Players Union

[Stu Pidasso]

High volume players generate a significant amount of revenue for online poker sites. High volume players fill tables. The more tables a site has going, the more rake it generates. When an 8-tabler logs off party, its almost equivalent to a table breaking up. Think about it, when you log off, your seat will be filled by another player. Had you continued playing, those players who would have taken your seat must take a seat somewhere else. Thus new tables are created. From an online poker sites prespective, everytable not created is a table lost, and every table lost is revenue lost.

Instead of talking about striking party poker, what high volume players should be doing is thinking of ways to leverage their value for there own enrichment. High volume players are entitled to earn as much money as they possibly can. Anything less is weak tight.

Imagine a poker players union that represented hundreds of high volume players. The union would collectively bargain with online poker sites in order to come up with the best deal for its members. For example, suppose a poker players union negotiated with Party Poker for a 40% rake rebate for its members. The rebate would be paid directly into the player's account by party poker. In order to collect the rebate the players would have to play a required number of hours(or hands). To facilitate the whole deal, Party Poker would need to create a private skin in which union players accessed the site.

For the union to have bargaining power, it would need to negotiate and be willing to do business with sites other than party poker. In cases where the union made deals with other sites, its members would need to commit to playing the required number of hours at those sites.

The union would need some sort of financial support and some sort of dues system would be necessary.

Comments?

Stu

[Shoe]

Nice ideas... but unfortunately i think it is just wishful thinking.

If by some act of God, they actually did make a private skin for us, it would need to include the BBJ, and HHJ tables as well.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice ideas... but unfortunately i think it is just wishful thinking.

If by some act of God, they actually did make a private skin for us, it would need to include the BBJ, and HHJ tables as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a hypothetical example of how a union might be able to benefit its members. A players union of several hundred players would represent a revenue stream(to be won or lost) of tens of millions of dollars a year. For that kind of money an accomodation of a private skin would be doable.

Stu

p.s. they can keep HHJ out of the skin, with the juice their taking, i highly suspect its a suckers game.

[Shoe]

[ QUOTE ]
p.s. they can keep HHJ out of the skin, with the juice their taking,

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing they would completely own the skin, and would take the same cut.

[ QUOTE ]
i highly suspect its a suckers game.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point exactly. I want to play where the suckers are.

[O Doyle Rules]

Hi Stu,

As I replied in the other thread you started I think this an excellent idea. However, I think using the term "union" and "dues" is perhaps not the best terminology that could be used. It tends to suggest that we are working for the online poker industry and this might scare off some (or many) of the high volume players you would hope to attract.

I for one would rather be considered just a consumer of this industry. We would be merely getting a large discount of the service we are paying for due to the high volume of business our group would provide. I think perhaps calling it something like the High Volume Poker Players Discount Club could be more beneficial. (Kind of like a Sam's Club for poker players.) Just like Sam's one would need to be qualified to join (with proof of being a high volume player) and would have to pay an annual membership fee.

PS - I think the 40% discount figure is too low to start, if we really want 40%, we need to ask for at least 50% rake return. (Which I really think is doable.)

[Non_Comformist]

I think the idea of sometype collective bargaining has merit. I think getting something even organized would be difficult. I would first try and start with getting 100 players to agree to collectively move to a site. Then email a few of the middle sized sites, pokerroom, absolute, true, choice for example with the offer.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
As I replied in the other thread you started I think this an excellent idea. However, I think using the term "union" and "dues" is perhaps not the best terminology that could be used. It tends to suggest that we are working for the online poker industry and this might scare off some (or many) of the high volume players you would hope to attract.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with what you are saying, I chose "union" because it was what came to mind at the time I wrote that post. A bad choice of words. In reality its more of an association of players who bargain with sites collectively in order to acheive volume discounts.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the idea of sometype collective bargaining has merit. I think getting something even organized would be difficult. I would first try and start with getting 100 players to agree to collectively move to a site. Then email a few of the middle sized sites, pokerroom, absolute, true, choice for example with the offer.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would difficult for one person to do it. The purpose of this thread is to discuss pros and cons of ideal and to see if there are enough people who believe firmly in the ideal to volunteer their time and effort. A talented core of people can make this happen. If you think the ideal is good or bad, please chime in.

Stu

[GrannyMae]

hiya stu. great to see you around again.

comments:

as you have seen, party and all the sites have found the loophole with advertising and all the sites are spending millions on tv marketing (which, btw. is going to be much more effective than affiliate programs)

they have found their way back on tv and this includes the major networks. there is an AMAZING heads up tourney series that was taped that starts on nbc sunday from 12p-1p. this event, plus all the huge events that are popping up will be flooded with poker site ads.

right around the corner is the wsop and the 25 shows that will be spawned from it. in fact, we are on the verge, imo, of a second stage boom. by the time summer is over, poker will be massive because of the marketing that is about to happen.

this second stage boom is likely to include this UK float of IGM. IGM was smart to have been taking their time because every day that passes will increase the amount they will end up raising.

this marketing boom coupled with the regulatory scrutiny that IGM will have to undergo for the float has created a unique situation. IGM is going to see a whole lot of new business in the next few months. this added business will completely 'counterfit' the 2+2 pros.

