Party 30, WTF?

[mmcd]

Fewer tables and longish waitlists.

When did this happen?

Anyone know whether it's just a temporary problem or a policy change?

[1800GAMBLER]

Probably def a policy change since they lose 90% of new customers within 6 months.

[Nigel]

Oh god, not again. The fact that they do stuff like this just does not make me comfortable.

Is that odd?

[bicyclekick]

and there is only 1 50/100 game too...that's kinda odd, no?

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
and there is only 1 50/100 game too...that's kinda odd, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not at home so I can't open up a lobby, how many 30 games do they have right now?

[bicyclekick]

18

[Jeffage]

How many were there before?

Jeff

[bicyclekick]

wasn't it 20? I don't really play that much 30/60 so i'm not the one to ask.

[Nigel]

25.

[Nigel]

[ QUOTE ]
and there is only 1 50/100 game too...that's kinda odd, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the 100/200 gone?

[Chris Daddy Cool]

its been like this for a while now. i almost never play the 30 game at normal hours.

[bicyclekick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and there is only 1 50/100 game too...that's kinda odd, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the 100/200 gone?

[/ QUOTE ]

no.

[mmcd]

It wasn't as bad as I initially thought. The lists seemed to move real fast. When I first signed on, there were ~15-20 on most lists, but I got on 3 tables within 10-15 mins.

I guess this might mean no more short games late night and maybe decent waits between like 8 and midnight.

[Klepton]

this is very very bad

[Klepton]

oh and you guys can try to email party about this, but the reply is a complete "[censored] you we don't care."

something like "we'll tell management about this, thanks! did you know you can get money for signing up a friend?"

[Chris Daddy Cool]

[ QUOTE ]
this is very very bad

[/ QUOTE ]

you're really overexaggerating the problem. plenty of people were making mad $$$ playing 15/30 before party opened up the 30/60's and the 20/40 games are fantastic. it'll cut down your hourly rate, sure, but you'll still live. its not like they cut the 30 games back down to 4 tables.

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
and there is only 1 50/100 game too...that's kinda odd, no?

[/ QUOTE ]


they also cut 15/30 6-max from 3 to 2

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this is very very bad

[/ QUOTE ]

you're really overexaggerating the problem. plenty of people were making mad $$$ playing 15/30 before party opened up the 30/60's and the 20/40 games are fantastic. it'll cut down your hourly rate, sure, but you'll still live. its not like they cut the 30 games back down to 4 tables.

[/ QUOTE ]


hey fish daddy, hourly rate is kinda important. imagine losing even more per hour /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
and there is only 1 50/100 game too...that's kinda odd, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's definately weird considering they still have both 100 games up.

[Nigel]

[ QUOTE ]
its not like they cut the 30 games back down to 4 tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, following the trend, that shouldn't be far away. But basically the bigger problem is their total lack of respect for their customers wants and needs (never even an email explaining what the changes they make) and their willingness to manipulate game conditions to protect their bottom line, which has larger implications IMO.

[sthief09]

I agree. even if they were morons like they are, but had the courtesy to say "we're cutting down the number of 30/60 tables because blah blah blah" it would go over much better, even if the reason was complete bs. I really do hope one day someone comes in and takes away all their business. so many of us are disgruntled with party and are looking for somewhere else to go. we just don't have one yet.

[Klepton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this is very very bad

[/ QUOTE ]

you're really overexaggerating the problem. plenty of people were making mad $$$ playing 15/30 before party opened up the 30/60's and the 20/40 games are fantastic. it'll cut down your hourly rate, sure, but you'll still live. its not like they cut the 30 games back down to 4 tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

i've been waiting 20 minutes to sit down, and when i do, i'll still have to sit down at 7 more tables.

this is very very bad.

[Turning Stone Pro]

I hate PP.

TSP

[Chris Daddy Cool]

i take that back actually. i only mention it because the 30's not even my main game anymore and i'm always able to play it at 3 am or whatever, but for those making their living at the 20/40 i can see this as a bunch of 30/60 multitablers may move down and infest the 20 games.

keep in mind though that partypoker is trying to run a business here and feels that they're losing customers too fast by going broke with the bigger games. i really doubt they care much for your concerns though as there are still plenty of people who play here (and will continue to play here regardless)

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
I really do hope one day someone comes in and takes away all their business. so many of us are disgruntled with party and are looking for somewhere else to go. we just don't have one yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely wouldn't mind seeing Party get some real competition. I hate to have to depend so much on one flaky company. Stars could probably do really well if they would offer some kind of above-board rakeback plan. Something available to anyone, proportional to the number of hands played per month. You play 5000 hands, you get 5% back, 10% for 10,000, etc., maybe capped at 25%, and automatically credited to your account each month.

