View Full Version : If Party had a lick of sense...
Guthrie
10-09-2005, 05:28 PM
oh wait, end of thread. Let me start over.
If someone with a lick of sense took over Party, they would institute automatic rakeback for all players on a sliding scale based on volume.
Everyone's rakeback would be deposited into their account every Friday at 5 p.m. Eastern. The fish would lose it back over the weekend and the rest would put it in the bank.
No more bonuses, no more gnomes, no more skins, no more affiliates, no more under-the-table deals. All the big players would come back, the fish would get a few bucks to gamble away, Party would make a killing, bandwidth suckage at 2+2 would drop, everybody's happy. Well, everybody except the affiliates and skins, but they're going to get screwed anyway, it's just a matter of time.
there is a prima skin site doing exactly this. it is still in beta and hasn't gone full launch. but yes, it is a good idea.
rwesty
10-09-2005, 05:31 PM
They may be trying to do something like this with the Party points for money thing.
theben
10-09-2005, 05:34 PM
you actually think party will do the logical thing?
I like that idea a lot! I guess we can only hope...
jdl22
10-09-2005, 05:51 PM
This is a bad idea.
Firstly, you don't want players to know how much rake is being taken away. Sophisticated players know this, and we're the ones getting rakeback through the affiliates. They could get around this with some sort of point system I suppose but it would still make it more clear that rake money is being taken away and that's bad since Party's rake is higher than the leading competitors'.
Most importantly, right now they only give rakeaback to a very small percentage of players. Even when all the affiliates offer rakeback that will continue to be the case. Why would they want to give this extra money away? I don't see how that works out for them in the long run.
I think people overestimate the maret share that high volume and rakeback players have. I could be wrong on this and would be curious to get an estimate from some of the big affiliates of the percentage of rakeback players there were on the network.
[ QUOTE ]
oh wait, end of thread. Let me start over.
If someone with a lick of sense took over Party, they would institute automatic rakeback for all players on a sliding scale based on volume.
Everyone's rakeback would be deposited into their account every Friday at 5 p.m. Eastern. The fish would lose it back over the weekend and the rest would put it in the bank.
No more bonuses, no more gnomes, no more skins, no more affiliates, no more under-the-table deals. All the big players would come back, the fish would get a few bucks to gamble away, Party would make a killing, bandwidth suckage at 2+2 would drop, everybody's happy. Well, everybody except the affiliates and skins, but they're going to get screwed anyway, it's just a matter of time.
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you kidding????
They already do this you [insert insult here].
If you primarily play the $5+1 Sng's you're charged 20% rake
:$10+1 charges 10%
:$200+15 charges 7%
There is absolutely no need to pay people back when you can just charge them less. This is like first level thinking here.
Guthrie
10-09-2005, 06:41 PM
Well duh, don't tell them it's rakeback. Don't give them a link where they can go find out how much rake they paid and what percentage they're getting back. Just give them the money.
Scenario 1:
Dear Fish:
Thanks for being a loyal player at Party Poker. As a reward for your frequent play this week, we have deposited $17 to your account.
Enjoy!
Mike O'Malley
P.S. Don't disclose your password to anyone.
Result: Fish buys in for $17 and promptly loses it.
Scenario 2:
Dear Shark:
We have deposited $1,700 to your account.
Enjoy!
Mike O'Malley
P.S. Please send me your password.
Result: Shark checks his rakeback against his PT results, withdraws $1,700 to Neteller, enters it into his tax spreadsheet, buys in for $20,000 and goes to work.
Nicholasp27
10-09-2005, 06:49 PM
then they are giving the rb to ALL players
the fish losing the 17 in 5 mins does NOT help party...they don't get the money lost, just the rake...if the fish loses the 17 in 2 hands at a nl table, they just lost most of that 17...
doing it through affiliates lets them segment the market
basic economic strategy
like coupons or selling 'refurbished' products
u get max $$ from those who aren't sensitive to pricing and still get business from those who are
iceman5
10-09-2005, 06:55 PM
Not gonna happen for the same reason the car dealerships dont just lower their prices from the sticker price right off the bat. Every now and then some fool comes in and pays full sticker. Why give everyone the full discount when you can sell the car for full price or only a small discount if the buyer doesnt try very hard?
OrcaDK
10-09-2005, 07:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
oh wait, end of thread. Let me start over.
If someone with a lick of sense took over Party, they would institute automatic rakeback for all players on a sliding scale based on volume.
Everyone's rakeback would be deposited into their account every Friday at 5 p.m. Eastern. The fish would lose it back over the weekend and the rest would put it in the bank.
No more bonuses, no more gnomes, no more skins, no more affiliates, no more under-the-table deals. All the big players would come back, the fish would get a few bucks to gamble away, Party would make a killing, bandwidth suckage at 2+2 would drop, everybody's happy. Well, everybody except the affiliates and skins, but they're going to get screwed anyway, it's just a matter of time.
[/ QUOTE ]
So basically they should copy PokerChamps concept?
tonypaladino
10-09-2005, 07:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
get max $$ from those who aren't sensitive to pricing and still get business from those who are
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not gonna happen for the same reason the car dealerships dont just lower their prices from the sticker price right off the bat. Every now and then some fool comes in and pays full sticker. Why give everyone the full discount when you can sell the car for full price or only a small discount if the buyer doesnt try very hard?