IGM will be bringing in enough new players to easily offset the few that will leave because of lack of rakeback. IGM gets to clean the place up and look good in the eyes of the regulators AND investors by putting an end to rakeback (which the regulators will see as problematic. public companies really can't have rakeback and expect to be put on buy lists. paradise has shown what needs to be done if you are a public company. regardless of the cost in business, there just can't be open, tolerated rakeback).

so, for every 2+2er that boycotts, party is positioned to replace them with 8 fish because of this marketing loophole and upcomming events.

when faced with the choice of making the regulars happy, or cracking down and making the markets and investors happy, it seems party has made the choice. there is no coincidence in the timing of their new stance on rakeback. the powers to be have abandoned the 2+2 pro types and sided with concentrating on being an openbook (via the ipo) walmart version of online poker.

finally, and the point that is missed by many, pokerstars has shown with their numbers that you don't need a rakeback program to be huge. if the poker industry thought that rakeback has been good for the site, party would not be cracking down, paradise would allow it, and stars would implement it.

stars has shown party that another site can creep up and catch them. they have done this without catering to rakeback players in ANY fashion. they have grown to the size they are because of marketing, and they likely would not change a thing.

i hate to say it because i have many friends that rely on rakeback as players AND affiliates. however, i think it is almost time to decry that the sky is falling. if the sites pull in the new players from these new incessant ads, you will find them actually TURN on us. no PT, no multi-tabling beyond one or two etc.

this is a big year for poker and whether it is a B&M or an online site, they want and NEED to be legitimate. if levitra and pepsi are going to start sponsoring players and adding money to events and creating leagues etc etc, rakeback must be controlled. the bigger picture of SPONSORSHIP and clean books has begun to take over imho.

[Non_Comformist]

I absolutely think it is something worth while to prusue.

[GrannyMae]

incidentally, would you see this union being inclusive? it won't be.

do you think that serious online players like fischman and daniel would want to be involved in the union? i think they would want to stay away from it because their best interests are served by sucking up to sites, NOT by organizing against them (which is exactly what a union like this would do).

point is that there will be dividing forces within the established community and that will be a problem.

the sites would not give us the time of day i fear.

[scotty34]

I agree with Granny's sentiments, and also I see another problem with organizing a union. Unions are able to excercise control over its members. For instance, if you want to work as a teacher, you have to join the Teacher's Union. If the teachers want to strike, but you still want to work, you are out of luck - it is illegal for you to cross that picket line.

I think it would be exceedingly difficult to organize an effective union and maintain control of it. Similar to the player strike that was proposed the other day, if the union attempted to withdraw its members from a site, many would not oblige. They would be under no legal obligation to do so. Many are making their entire living by playing high limits on their preferred site of Party Poker. They would be thrilled that the twoplustwo crowd and other pros would be getting up and leaving, as they would have a much greater fish ratio.

I doubt its possible to effectively convince hundreds of pros that they should just pick up and leave because Party is not paying enough attention to them. Playing at Party is too important to their way of life.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
i think they would want to stay away from it because their best interests are served by sucking up to sites, NOT by organizing against them (which is exactly what a union like this would do).

[/ QUOTE ]

As I stated in my post the terminology "union" and "dues" should not have been used and I think Stu now wholeheartedly agrees.

Granny, how does a High Volume Poker Player's Discount Club that can offer substantial discounts to its members due to their high volume of play cause a problem for anyone? We are talking about a very small group of players in the whole scheme of things and the online poker site's best customers.

I would have to respectfully disagree that any industry would want to run off their best customers. In fact, I can see a world where these online sites are competing for our business very aggressively if we market ourselves correctly.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with Granny's sentiments, and also I see another problem with organizing a union. Unions are able to excercise control over its members. For instance, if you want to work as a teacher, you have to join the Teacher's Union. If the teachers want to strike, but you still want to work, you are out of luck - it is illegal for you to cross that picket line.

I think it would be exceedingly difficult to organize an effective union and maintain control of it. Similar to the player strike that was proposed the other day, if the union attempted to withdraw its members from a site, many would not oblige. They would be under no legal obligation to do so. Many are making their entire living by playing high limits on their preferred site of Party Poker. They would be thrilled that the twoplustwo crowd and other pros would be getting up and leaving, as they would have a much greater fish ratio.

I doubt its possible to effectively convince hundreds of pros that they should just pick up and leave because Party is not paying enough attention to them. Playing at Party is too important to their way of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Scott,

As I mentioned to Stu in my original post the words "union" and "dues" were not good ones to use for precisely some of the reasons use state. This would not be a union. It could be like a Sam's Club for high volume poker players. A High Volume Poker Player's Discount Club would be able to offer its members a large discount on rake (40-50% rake return) because a poker site will agree to it to secure this group's play. A membership fee would have to be charged and a player would have to document their play to be able to join. This would limit membership to only truly serious high volume players. Las Vegas competes for "whales" very vigorously and I could see the major poker sites competing very vigorously for ours.

[GrannyMae]

Granny, how does a High Volume Poker Player's Discount Club that can offer substantial discounts to its members due to their high volume of play cause a problem for anyone?

it causes no problems and is an excellent idea. however, you would have to get a proposal together to purchase a set block of table hours for a discounted rake. this requires you to put up that cash in advance, and it would be more of a group buy business move and not any form of players union.

and to clarify, i am not against rakeback. however, it has to be in the rules because i have a legitimate business and have no desire to operate in the semi covert way that big party affiliates have had to operate in. people give me crap all the time for opening my trap about paradise rakeback. that's simply because they won't allow ME to do it. if granny can't do it, then no one should. so if every tom dick and harry is giving rakeback, when only the super affiliates are offering good prices, then there is going to be trouble in the rakeback business. the sites want to avoid trouble. that's really what this is all about. they are mitigating any potential problems before the float.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
Granny, how does a High Volume Poker Player's Discount Club that can offer substantial discounts to its members due to their high volume of play cause a problem for anyone?

it causes no problems and is an excellent idea. however, you would have to get a proposal together to purchase a set block of table hours for a discounted rake. this requires you to put up that cash in advance, and it would be more of a group buy business move and not any form of players union.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is moreso what I would envision. A group of high volume players each make a 1-2k contribution with the majority of that going to a site, which in turn would promise us a high rake rebate on our play.

[sourbeaver]

I think Party could definitely garantee themselves the loyalty of a lot of high volumes players by creating a program where players with, say, X thousand hands a month get a % of their rake back.

[pokerplayer28]

you guys overestimate how valuable you are to a site. They know youll play where you make the most money so give money back to high volume players? or use it on marketing which will attract more fish to the site and you keep the high volume players?

remember choice poker 50% rakeback where are they now?
zerorake no rake where are they now?