Anyway, I deal with worse trying to 4 table the 10/20 full/9max when there are only 4-6 tables running, and it's not that bad. I actually prefered it to my short stint at 15/30 where I would have to play on a dozen different tables in a session rather than the same four all the way through most of the time. I assume you guys are getting on the wait lists for every table individually. Usually it's a long wait for the first one, then they all start popping up at once.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
i take that back actually. i only mention it because the 30's not even my main game anymore and i'm always able to play it at 3 am or whatever, but for those making their living at the 20/40 i can see this as a bunch of 30/60 multitablers may move down and infest the 20 games.

keep in mind though that partypoker is trying to run a business here and feels that they're losing customers too fast by going broke with the bigger games. i really doubt they care much for your concerns though as there are still plenty of people who play here (and will continue to play here regardless)

[/ QUOTE ]

If they are so concerned with bad players going broke, why are there infinite $2000 NL games. I just don't get partypoker at all.

[Nigel]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't get partypoker at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't even think partypoker can figure out partypoker decisions.

Besides, party really think someone who is so addicted as to go 5 figures in the hole in credit card debt playing the 30 doesn't still jump on to play low limits with whatever they can scrounge up?

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
Fewer tables and longish waitlists.

When did this happen?

Anyone know whether it's just a temporary problem or a policy change?

[/ QUOTE ]

i tried googling party's quarterly reports or statement like MD&A, however, i was unsuccessful...im sure that it is fully explained (or at least NOTED there). it may read something like this:

"we are currently optimizing gaming conditions to maximize long term revenues without hurting our player base."

Barron

[skp]

...and now for a different take...I quite like the cut back in number of games. It will allow for more stable tables i.e. less player turnover in a given hour or two of play. It may also keep games alive. Earlier, it was crazy how often games died as oon as two guys left the table. Actually, they didn't even have to leave. They just had to sit out for a round or two to have a break and the next thing you know, guys are quitting and going on to a different table.

Besides, they still have 18 tables going, guys...what's the big deal?

On the other hand, reducing the 50 games to 1 from 2 is of course significant.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
...and now for a different take...I quite like the cut back in number of games. It will allow for more stable tables i.e. less player turnover in a given hour or two of play. It may also keep games alive. Earlier, it was crazy how often games died as oon as two guys left the table. Actually, they didn't even have to leave. They just had to sit out for a round or two to have a break and the next thing you know, guys are quitting and going on to a different table.

Besides, they still have 18 tables going, guys...what's the big deal?

On the other hand, reducing the 50 games to 1 from 2 is of course significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

i for one would be perfectly happy w/ 4 tables again...

my highest win rate was at the end of that era.

Barron

[flub]

Stars say they have 50k people to Party's 61k right now but Stars only has 4 30 tables running and Party has to cap their number of tables. What gives? Does stars just inflate their numbers?

-f

[mplspoker]

They are so "dumb" they have one of the most successful internet based companies of all-time..... They know how to run a successful online poker room.... give me a break...

[Nigel]

[ QUOTE ]

Besides, they still have 18 tables going, guys...what's the big deal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Much higher pro to fish ratio. We all get on and stay on, no seats for the fish who really don't even want to sit on waitlists to get in a game. So they jump into the 20, which is why it's a total fish farm.

I thought the 30 got much tougher when they restricted them to 25, the drop to 18 probably won't make a huge difference, but it sure makes table selection and just getting seated on 6+ tables a PITA.

[skp]

How many games can you play simultaneously at Stars.

Incidentally, these claims by Party of 65K active players etc. is of course misleading. There are guys like Nigel who play 6 games. He therefore counts as 6 people rather than one. I would imagine that only a relatively small percentage of players on Party are playing just 1 game at any one time.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
Stars say they have 50k people to Party's 61k right now but Stars only has 4 30 tables running and Party has to cap their number of tables. What gives?

[/ QUOTE ]
Stars has a wide range of micro limit games (really small stuff like .01/.02 NL) while Party doesn't. Also, they have more tournament players than Party. That may be why a smaller percentage of their player pool is interested in mid-stakes limit holdem.

[Klepton]

i'm sitting on 8 tables right now, and they are very good

however, party closing down more and more tables wwill make it very hard to find good games, and it took me 30 minutes to sit all 8 down

[WillyTrailer]

[ QUOTE ]
Stars say they have 50k people to Party's 61k right now but Stars only has 4 30 tables running and Party has to cap their number of tables. What gives? Does stars just inflate their numbers?

-f

[/ QUOTE ]

Party has a lot of skins that feed players into their card room. 61k actually sounds low. Often there are 80k or more signed in on one party skin or another. Just look at the top left of the lobby and it will tell you how many players are going at it at any given time.