[/ QUOTE ]
this is marketing 101. you segment the market to get the highest price possible from each particular customer or group of customers.
Guthrie
10-10-2005, 12:13 AM
Not everyone plays sngs. Not everyone is able to jump from 10+1 to 200+15 to save 30% of their rake.
[Insert insult here.]
bmxreed36
10-10-2005, 04:08 AM
Woudn't this just be pretty much the same as reducing the rake? I don't think anyone, especially party, would ever consider this.
somapopper
10-10-2005, 06:43 AM
The whole thing works out much better if you make it an auto rakeback program exclusively for high volume players, with tiers according to rake generated. Obviously, you could continue to give an affiliate 3-6% of the players rake, (that's something like what they make now I guess) and in turn the affiliate could be expected to perform the same function they have, as advocates/ CS for a group of players.
A. There aren't many month in month out high volume players who are ignorant of rake.
B. You can still charge the base rake to the majority of your customer base.
C. Affiliates who expect to get 20%+ are obviously hurting the pro and semi-pro player base. Party really needs us more than the affilliates, because without the regulars, games break and revenue drops.
All this cloak and dagger, open an account under my girlfriend's dog's name, secret password BS, has really run its course. I'm tired of poor customer service and inconsistent policies. At least PS is consistent in their policy: lower rake, better player points, friendly service, no RB.
Unless party comes up with a solution that does not involve me begging and/or me sitting on my hands and not playing poker there for 60 days, I'm leaving. There are many sites that are happy to have my business and as many of us pay more rake than we do rent I feel we are entitled to a little god damn consideration here. Money isn't everything, and I'm willing to face slightly tougher competition to promote a better business model.
1800GAMBLER
10-10-2005, 09:59 AM
So what you are saying is, giving money away is a good business idea here?
Guthrie, to be fair, a move to a higher limit game also constitutes a reduction in the proportion of rake you pay, measured relative to the big blind of the game you're in.
SinCityGuy
10-10-2005, 05:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Party really needs us more than the affilliates, because without the regulars, games break and revenue drops.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is one of the most unintentionally humorous statements I've read in quite a while.
somapopper
10-10-2005, 06:25 PM
If you've got a point make it.
Otherwise stop being a dick.
tomdemaine
10-10-2005, 07:21 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
oh wait, end of thread. Let me start over.
If someone with a lick of sense took over Party, they would institute automatic rakeback for all players on a sliding scale based on volume.
Everyone's rakeback would be deposited into their account every Friday at 5 p.m. Eastern. The fish would lose it back over the weekend and the rest would put it in the bank.
No more bonuses, no more gnomes, no more skins, no more affiliates, no more under-the-table deals. All the big players would come back, the fish would get a few bucks to gamble away, Party would make a killing, bandwidth suckage at 2+2 would drop, everybody's happy. Well, everybody except the affiliates and skins, but they're going to get screwed anyway, it's just a matter of time.
[/ QUOTE ]
So basically they should copy PokerChamps concept?
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. You have a choice. If you want this go play at pokerchamps, it's happening right now. Guess what, very few people are playing at pokerchamps so I guess it's not such a great idea. Ah a market economy.
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. You have a choice. If you want this go play at pokerchamps, it's happening right now. Guess what, very few people are playing at pokerchamps so I guess it's not such a great idea. Ah a market economy.
[/ QUOTE ]
WPOTD.
Guthrie
10-11-2005, 11:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
So what you are saying is, giving money away is a good business idea here?
[/ QUOTE ]
Party is already giving it away in the form of bonuses and payments to affiliates which turns into rakeback for the high-volume players. This just removes all the middlemen and hair-pulling. The fish will lose back their rakeback just like they lose their bonuses. The sharks will bank their rakeback just like they do now. If everyone is so opposed to giving the fish rakeback, then just set the damn minimum play requirement a little higher. If a rich fish generates $10K a month in rake I personally wouldn't mind seeing him get a cut of it back so he can play it again.
My guess is that 1800Gambler's point is that most Party players DO NOT have rake back and will not have it even after this current mess clears up.
So for Party to go ahead and just give EVERYONE rakeback, they would be costing themselves boat loads of money.
Luke
Guthrie
10-11-2005, 01:20 PM
And my point is that the fish lose the money back and it gets raked again, and again, and again. And like I said, if everybody is so opposed to the fish getting rakeback, then just set the minimum higher. This would be counterproductive, but then who am I to dispute all these college-boy experts?
gonebroke
10-11-2005, 01:25 PM
You have no clue what you are talking about. There is so much competition in the online poker market, that affiliates are the number one way of generating new players. If Party Poker got rid of their affiliates, I am sure their signups in terms of new players would be down the tubes. They actually did a huge favor to Party Poker affiliates by cutting out the skins. The skins were allowing rakeback while Party was not.
MarkD
10-11-2005, 01:29 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If you've got a point make it.
Otherwise stop being a dick.
[/ QUOTE ]
His point is obvious. You don't know what you are talking about and your original statement does not apply to party.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.