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
do you think that serious online players like fischman and daniel would want to be involved in the union?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fischman was propping for Ultimate Bet, but I'm not sure he's still there. As for Ultimate Bet, they appear to be one of the few sites that welcome rakeback. It's pretty much done out in the open, and I guess they think it's good for business.

[SinSixer]

[ QUOTE ]
I would have to respectfully disagree that any industry would want to run off their best customers. In fact, I can see a world where these online sites are competing for our business very aggressively if we market ourselves correctly.



[/ QUOTE ]

First sentence is correct.

Second sentence you falsely assume that high volume winning players are a poker sites best customers.

8 fish are playing in a game with 2 8-tabling 2+2 sharks. Who gets the money? The sharks make their 2 BB hour off the fish, cashes out and pays the rent with it; Party scoops up the remains.

10 fish in a game. Who gets the money? Party gets all of it over time.

Who do you think are "the whales" in Party's eyes? Who do you think are the "card-counters and advantage player scum"?

[Randy_Refeld]

What you are talking about isn't that different than what the prop agency I currently work for does; in exchange for playing on the site (no schedules or anything just come and play when you want) we get our rake back.

[Michael Davis]

"you guys overestimate how valuable you are to a site."

I concur.

-Michael

[Emperor]

IMO Granny is 100% correct...

Sometimes when you rock the boat... you tip it over and drown...


Although I do think a Site with a REAL players points system like PokerChamps or GamesGrid could make a run on the top sites with a decent marketing effort...

All it would take is for Party to eliminate rakeback completely. All of those rakeback sites would focus on sites that still give rakeback and REAL player points like PC and GG. That would cause a trickle of fish. A continuous trickle of fish to feed us would be all it would take for Party to lose the current players worried about rakeback.

[SinSixer]

What professional poker players need is an "Association", not a union.

[Losing all]

Nice idea. Good luck getting members to agree on anything though. As a former member of the UAW I can tell you that I thought they were nothing but a bunch of crooks. I didn't have to option to keep my job and bow out of the union. That option would be there for poker union members, and sooner or later the bosses will piss everyone off.

[teamdonkey]

to make this work you need some kind of leverage. The group you put together would have to be willing to play at different sites. The most likely initial result will be Party calling your bluff, and you'll have to broker a deal with a different site. When you approach them again several months later, you'll be able to get something done.

Granny - the second half of your post makes little sense in a market economy. If Party is financially succesful now with all the rakeback/affiliate payements/bonuses etc it gives away, cutting back on this would just create a spot for someone else to undercut them and take their business. If online poker keeps growing (and like you've said, it will probably boom again this summer) this becomes more obvious... a larger market means more competition. If Party stops giving back money it obviously doesn't need to turn a nice profit, another site absolutely will make it worth your while to move. If Dell stopped having sales and got rid of online coupons, without lowering their prices, would this help or hurt their long term profits?

[x2ski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would have to respectfully disagree that any industry would want to run off their best customers. In fact, I can see a world where these online sites are competing for our business very aggressively if we market ourselves correctly.



[/ QUOTE ]

First sentence is correct.

Second sentence you falsely assume that high volume winning players are a poker sites best customers.

8 fish are playing in a game with 2 8-tabling 2+2 sharks. Who gets the money? The sharks make their 2 BB hour off the fish, cashes out and pays the rent with it; Party scoops up the remains.

10 fish in a game. Who gets the money? Party gets all of it over time.

Who do you think are "the whales" in Party's eyes? Who do you think are the "card-counters and advantage player scum"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent arguments by everyone... but as far as the "whale issue" is concerned, I believe the 8-tabling 2+2ers generate more rake over time than the casual fish. Sure, a table full of fish is going to generate the majority of rake per hour or whatever, but the 8-tabling 2+2er is putting in many more hours than the casual weekend player.

You get more miles per gallon with the 8-tabler in the long-run.

[grimel]

NHL Think about it.

[Stu Pidasso]

Hi Granny,

Couple of points where you and I agree.

1)The pokerboom is not going to end anytime soon
2)Volume Players will play at the poker site which provides the greatest synergy(which at the moment appears to be Party).

I disagree with people who say that the substantial number of high volume players who generate $50k-$100k in rake revenue per year per head have no value. We obviously have tremendous value and there has to be a way we can leverage our value for our own enrichment. In order to do that we have to organize into some an organization that represents our interest.

"Union" was a poor word choice on my part. It denotes an organization that is much rigid for the industry in which we derive our income. It also denotes an entity which has an adversarial relationship.

The relationship between volume player and the house is a synergystic, not adversarial. Whatever organzition, should it be formed, must also have a synergystic relationship. As stated earlier in this thread, we don't need a players union, what we need is an association.

I have more comments to make but I have some work I have to do.

Stu

[teamdonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
"you guys overestimate how valuable you are to a site."

I concur.

-Michael

[/ QUOTE ]

It takes me about 5 seconds to open poker tracker and find out exactly how valuable my business is. Now i don't generate 5 digit monthly rake figures, but my understanding is there are people on these forums that do. These people are extremely valuable to the sites they play on, and in any sort of organized group they represent a huge amount of bargaining power.

[ QUOTE ]
8 fish are playing in a game with 2 8-tabling 2+2 sharks. Who gets the money? The sharks make their 2 BB hour off the fish, cashes out and pays the rent with it; Party scoops up the remains.

10 fish in a game. Who gets the money? Party gets all of it over time.

Who do you think are "the whales" in Party's eyes? Who do you think are the "card-counters and advantage player scum"?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is just ignorant. Party gets the same amount of rake from a table no matter what the fish/shark ratio is. You're not winning money from the site (like a card counter), but from the other players.

Advantages i have over a player who just created an account on party today:

1. i play multiple tables, which generates more rake
2. i play more hours/week, which generates more rake
3. the new player may end up being a long term rake contributer, but most likely will lose a few hundred dollars and quit. i will keep paying rake for at least the next few months, and more than likely the next few years.

