Is IGM about to aliente their best and most profitable affiliates?

[SinSixer]

By ending rakeback from all skins, they are sure to piss off a lot of their high volume players, plenty of discussion about this already.

However, I think that the long term, winning, high volume players are the best "affiliates" they have. Think about how many of us are not "paid" affiliates ourselves, but have reccomended the site to friends, family, people you meet on vactation, cardrooms, classmates, whatever ..... I don't know how many of them have actually signed up after talking with me, but I do know this: Party hasnt had to give up 28% of the rake from these players to anyone.

As long as high volume players are winning and happy recieving rakeback etc, Im sure they would continue to give good word of mouth.

Party does not need affiliates anymore to expand their business. They pay for commercials all over TV. "Party Poker" is pretty much a household brand name now. Instead of catering to their established player base, making these folks happy, people who could potentially tell 10 friends about how much they like it, are pandering to the affiliates. People who are going to use Partys already established reputation, to make 28% of what these sign ups would do without an affiliate.

One would think that the player base of profitable new sign ups is tapped out already. By now, I would be shocked if any high volume poker playing addict (winner or loser) has not "discovered" the online games already. I would imagine affilates are signing up people who blow through a bonus and go broke on a single deposit, and generate no money. If any of these players do become good players and stick around for the long run, and discover "rakeback" then by God, let the person play for a discount.

Imagine if Party terminated the affiliate program completely. Then they took that 28% and gave it back to all thier active players through VFP programs, gifts, comps, trips, whatever. A little more TV advertising, some interstate billboards... The players will come, and will BE ECSTATIC!

So you have a small community of jobless affiliates. Its not like these people have worked hard or earned degrees. They filled out three text boxes on an webpage and have been feeding off that for a long time. It was good while it lasted, get a real job or learn to play yourself. I don't expect a free meal everytime I tell someone Emerils is a good place to eat.

[StacysMom]

I agree with much of what you said. However, you underappreciate the amount of work afiliated have to do. Many affiliates, especially those giving RB, work very hard.

[DanS]

[ QUOTE ]

Imagine if Party terminated the affiliate program completely. Then they took that 28% and gave it back to all thier active players through VFP programs, gifts, comps, trips, whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post is dead on, except for this point. While, say, 30-40% (maybe more?) come to Party through affiliate signups, it's a MUCH smaller percentage of their player base that get rakeback. I assume it's like 2plus2... a sh!tload of people, but a small percentage of the overall poker population.

Party ain't killing off affiliating... every online, and a lotta offline companies use affiliates. To suggest that Party loses 28 or 35% or whatever to affiliates/rakeback is ludicrous. If they curtailed affiliates/rakeback somewhat, they may offer better bonuses/prizes/incentives/whatever, but not to the extent that you or others have suggested.

Dan

[SinSixer]

yeah, what I said doesnt really apply to rakeback affiliates. I agree they do work hard for 1% or so of MGR. However, I would say that the majority of their signups are established players, so the "recruitment" work is a little iffy. The work they do in managing and paying all their players is entirely unnessary, Party could do it themselves in seconds.

Imagine the scenario where some new fish comes to Party of his own volition after seeing one of the ads during the WSOP. He plays vigorously for a few weeks and loses 5k, while generating perhaps 2-3k in rake for Party Poker. The player knows he lost, knows he didnt "cash out", and knows its likely he "never would".... he probably never plans to play again. However, a few weeks later a DELL 26" LCD HDTV arrives at his house from his friends at Party Poker.. "hey Mr Fish, thanks for playing, come back where more fun and prizes await, and tell your friends too." The cost of this TV, the cash that would have went to some affilate....

[SinSixer]

Have you ever seen those Travel or History Channel specials on Las Vegas casinos? They usually have the segment on "whales" and state that one whale will generate more money for a casino then all the tourists and vacationing players combined for that quarter.

The whales of the Poker world are the high volume pro's and semi pros. I believe There are players on this board that generate a couple hundred thousand a year in rake.

These players have all left Party for rakeback. Party is losing some 28% on these players.

I wouldnt be suprised if the amount of rake generated by rakeback players is about 40% or more of Partys gross.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
The whales of the Poker world are the high volume pro's and semi pros. I believe There are players on this board that generate a couple hundred thousand a year in rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt there are many 8-tablers who play 40 hour weeks. Which is what it would take to reach 200k. However many 2+2'ers pay ~100k a year in rake.

It makes baby jesus cry.

It's also starting to grind down my belief in capitalism.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt there are many 8-tablers who play 40 hour weeks. Which is what it would take to reach 200k. However many 2+2'ers pay ~100k a year in rake.

It makes baby jesus cry.

It's also starting to grind down my belief in capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't worry. There is a market for grinders. If IGM screws us, other sites will create incentives to pick us up.

Stu

[grimel]

I'm a guppy, goldfish at best. Since mid April when I bought PT (way stupid waiting that long), while working on my daughter's house 3-5 days a week, I've managed to pay $400. I'd say it's safe to say in a "normal" month I pay >$800 or >$9600 a year. I've not been 4 tabling that long and I don't 4 table even low levels (.50/1 being my normal home).

I can easily see some of the 4 table 6 max 5/10 players busting 100k.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever seen those Travel or History Channel specials on Las Vegas casinos? They usually have the segment on "whales" and state that one whale will generate more money for a casino then all the tourists and vacationing players combined for that quarter.

The whales of the Poker world are the high volume pro's and semi pros. I believe There are players on this board that generate a couple hundred thousand a year in rake.


[/ QUOTE ]

way, way wrong here. There is no one on this board "generating" a couple hundred g's a year in rake, at least there better not be.