-WT

[flub]

[ QUOTE ]
How many games can you play simultaneously at Stars.


[/ QUOTE ]

Stars lets you play 5.

-f

[4thstreetpete]

Is it just me or has the party 30/60 games been fantastic lately? It seems a lot fishier than usual.

I just logged on and saw the long waitlist. Trying to multitable is really becoming a PITA! /images/graemlins/mad.gif
I'm pretty sure a lot of the players are busting out rather quickly though. There's always a reason when changes like these are being made, however it just seems like there's been a lot of these changes lately.

[Klepton]

wow, 20 waiting list for every table right now

now it could be a problem.

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
They are so "dumb" they have one of the most successful internet based companies of all-time..... They know how to run a successful online poker room.... give me a break...

[/ QUOTE ]


usually when you quote someone like you quoted me calling them "dumb" the person should've actually used that word. "or" you "could" just start "putting" quotes around "random" words. I never said they were dumb. I implied that they're a bunch of cocksuckers who couldn't give a [censored] less about their customers. clearly they can market. that's how they got all their players. but when it comes to running a poker room, it's obvious they don't know what they're doing. being the biggest name in a scheisty business makes it easier to attract new players since it's easier to trust them. at this point they should just be on cruise control instead of constantly [censored] us over. it's pretty obvious they're not doing a particularly good job considering their business isn't doing so great. empire and euro will taking away their business until they have nothing left but the commission from those sites

treating all skins separately, their market share is probably half of what it was a year and a half ago

[Klepton]

i want more people's opinions on this topic.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
i want more people's opinions on this topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well since you asked...

I think it's good for the long term profitability of online poker. I do not have any facts or thoroughly thought out reasoning for this, so don't ask.

[The Truth]

[ QUOTE ]
Stars say they have 50k people to Party's 61k right now but Stars only has 4 30 tables running and Party has to cap their number of tables. What gives? Does stars just inflate their numbers?

-f

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say that due to no rake back and lack of skins, stars lacks 8 tabling pros. Those players fill games.

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
There are guys like Nigel who play 6 games. He therefore counts as 6 people rather than one.

[/ QUOTE ]

He would just count as two (one for each skin he is logged in to).

[DeeJ]

It's just shark management. 2+2ers hate being managed.

[catlover]

Look on the bright side -- not long ago, the 30 was limited to 3 tables. Now it is 18.

Party is trying to figure out what number of tables maximizes their revenue. Obviously they have decided it's more than 3, but fewer than 25.

Another bright side -- when the games were unlimited, they were also constantly breaking! Getting into a table was easy, but staying in one was problematic.

[mmcd]

It appears they're back to 25. Did you guys send a flood of e-mails or something?

[bicyclekick]

Wow and there are short handed tables at 415pm central. Players must not have realized it yet and are still playing 20/40.

[Klepton]

i say we keep floodingmaybe we can get it back unlimited

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
this is very very bad

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't understand this logic. If Party reduces/eliminates certain games, it is most likely because they have determined the games are not good for the health of their room. Those of us who have played a fair amount of live poker are very familiar with the fragile balance when it comes to the level of games a room can support. Obviously, online is a much bigger scale, but the same concepts apply. IMO, if you think adjustments like this are bad, you are being very shortsighted.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this is very very bad

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't understand this logic. If Party reduces/eliminates certain games, it is most likely because they have determined the games are not good for the health of their room. Those of us who have played a fair amount of live poker are very familiar with the fragile balance when it comes to the level of games a room can support. Obviously, online is a much bigger scale, but the same concepts apply. IMO, if you think adjustments like this are bad, you are being very shortsighted.

[/ QUOTE ]

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this is very very bad

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't understand this logic. If Party reduces/eliminates certain games, it is most likely because they have determined the games are not good for the health of their room. Those of us who have played a fair amount of live poker are very familiar with the fragile balance when it comes to the level of games a room can support. Obviously, online is a much bigger scale, but the same concepts apply. IMO, if you think adjustments like this are bad, you are being very shortsighted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the scale of online (Party more specifically) is so much bigger than live, you have to go much higher than 30/60 before you get to a point where a game might die out.

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
i say we keep floodingmaybe we can get it back unlimited

[/ QUOTE ]

25's fine by me. What I'd really like to see is 4-6 50 games.

[mmcd]

Also, 20/40 6-max would be fcking sweet.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
i say we keep floodingmaybe we can get it back unlimited

[/ QUOTE ]

I really doubt that it had anything to do with anyones emails. At least, I think. A ton of the SNG players mass e-mailed party about adding a $500 or higher buyin SNG and nothing happened and I don't even think they even got so much as a response from party about it. Most likely they don't give a flying [censored] what you guys think and reopened all the tables for other reasons.