How much more valuable am i rake wise than a new player? 25x? 50x? The number gets rediculous if you're talking about someone playing at higher stakes (i'm a low stakes guy). The point is, WE are the whales. These sites aren't just looking for new customers, they're looking for new customers who will eventually turn into us. A marketing strategy that takes us into account only makes good financial sense.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
What you are talking about isn't that different than what the prop agency I currently work for does; in exchange for playing on the site (no schedules or anything just come and play when you want) we get our rake back.

[/ QUOTE ]

A players association is different. While part of its function would be to work with sites to reduce rake for high volume players it would have other duties as well. It could lobby congress to change the laws to be more favorable to the online player. It could make site endorsements. Provide meadiation services between players and the house. Etc.

Also, as players, we should be paying some rake. The house does provide a service to us and should be compensated. However, since we do so much volume, there isn't really any reason why we shouldn't get a discount. If we organize, we stand a better chance of getting it.

Stu

[lacky]

this is exactly what gamesgrid is doing now. The problem is, if party wanted to reward high volume players, they would do it. They figure they are rewarding the high volume players by spending the money to bring fish to the tables. Thats what we really want. If I wanted max rakeback I would be playing at gamesgrid right now. Unfortunately (or fortunately I guess) I make far more playing in the softer games at party.

I truelly hope and expect a rake war will breakout at some point. It has happened in every industry that starts out with really high profit margins. Perhaps gamesgrid will be the start of that trend. But, for it to happen it will have to be a very balanced approach, with aggressive marketing to bring in the fish for good table conditions, and an easy program that directly rewards high volume play. If a site can get that combo right it could take enough market share to force some changes. The problem is to get a site up and running with that model requires deep pockets. If Harrah's etc. decided to take over the online market they could pull it off, but the small struggling start-ups we've been seeing just don't have the resources.

The online world will get more competitive, but it will happen from major companies coming in and undercutting the competition for market share.

The ultra high volume players play so much because it's how they make their living. If you told me and 100 of my friend that party wouldn't deal but ultimate made us a sweetheart deal, unless they also brought in a bunch of new players it wouldn't be worth moving. Gamesgrid has the sweetest deal by far right now, but I would still make far less playing there.

anyway, my random thoughts

Steve

[pokerplayer28]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"you guys overestimate how valuable you are to a site."

I concur.

-Michael

[/ QUOTE ]

It takes me about 5 seconds to open poker tracker and find out exactly how valuable my business is. Now i don't generate 5 digit monthly rake figures, but my understanding is there are people on these forums that do. These people are extremely valuable to the sites they play on, and in any sort of organized group they represent a huge amount of bargaining power.

[ QUOTE ]
8 fish are playing in a game with 2 8-tabling 2+2 sharks. Who gets the money? The sharks make their 2 BB hour off the fish, cashes out and pays the rent with it; Party scoops up the remains.

10 fish in a game. Who gets the money? Party gets all of it over time.

Who do you think are "the whales" in Party's eyes? Who do you think are the "card-counters and advantage player scum"?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is just ignorant. Party gets the same amount of rake from a table no matter what the fish/shark ratio is. You're not winning money from the site (like a card counter), but from the other players.

Advantages i have over a player who just created an account on party today:

1. i play multiple tables, which generates more rake
2. i play more hours/week, which generates more rake
3. the new player may end up being a long term rake contributer, but most likely will lose a few hundred dollars and quit. i will keep paying rake for at least the next few months, and more than likely the next few years.

How much more valuable am i rake wise than a new player? 25x? 50x? The number gets rediculous if you're talking about someone playing at higher stakes (i'm a low stakes guy). The point is, WE are the whales. These sites aren't just looking for new customers, they're looking for new customers who will eventually turn into us. A marketing strategy that takes us into account only makes good financial sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

10 fish buy in $200 each, eventually party will net $1500-$1900

8 fish 2 high volume player all buy in for $200 the 2 high volume players net $300 leaving party with $1000

$1500 > $1000

here for multitabling
9 fish $200 each party gets about $1500
9 fish
9 fish
9 fish
$1500 x 4 = $6000
9 fish 1 multitabler
9 fish 1 multitabler
9 fish 1 multitabler
9 fish 1 multitabler
if the multi tabler busts out the fish and profits $2000 in the process that leaves $5200 for party

crude examples but u get the idea

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
10 fish buy in $200 each, eventually party will net $1500-$1900

8 fish 2 high volume player all buy in for $200 the 2 high volume players net $300 leaving party with $1000

[/ QUOTE ]

Assume party earns $90/hr per table. 80 fish generate $720 an hour. Each fish is worth $9/hr. 80 Fish and one 8-tabler generate $792 an hour. The 8-tabler is worth $72 an hour.

$72 > $9

Stu

[SinSixer]

You are not thinking about this correctly.

Lets assume 9 fish and 1 shark each have a $100 bankroll. They play at he same table of limit holdem untill each one is broke or only one person left with money.

Now, it is clear that the maximum amount of money Party can make from this table is $1000, assuming all the money went to the rake.

Lets define fish as a poor player, that despite having poor opponents, will still have a hard time beating the rake. Throw 10 of these players at a table, and Party would eventually rake all the money away.

However, what will happen when the shark joins the game, he will win 2/BB100 from these fish, money that will go to his bank account and out of play for good. This is money that Party Poker will never rake.

Sure the good player keeps games going, but as long as there is a healthy supply of players who have no shot of beating the rake in the long run , the Sharks AND Party Poker are COMPETING for the fishes money. The current state of the union, Party do not rely on Sharks to keep games going.

Right now, good players are parasites in the Party system. When the time comes and the stock of fish is depleted, then we can expect Party to develop a more symbiotic relationship with the better players.

[Stu Pidasso]

The part you are missing is that if there are no tables there is no rake. If all the sharks suddenly vanished there would be less tables and party would get less rake. Some of the players who were long time losers would become winners in these now softer games. These now winning players would be the new "sharks" pulling money from the game to pay rent, hire hookers, etc.