If you're a winning player, you're paying for the rake with other people's buyins.

this is easy to see if you think of Party as your upstairs neighbor with a poker table who rakes $1/pot. If buyin for $100 and cash out for $150 every time, you're not generating much for him, because you're not bringing any new capital into the game.

[OrianasDaad]

Let's take a hypothetical.

10 2+2ers sit at a 10-handed HE table to play 10,000 hands. After each 1,000 hands, the person who has won the most (and has contributed the least to the rake, by your definition) is removed from the game, making it 9-handed.

Over the next 1,000 hands there will be less rake generated at that table because a 9-handed table generates less rake than a 10-handed table, regardless of who is winning.

Repeat the process until the game is heads-up.

It's easy to see from this example that rake is generated regardless of skill. It is generated when the seats are filled.

Lets say that Party loses 100 4-tablers that play eight hours a day. That's 3200 hours a day they are losing. Each full table generates 10 hours of rake per real hour (10 players each paying an hours' worth of rake), or 240 hours per day.. The loss of these 100 players is equivalent to losing 13.3 full tables from their daily table averages.

[DMBFan23]

"Over the next 1,000 hands there will be less rake generated at that table because a 9-handed table generates less rake than a 10-handed table, regardless of who is winning."

this isn't really true per unit time

[JRussell]

[ QUOTE ]
If IGM screws us, other sites will create incentives to pick us up.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

They already have! Sites like Caribbean Sun, True Poker, and BetOnBet have implemented their own cash rake back programs. The only trick is you need to sign-up through an affiliate to take advantage, but after that you deal directly with the site.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
"Over the next 1,000 hands there will be less rake generated at that table because a 9-handed table generates less rake than a 10-handed table, regardless of who is winning."

this isn't really true per unit time

[/ QUOTE ]

If the process continued, there would be only one player left, no game, and no more rake for the house. Rake comes from games and grinders fill games. There is no logical argument otherwise.

If site averages $90 an hour from a full table, an 8-tabler grinder is worth $72 an hour to the house. Take 100 "winning" 8-tablers and use them to create 80 tables. 80 x $90/hr = $7200/hr. $7200 / 100 players = house revenue of $72 per player. Ask the house if these 100 players are a drain.

People who think grinders are a drain do not understand poker. They do not understand that in poker, players are in competition with each other, they are not in competition with the house. I do not understand how someone of reasonable intelligence can come to mis-understand this because it is all very simple. In poker, the house makes money from hosting games. The house does not compete with the player.

If you are a grinder, you are a valuable commodity. You are worth multiples of your weight in gold. The operators of these poker sites should french kiss your fat flaten asses. Hey....don't high volume players get faster replies to the email inquiries at some of the larger sites?

Stu

[grimel]

[ QUOTE ]
this is easy to see if you think of Party as your upstairs neighbor with a poker table who rakes $1/pot. If buyin for $100 and cash out for $150 every time, you're not generating much for him, because you're not bringing any new capital into the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm just too simple, but rake is just number of filled seats. More seats filled makes for more rake. Bringing capitol to the game is meaningless, hands played matters. Party makes rake from the grinders. Capitol brought into the game is meaningless. The grinders have the fish reloading. The hands get played and the rake gets raked. The grinders/winning players make money over the losses in rake, but they still generate/pay rake. Every bet I make generates rake unless I managed to steal the pot pre-flop.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this is easy to see if you think of Party as your upstairs neighbor with a poker table who rakes $1/pot. If buyin for $100 and cash out for $150 every time, you're not generating much for him, because you're not bringing any new capital into the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm just too simple, but rake is just number of filled seats. More seats filled makes for more rake. Bringing capitol to the game is meaningless, hands played matters. Party makes rake from the grinders. Capitol brought into the game is meaningless. The grinders have the fish reloading. The hands get played and the rake gets raked. The grinders/winning players make money over the losses in rake, but they still generate/pay rake. Every bet I make generates rake unless I managed to steal the pot pre-flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I kind of see your point but let me expand on my thinking with the upstairs neighbor example.

lets say everyone buys in for $100, 10 handed. after a little while the worst player at the table busts, you have $150, the other eight players still have $100, and the house has raked $50. Mr. Fish rebuys and busts again a few hours later, now you have $200 house has $100 the avg players are still even. Now lets say you go home, an avg player takes your place and Mr Fish rebuys yet again. Now that there's no sharks it takes a little longer for Mr Fish to bust; this time the house rakes $75 and the avg players stay even.

I think my point is, if no one brings more money into the network it will shut down. The only way to add money to the network is to have people bust and rebuy or to get new players. Any players that withdraw regularly are a regular drain on the network. The people running the network would rather have people adding money than withdrawing it, I think that's pretty obvious.

Party Poker would does not need winning players in order to succeed. This is obvious by the success of online blackjack.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
Party Poker would does not need winning players in order to succeed. This is obvious by the success of online blackjack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless they triple the rake and remove all limits above 3/6 as well as all nl/pl tables over $50 buy-in there will always be winners.

The winners and the house are not in competition in poker. Rather they are in collaboration. That this often causes muddy thinking in B&M casinos is understandable, in all their other games the customers are actually 'the enemy', but not so in poker.

The grinders are the best customers they have. Yes, I withdraw a fair amount each month, but otoh I probably pay as much rake as a few hundred casual gamers. (20-30 hour work week of 8 tables.)

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
The winners and the house are not in competition in poker. Rather they are in collaboration. That this often causes muddy thinking in B&M casinos is understandable, in all their other games the customers are actually 'the enemy', but not so in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats correct. Poker operators are in the business of hosting games. The game they host is structured so that there will be winning players and losing players. The structure of the game could be changed so that there are only losing players. In every instance that I have heard that was done the games ultimately died out. I wonder why?

Stu