exceeding that of any online poker room (including Party) and they'll use that as a way to build trust with consumers worried about getting ripped off or sending money to some company operating out of a small shack in Costa Rica.

2. They have very, very deep pockets. In addition to being able to saturate the media with advertising they also have the advantage of being able to drop the rake (or offer cash-back awards) in order to cut the revenues of their offshore competitors. Think about it in terms of the WalMart effect; they undercut your prices and outspend you in advertising. You either respond with your own advertising which lowers your profits, lower your rake to match theirs which lowers your profits, or do both which for most competitors ends up just speeding up the inevitable. Hilton Hotels can afford to bleed companies like Paradise into submission. Maybe not Party but Party certainly won't be the industry 800lb gorilla any more and may actually have to do things like . . . innovate (gasp!).

_And1_

04-12-2005, 07:09 PM

innovate .. that s a good one.. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
When I signed up at Stars in Feb,2003 (my first site) I thought it was really cool that they had up to 1500 players on during weekend-evening hours. Although I don't know if they were profitable during this start-up time or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I m pretty sure this is the case. Why? couse a room that is part of a network, having x players and x players on every night making money in the bundles.. even thou they pay network fee, have exetensive marketing and so on..

The market here in sweden is fascinating. All major tv shows on commercial tvs are sponsored by pokerrooms (multipoker (party), expekt (prima), unibet (b2b), betsson (pokerroom) and so on.. (its pretty rediculus really).

The major commercial tv stations all have several poker/casino shows each week. It's gettin out of hand really...