Stu

[pokerplayer28]

you think these sharks are just going to leave a pool full of fish where fish become sharks? party will call your bluff

[FishBurger]

If Party wanted more people playing, wouldn't they open up more 30/60 tables? There's always people waiting at those tables.

[pokerplayer28]

[ QUOTE ]

Right now, good players are parasites in the Party system. When the time comes and the stock of fish is depleted, then we can expect Party to develop a more symbiotic relationship with the better players.

[/ QUOTE ]

when this day comes itll be the end of online poker even if you have 10,000 8 tabling sharks theres nothing party could do to save the game even if they offered 80% rake back the sharks would still lose 20%. Sharks dont lose money sharks dont pass money around until rake gobbles it up. almost instantly those sharks will leave. luckily a sucker is born every day

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
you think these sharks are just going to leave a pool full of fish where fish become sharks? party will call your bluff

[/ QUOTE ]

Sharks will go where the money is. There is no bluff for party to call. There are other sites with lots of games full of fish. Perhaps not as fishy as party poker, but fishy nevertheless. A decent reduction in rake from any one of them and suddenly those sites become more profitable for the volume player.

To be quite honest, were it not for rake rebate through affiliates I would be playing in a fish hole more fishy than party poker. Rakerebates from affiliates attracted all the sharks to party and left some of the other sites easy pickings.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
when this day comes itll be the end of online poker even if you have 10,000 8 tabling sharks theres nothing party could do to save the game even if they offered 80% rake back the sharks would still lose 20%. Sharks dont lose money sharks dont pass money around until rake gobbles it up. almost instantly those sharks will leave. luckily a sucker is born every day

[/ QUOTE ]

What would happen is some of the weaker sharks would become the losing players, that is the new fish. Poker can't exist very long with out a pond, sharks and fish.

Stu

[Nalapoint1]

You can at least triple the rake you are currently paying in and still be way ahead of ""Union" representation. You have to remember unions are still business. A little bit of money {dues} come from their members {poker players} and the majority comes from the employer. With no employer the members end up paying it all. I dont think poker sites can be considered as the employer. Also because of the money involved almost all unions have some form of unethical business practices.

[FishBurger]

How are you going to hold all these high-volume players together? If you do manage to get a large group to boycott Party and sign some kind of volume deal with another site then you will basically have a bunch of good players overwhelming one site.

The high-volume players in the "association" that boycott Party will see their BB/100 go down at the new site you sign up at (which will be populated with sharks) while the Party games get even softer. Do you really think you can get a group of players to hold together in a boycott while their overall income goes down significantly?

You've got a nice carat in the form of all the rake paid by the "association," but you don't have any kind of stick you can use to beat Party with. The only stick you have is a boycott which will prolly hurt the players in the association more than it hurts Party.

[pokerplayer28]

they could put $200 each into a franchise/skin and give themselves a 100% rebate and make $0/hr

[sumdumguy]

[ QUOTE ]
you think these sharks are just going to leave a pool full of fish where fish become sharks? party will call your bluff

[/ QUOTE ]
You give them too much credit. To be bluffing.. they would have to be smart enough know they don't have a hand! Instead, they are (a) deluded, (b) in denial, or (c) misread their hand.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
How are you going to hold all these high-volume players together? If you do manage to get a large group to boycott Party and sign some kind of volume deal with another site then you will basically have a bunch of good players overwhelming one site.

The high-volume players in the "association" that boycott Party will see their BB/100 go down at the new site you sign up at (which will be populated with sharks) while the Party games get even softer. Do you really think you can get a group of players to hold together in a boycott while their overall income goes down significantly?

You've got a nice carat in the form of all the rake paid by the "association," but you don't have any kind of stick you can use to beat Party with. The only stick you have is a boycott which will prolly hurt the players in the association more than it hurts Party.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think some of your assumptions could be incorrect. This "association" or "high volume player's discount club" (will definitely not be a union as Stu has clarified) would not need to put any restrictions on what sites its members could play at. The primary purpose of this group would be to negotiate the best possible deal for them, while still helping the site to grow the fish pond.

I don't view this to be an adversarial relationship with any poker sites at all, but moreso a relationship where both poker sites and high volume players can benefit.

In my mind, Party would not be excluded or boycotted from negotiating with our group. (That is where I might start.) If Party did sign an agreement with a High Volume Player's Association to allow them to play at their site at a discount and then issued a press release stating such, it would probably have the impact of pushing the value of their stock higher.

[O Doyle Rules]

One other thing I cannot figure out at all, is all the instant negativity from some posters bringing up all the possible reasons such an "association" is doomed from the start.

I think if the proper effort is put forth, such an effort would help high volume players even if not one site agreed to let its members play at a discount. If nothing else, it might make the sites more aware of our concerns, and in the future do more to compete for our business.

What do we have to lose?

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
You can at least triple the rake you are currently paying in and still be way ahead of ""Union" representation. You have to remember unions are still business. A little bit of money {dues} come from their members {poker players} and the majority comes from the employer. With no employer the members end up paying it all. I dont think poker sites can be considered as the employer. Also because of the money involved almost all unions have some form of unethical business practices.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to read this entire thread more carefully. The word "union" by the original poster has been deemed to be a bad choice of words. This group would either be an association or even just a high volume player's discount club where its members have the option of purchasing a coupon good for a high dollar bonus based on a high raked hand requirement.

And yes, I am trying my best to keep this thread alive for more positive discussion.

[FlFishOn]

"For example, suppose a poker players union negotiated with Party Poker for a 40% rake rebate for its members. The rebate would be paid directly into the player's account by party poker."

In RL a union would easily find a way to pocket half or more of that 40%. Oh, there will be 'good' reasons to be sure but count on 50% shrinkage.

[FlFishOn]

Every dollar cashed out by a regular winner costs the site quite a bit more than a dollar. Getting new fish $ into seats is the biggest cost of any site.

