why Pokershare will fail

[ThePinkBunny]

Pokershare, a new UB skin which promises to share the profits with their players, will not succeed, because they're player base will not grow.

This has to do with diminishing returns for newer players. Similar to pyramid schemes where people make money till the bottom falls out, there's a similar phenomenon that happens here. Their player stock becomes diluted overtime to the point where the value of playing there decreases, which will get to the point where there are many better rakeback and bonuses out there, and no reason to continue to play there.

Now being that it just started, it may be worth it to try and get in early and you might make a nice return before the dilution becomes such a problem.

D

[Synergistic Explosions]

Not if you sign up with unmentionable. The 40% of future profits is just the cherry on top.

[theben]

or maybe pokershare will fail because they are with a crappy pokersite. UB = crap bonus, tightwad players, crappy games

will you be able to play on and earn ur 40% on pokershare if you already have a account on UB? anyone know?

[kdog]

[ QUOTE ]
will you be able to play on and earn ur 40% on pokershare if you already have a account on UB? anyone know?




[/ QUOTE ]
No, you cannot.

[Uglyowl]

Your analysis is way off base. The deal may actually get better as time goes on. (More revenue to cover the fixed expenses generated by the site).

Think about it, if you don't understand I will type out why later.

[Jim Kuhn]

How much is the fixed expenses? That would be my biggest question.


Thank you,

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

[dogmeat]

Anyone want to bet me that the very first payout (after the first quarter) is so small per player as to be worthless? I'll set the hourly return at 25-cents.

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[Synergistic Explosions]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone want to bet me that the very first payout (after the first quarter) is so small per player as to be worthless? I'll set the hourly return at 25-cents.

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

If Party offered it's players in the beginning the same deal, how many millionaires would there be now?

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone want to bet me that the very first payout (after the first quarter) is so small per player as to be worthless? I'll set the hourly return at 25-cents.

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

If Party offered it's players in the beginning the same deal, how many millionaires would there be now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not many, my guess zero.

Whether you play 1,000 hands on day one or 1,000 hands on day 500, you own the same amount of the profits.

This is not like Microsoft if you owned 5% of the company in the beginning you would be rich.

A share is a diminishing unit each and every hand played on the site.

[MicroBob]

1. they say they are going to 'seed' some money for the first Q (to cover some of the expenses that will take away from their direct profits of course). They have every incentive to pay their players a decent sum in the first Q IF THEY ARE ABLE (big IF) as that will keep them playing and perhaps draw in more customers.

2. I would have considered getting set-up there by now if I could have gotten RB...but last I heard they still weren't getting things going with their affiliates. I haven't followed it that closely though.
I'm not that bothered by it as I don't care foe the UB ring-games very much anyway (if I did...then I think I would have cleared my $3200 in leftover bonus-dollars by now)

[grinin]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone want to bet me that the very first payout (after the first quarter) is so small per player as to be worthless?

[/ QUOTE ]

There was talk of initial seed money. Otherwise I would imagine the first payout would be zilch.

[Synergistic Explosions]

[ QUOTE ]
Not many, my guess zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, 40% of ten billion makes some millionaires.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not many, my guess zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, 40% of ten billion makes some millionaires.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets take Party, good idea.

For the first 6 months of 2005 their profit was $171M

If they distributed 40% of that, they would share $68.4M

For that period 842,382 unique players played at Party making them $2.62 in revenue per person per day (i.e. rake).

The average player then is entitled to $81 in profit sharing for the first 6 months.

We are not the average player though, so ok. Let's say we are high rollers paying $3 rake/hand at 2,000/hands a day. Very high I know, but using this as an extreme. That would make us 254X more active than the average user.

Our profit share would be $20,574 for the period or $3,429/month, far from a millionaire. I'll take rakeback if given the choice of one or the other.

[ThePinkBunny]

No, my analysis isn't off. You've just totally missed the point. Pokershare will not grow, because players will have little incentive to play there as time goes on.

[Synergistic Explosions]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll take rakeback if given the choice of one or the other.


[/ QUOTE ]

You will be able to do both, so no choice need be made.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
No, my analysis isn't off. You've just totally missed the point. Pokershare will not grow, because players will have little incentive to play there as time goes on.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is incorrrect in the fact taht profit share is actually worse for the players who just start out at the site vs. those who get in later.

You are right in the fact Pokershare will not grow solely on their profit share plan. It is probably equivalent to 15% r******k extra on top of the offer, all dependent on how they handle their expenses.

For example, if they get 100 people to sign up in the first month and they pay in 300 rake per month. The revenue would be $30,000. Guess what their profit will be?

If you guess they would have a loss, you are correct, meaning no profit share for the new players.

I do understand where you are going with diminishing returns though and how people who compare it to getting into Microsoft as a start-up are way off base.

[pokerrookie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
will you be able to play on and earn ur 40% on pokershare if you already have a account on UB? anyone know?




[/ QUOTE ]
No, you cannot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. I signed up there, with two accounts at Poker Share, and I got in. I know one of their reps posted here stating you couldn't have both, but it may be worth a shot. Worked for me.

[pokerrookie]

The rep said they would add 1,000,000 in seed money to the first payout. I think it could be quite substantial, but we shall see.

[DCWGaming]

One thing that everybody is overlooking (or I am misreading). Their net profit is after expenses. So after they pay for their marketing, maintenance, etc. You get what is left over. There is nothing from keeping the owners from giving themselves a big fat raise and leaving the players 20$ to divide amongst themselves. Especially seeing as you dont technically own shares of the company, so you have no say in what goes on.

They give you however much they feel like giving you.

[Recliner]

It is in their interest to pay out lots of cash. If they pay out a bunch of money and people here start talking about how they got 25% of that thing and then 10k after 3 months Pokershare will be able to steal player away from some other sites. If they don't pay out anything no one is going to want to play there and they go broke.

[mbpoker]

Is average player coming to the site to play poker or to invest in the site? I think the former. There are plenty of companies to invest on the stock market.

[Synergistic Explosions]

Let me get this straight. Some people think that getting 40% profit sharing is bad? That getting 40% of a buyout price in the future would be bad?

This 40% profit/equity trust stake is not in place of RB either. RB can be used at the same time! But this is somehow a bad idea?

NOw if this was offered at some hoboken new site or whatever, sure, it would be a waste of time. But this is a skin of the 4th or so largest poker network. So finding games is no problem.

I just don't get some people who try to smear good ideas for poker sites before they get off the ground. Ignorance is the only reason I can come up with. Or Party affiliates. Who knows.

[Overdrive]

[ QUOTE ]

I just don't get some people who try to smear good ideas for poker sites before they get off the ground. Ignorance is the only reason I can come up with. Or Party affiliates. Who knows.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Party affiliates" = BINGO