As a regular winner you might be tolerated but you damn sure will never be valued. I've faced this issue in B&M card rooms. I was barred at one joint for little more that winning regularly and bitching about the house impediments to me winning more. Online poker will follow. Not this year but soon.

[Drunk Bob]

Do you think that a 100 million+ site is gonna careif 1000 sharks go on strike.

Read "Collapse" by Jared Diamond.Especially the part about "The Tradegy of the Commons"

Please excuse all spelling errors.

[FlFishOn]

"I disagree with people who say that the substantial number of high volume players who generate $50k-$100k in rake revenue per year per head have no value."

Do some math here. Assume you pay $50k rake/year. Assume you win $75k / year. Net net, the site still has $75k less in it's coffers thanks to your effort. It's worse than that though because the site had to spend $10k in promotion to get that $75k deposited into their site. How can you be a valuable addition under such circumstances?

Justify your $85k value to this site. You will be hard pressed to do so.

[teamdonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think that a 100 million+ site is gonna careif 1000 sharks go on strike.

Read "Collapse" by Jared Diamond.Especially the part about "The Tradegy of the Commons"

Please excuse all spelling errors.

[/ QUOTE ]

if those 1000 sharks generate on average $1500 in rake per month, you're talking about a loss in annual revenue of 18 million dollars (before rakeback). Yes, the site will care.

[FlFishOn]

this is just ignorant:

"this is just ignorant. Party gets the same amount of rake from a table no matter what the fish/shark ratio is. You're not winning money from the site (like a card counter), but from the other players."

If you win it and take it home then the site will not rake it. 10 fish will all leave broke. 100% bankroll conversion into rake, a sites goal.

[Uglyowl]

I don't want to play with a bunch of people who know they pay too much in rake.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
"For example, suppose a poker players union negotiated with Party Poker for a 40% rake rebate for its members. The rebate would be paid directly into the player's account by party poker."

In RL a union would easily find a way to pocket half or more of that 40%. Oh, there will be 'good' reasons to be sure but count on 50% shrinkage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Fish,

I think you need to read this entire thread and then start posting. The orginal poster has stated that his choice of the word "union" was a bad one. The intent here is not to start a union and collect dues. Please read the entire thread.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think that a 100 million+ site is gonna careif 1000 sharks go on strike.

Read "Collapse" by Jared Diamond.Especially the part about "The Tradegy of the Commons"

Please excuse all spelling errors.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is talking about going on strike here. Please read the entire thread.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
100% bankroll conversion into rake, a sites goal.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really think this is a site's goal? To bankrupt all the players so there is no game period? I think you way underestimate the value that high volume multi-tablers bring to the online game.

If the sites did not want high volume players, they would not allow multi-tabling.

If sites did not want longterm, high volume players, they would not be sending them watches, TVs, LCD flat screens and paid trips for two to Vegas.

Ultimately, the site makes more money with each and every new table they open up. Without multi-tablers, there would be quite a few less tables.

[FlFishOn]

"If sites did not want longterm, high volume players, they would not be sending them watches, TVs, LCD flat screens and paid trips for two to Vegas."

Longterm, high volume players are exactly what a site wants IF they are losers. Otherwise you are a leach. You are not an asset to a site. No amount of self-delusion will change this.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]

Longterm, high volume players are exactly what a site wants IF they are losers. Otherwise you are a leach. You are not an asset to a site. No amount of self-delusion will change this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets take three scenarios:

1. 10 losing players at the table pass winning pots from one to another and game eventually goes broke and card room goes out of business.

2. A table with 10 players, 8 regulars, 4 who are sharks, 2 who are slight winners, 2 break even or slightly losing players and two fish who the card room can continually replace through marketing.

3. A table with 10 players, 6 regulars, 4 sharks, 2 break even players, and 4 fish who the card room can replace through marketing.

Which one of these scenarios would you want if you operate a card room? To say the longterm, high volume winning player has no value to the card room is just flat wrong. Without a game, there is no money to be made. It is alot easier to replace 2-4 players at the table over time, than it is to replace all ten who are losers in a much shorter time. Otherwise, the terminology "prop" would have never existed.

But ultimately, if your mind is made up, there is no amount of debating the issue that will help.

Lets assume by some "miracle", a poker site that has a decent shark to fish ratio does offer a nice incentive for a group of high volume players to play there at a discount, many of those players who said from the start this will never work, will be saying, "damn", wish I jumped on that bandwagon.

One other point, who said all high volume players are winners?

[Seahorse]

If there's collective bargaining and supported by miney from members it's a union with dues.

It's not a new idea-- but it's a new twist -- and a good thought.

[Voltron87]

this would never work in the real world. real unions have a considerable degree of power over their members, a poker union would have to be able to prevent people from playing on a site during a strike.

the other bottom line is that pro players and people winning a lot of money need the sites more than they need us. this is becoming more and more true every day.

[Terry]

[ QUOTE ]
10 fish buy in $200 each, eventually party will net $1500-$1900

8 fish 2 high volume player all buy in for $200 the 2 high volume players net $300 leaving party with $1000

$1500 > $1000


[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. The bottom line contains the only answer that matters.

Casinos do indeed compete for “whales”. Definition __ Whale: A player who is expected to lose a large amount of money.

Poker rooms do need a core of regular players to insure that there are games going and they expect that some of those players will be winners. Online poker creates the new situation where one of those winners can be removing cash from not just one game, but from 8, 12, even 20 tables at a time ... not good for the bottom line.

The total rake taken is reduced not only because the winning players are busting out the live ones faster but also because the live ones can basically never find a “good” game, one in which they are competing with many other weak players, they burn out and stop coming backer faster.

I suspect the sites are now beginning to realize that it was a mistake to allow massive multi-tabling. Perhaps the sharp accountants of the investment bankers have shown them what their database really means ... as well as showing them just how horrendously expensive perpetual rake deals to affiliates are as a form of advertising.

[FlFishOn]

Context please.

We are talking about Party etc. here.

Most all players that lose will always need to be replaced. They lose, they go. Another takes his place. Right now there is a small cost for each replacement. These players foot the entire bill for everything, site profit + shark profit. Clearly the site and the sharks are cutting up one pie. if a Party could 86 every winning player they would make more money. This is not a debatable issue.

The situation may change as the fish pool shrinks but that is not today.

B&M casino's have a pool of regular, habitual losers. These are the most prized of all customers. You tell my why?

[FlFishOn]

It's dawned on me how you might organize and bring some influence to bear on the poker sites.

Say you have the cooperation of 3000 winning players. You might be able to extort a payment out of a site by promising to play elsewhere! Repeat as needed.

[47outs]

[ QUOTE ]


PS - I think the 40% discount figure is too low to start, if we really want 40%, we need to ask for at least 50% rake return. (Which I really think is doable.)


[/ QUOTE ]

It seems clear that a site such as party doesn't give a damn about high volume players.

Even if you argue that they care a bit, why would they attack the mere 20% rake returns ongoing now. Then be willing to fork out 40-50% later?

Good idea, but can't see anything of the sort happening.

outs

[GrannyMae]

If Party is financially succesful now with all the rakeback/affiliate payements/bonuses etc it gives away, cutting back on this would just create a spot for someone else to undercut them and take their business


some would say that this succes is despite the rakeback not because of it. by their recent actions it seems party feels they would be more profitable without it.

as far as someone coming in and taking the fish away if party stops it, i agree.

a network like prima could invest twice as much as party in marketing and perhaps make some inroads. point is that you need a big site/network to embrace rakeback, but it does no good if they don't flood the market with the investment required to attract all the new fish that are coming our way.

[teamdonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Longterm, high volume players are exactly what a site wants IF they are losers. Otherwise you are a leach. You are not an asset to a site. No amount of self-delusion will change this.

[/ QUOTE ]

you make good points. I don't have a great understanding of losing players, but i think a good portion of them were consistant winning players at some point who are now losing for whatever reason (higher stakes, change in their game, change in other people's game, etc). These are obviously people sites don't want to lose.

[Emperor]

Not true at all...

24h, TGC, TruePoker have all run special promotions JUST to get 2+2ers to play at their sites.

Are they delusional about wanting more tables full and rake being taken from those tables?

Are we less valuable to Party than we are to a smaller site? Sure. However, we are not leaches, even to Party. No amount of self-delusion will change this.

[Wabby]

You may compare this to a discoteque.

Who spends the most money in the bar.... without any doubt... MALES...

Who are they advertizing to ..who will they give a free drink to show up early... who will they give discounts.... FEMALES...

Yes, If the discoteque have pretty young female vistors, they will make money.... They will not make alot of money by giving the male population every 5th beer for free.

End of story...

[Wabby]

On the other hand... of course our rake matters...

Otherwise they wouldnt crack down om rakeback.

Fx PokerNow all of a sudden attracted all the high-volume players. For a skin that is perfect. They will still make a lot of money. They may even send LCDs, watches and Vegas-trips our direction.

But if the player was an original party customer without affiliate ties... Party may loose 5.000 dollars a month... per high volume player changing skin...

2500 for the player, another 2500 for the affiliate/pokernow.

That adds up, and from partys viewpoint there is no need to loose that amount of money. It easily adds up to millions of dollars a month after all.

The best thing to do, would be a program like suggested here. They agree to pay for instance 1,000 dollars if you pay 5k MGR a month... and 2,500 if you reach 10k MGR

They would keep their playerbase and make more money. And people would chase these numbers and play more than usually. Also a lot would prefer lower percentages here if it were "legal".

However, they are tied on their hands and feets because they allready have to pay the affiliate about 25%. They have no more money to send the players direction.

And they can hardly make a difference to players that have signed up through an affiliate and one directly from their website. That would be competing against their own affiliate.

So I guess all they can do is to discourage players from changing to a skin with rakeback. They allready closed down a lot of accounts. And they definitely scared many away from trying again.

I think the real reason is all the openness that huge rakeback factories have made the last 3-6 months. It is much too easy now. If it had all stayed underground, we would still have it our way...

He who lives silently, lives well!

[JRussell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Longterm, high volume players are exactly what a site wants IF they are losers. Otherwise you are a leach. You are not an asset to a site. No amount of self-delusion will change this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets take three scenarios:

1. 10 losing players at the table pass winning pots from one to another and game eventually goes broke and card room goes out of business.

2. A table with 10 players, 8 regulars, 4 who are sharks, 2 who are slight winners, 2 break even or slightly losing players and two fish who the card room can continually replace through marketing.

3. A table with 10 players, 6 regulars, 4 sharks, 2 break even players, and 4 fish who the card room can replace through marketing.

Which one of these scenarios would you want if you operate a card room? To say the longterm, high volume winning player has no value to the card room is just flat wrong. Without a game, there is no money to be made. It is alot easier to replace 2-4 players at the table over time, than it is to replace all ten who are losers in a much shorter time. Otherwise, the terminology "prop" would have never existed.

But ultimately, if your mind is made up, there is no amount of debating the issue that will help.

Lets assume by some "miracle", a poker site that has a decent shark to fish ratio does offer a nice incentive for a group of high volume players to play there at a discount, many of those players who said from the start this will never work, will be saying, "damn", wish I jumped on that bandwagon.

One other point, who said all high volume players are winners?

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair, shouldn't scenario #1 also contain the term "...fish who the card room can continually replace through marketing."?

That's the key. Party has huge affiliates that helped them get where they are today. These original affiliates are now raising total hell over rake back and the affiliates offering it. It's obvious that Party will choose these original affiliates over the rake back affiliates, who are technically breaking the rules all along.

It really comes down to the fact that Party has an endless supply of fish, in large part due to these original affiliates.

[FlFishOn]

"24h, TGC, TruePoker have all run special promotions JUST to get 2+2ers to play at their sites."

Why in the world would you assume that 2+2ers are net winners? I think that is far from certain.

[TruePoker CEO]

"IGM is going to see a whole lot of new business in the next few months. this added business will completely 'counterfit' the 2+2 pros.

IGM will be bringing in enough new players to easily offset the few that will leave because of lack of rakeback. IGM gets to clean the place up and look good in the eyes of the regulators AND investors by putting an end to rakeback (which the regulators will see as problematic. public companies really can't have rakeback and expect to be put on buy lists. paradise has shown what needs to be done if you are a public company. regardless of the cost in business, there just can't be open, tolerated rakeback)."

My guess is that the public capital markets and UK counsel would feel the same way about affiliates based in the US.

The corrolary seems to be that a company that is (a) private, (b) can directly handle transfers to players involved and (c) is looking to add a significant player base ....

COULD be very interested and open to picking up business and marketing opportunities sloughed off by the conmpanies streaming toward the public offering arena. I probably can't mention any offhand though, for fear of being told I am spamming.

Earlier in the thread, someone raised a point we would be willing to test .... would a player switch to a smaller, albeit growing site once his rakeback/affiliate program is undercut by IGM ?

On the subject of dealing with a players' association or "union", please keep in mind that one of THE most profitable brick & mortar casino operators has had no such problems.

Just some thoughts from a site .... I can be reached at management@truepoker.com if anyone wants to discuss this via email.

Granny, I would always give you "the time of day".

David Gzesh, CEO
Truepoker

[TruePoker CEO]

Why would a player would not have to document their past play to make this work, IF their receipt of the benefits is contingent upon a minimum volume play going forward ?

[TruePoker CEO]

No one has to "boycott" anyone for this to work. If the reports are accurate, a better deal might be for a player to spread soe of his/her action to sites willing to share, as opposed to sites bound by the strictures of pursing the public capital markets and attendant "investor" perceptions.

[TruePoker CEO]

In effect, a site program which gives players "points" which can be converted to CASH, paid directly by the site, should qualify as a "real player points" program .... Actually, it seems like a rakeback already, now that I think of it .... and if it is tied to volume play, say starting at 4,000 raked hands per month .... wait a minute, WHERE would you look for such program already running ??

Truepoker CEO

[TruePoker CEO]

"If Party stops giving back money it obviously doesn't need to turn a nice profit, another site absolutely will make it worth your while to move."

.... and the answer is ???

Truepoker CEO

[TruePoker CEO]

Read "The Logic of Collective Action" by Mancur Olsen ...

(I thought Coase wrote the stuff about the tragedy of the commons ... the fishing stuff only matters if the fish are being killed off to a below critical level I thought.)

[TruePoker CEO]

..... throw me in that briar patch, please ...

[GrannyMae]

Earlier in the thread, someone raised a point we would be willing to test .... would a player switch to a smaller, albeit growing site once his rakeback/affiliate program is undercut by IGM ?

imo, in the absence of a rebate coming at end of month, the sharks will indeed go fishing elsewhere.

there are many medium sites, true included, that would be VERY easy games for the 2+2 pro. however, even trying the games were never an option with the rakeback they were tied to.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Earlier in the thread, someone raised a point we would be willing to test .... would a player switch to a smaller, albeit growing site once his rakeback/affiliate program is undercut by IGM ?

imo, in the absence of a rebate coming at end of month, the sharks will indeed go fishing elsewhere.

there are many medium sites, true included, that would be VERY easy games for the 2+2 pro. however, even trying the games were never an option with the rakeback they were tied to.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the incentive is large enough the grinders will play just about anywhere. Look at GamesGrid, tough tables, lots of software issues, just starting up yet the have no problems getting several 3-6 and 2-4 games games going duriing prime time.

Stu

[MicroBob]

I don't know what the chances of success of this kind of organization are. I suspect not very high but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth trying.


But the discussion that has developed as to whether or not sites want winning players there is kind of mind-boggling.


Does party really need to view me as a leech that they need to 'tolerate'?


Lets ask party if they really just 'tolerate' the winning player.
If some 15/30 and 30/60 player making $300k/year there were to offer to leave because they felt bad about all the money they were depriving from party's business I somehow don't think party would really say/think, "whew. We're glad you brought this up. All that money you are winning is REALLY cutting into our profits. If you would like to leave party for good then we would have ZERO objections whatsoever because we will definitely make more money WITHOUT you here."

If a long-term winning player were to 'offer' to leave it is pretty obvious that the site would prefer to keep him around.



This notion that the poker-room doesn't really want winning players is silly.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
IGM will be bringing in enough new players to easily offset the few that will leave because of lack of rakeback. IGM gets to clean the place up and look good in the eyes of the regulators AND investors by putting an end to rakeback (which the regulators will see as problematic. public companies really can't have rakeback and expect to be put on buy lists. paradise has shown what needs to be done if you are a public company. regardless of the cost in business, there just can't be open, tolerated rakeback).
...
this is a big year for poker and whether it is a B&M or an online site, they want and NEED to be legitimate. if levitra and pepsi are going to start sponsoring players and adding money to events and creating leagues etc etc, rakeback must be controlled. the bigger picture of SPONSORSHIP and clean books has begun to take over imho.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you please explain why rakeback is in any way objectionable in this sense? Seems to me the only reason it is illegitimate is because Party says it is illegitimate.

Why do you see rakeback as problematic in this sense?--after all, it is merely independent reps offering their own incentives to attract customers. This is not at all uncommon in the business world nor is it illegal. When you go to a car dealership and buy a car you may get incentives from Toyota as well as the local dealer.

I can see where it might create hard feelings if the rep stops giving promised rakeback, but that is not what I think you are talking about here. Why shouldn't independent distributors, reps or affiliates of publicly traded companies be allowed to offer their own incentives to customers, from a public company/legitimacy standpoint? Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how it is inherently or fundamentally illegitimate; it's just that Party made it illegitimate in their T & C. Undoubtedly they had their reasons for so doing but I am havcing a lot of trouble seeing why this would be an issue as far as regulation of public companies or anything like that.