Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

According to www.PokerPulse.com, Prima poker has passed UB to move into the #4 spot. And unlike the last time this happened when Pacific did it, Prima looks to be much more solid by the numbers. So, do we have a Big 5 now? To be fair, the most correct way to say it is probably something like "2nd 4" (Since Party is bigger than the next 4 put together) but that just sounds dumb. Thoughts?

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

Poker Room and Pacific are also equal to or surpassing UB in player numbers. Looks like the"big four" is turning into the "big 7." More accurately, it looks like Party and Stars are turning into the Big 2, with the others in a close tie for third.....

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

I predict that in a year, pokerchamps will be 2nd only to party in numbers, and I think eventually will become the number one site.

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
Poker Room and Pacific are also equal to or surpassing UB in player numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

While their tourney numbers are comparable, their ring #s still fall noticeably short of the bottom of the top 5 sites. UB has 35-40% more ring action than Pacific. But yes, the sites closing together some.

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
I predict that in a year, pokerchamps will be 2nd only to party in numbers, and I think eventually will become the number one site.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you are being sarcastic, or I am thinking of another site(Gus Hansen), care to put a dollar amount on that prediction?

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
I predict that in a year, pokerchamps will be 2nd only to party in numbers

[/ QUOTE ]

PChamps may be the last new site with a chance to "make it" but I think saying they'll be #2 in a year, is a bit of a bold statement. In fact, if they crack the top 5 I'd be quite surprised. Care to make a little $100 wager on this? (I need to recoup my losses from when Bubs beat my ass w/that Party/Stars bet.)

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

on them being in the top 5, or them being number 2?

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
on them being in the top 5, or them being number 2?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll give top 5 spots

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
on them being in the top 5, or them being number 2?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give even money at top 5, and 2.5-1 on top 2. Let me know which you're interested in, and we'll lay out some ground rules.

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
on them being in the top 5, or them being number 2?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give even money at top 5, and 2.5-1 on top 2. Let me know which you're interested in, and we'll lay out some ground rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll put $100 even money on top 5

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

serious question alobar.

why do you think this? i know nothing of pokerchamps and don't understand why you think they are going to be so big.

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

what about the new site that Daniel Negreanu is sponsoring, Pokermountain? here is what he has to say about the site and the people involved...
"It's up right now for play money and should be up for real money any day
now.

I'm extremely excited about the site and waited a long time for a winner
like Poker Mountain to come around. I've turned down several deals with
online poker sites because they lacked in one area or another.
Poker Mountain doesn't lack in any areas in my opinion. They are
extremely well funded and dedicated to providing a top notch product. All
of the people involved, while knowledgeable poker players themselves have
proven themselves successful in other business ventures in the real world
and that attracted me.
Poker Mountain developed an alternate payment option called Securus that
allows for speedy transactions as well as accepting all major credit
cards.
As for what will make them better? Well, I am confident that they are
willing to spend the kind of money it takes to fully promote a site
properly by giving back to the players in various ways.
Of course the one thing that will seperate Poker Mountain from the rest
is the speedy transactions. You can get money in your account quickly,
and will recieve your money faster than any other site on the net. From
what I can tell by reading RGP, that seems to be a pretty important factor
for most players."

I am in no way affiliated with Poker Mountain, Im just intrigued by what DN had to say about it.

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
serious question alobar.

why do you think this? i know nothing of pokerchamps and don't understand why you think they are going to be so big.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been playing there alot the past week and I'm just really impressed with the software. The ability to multitable up to 6 tables with no overlap is a big plus for those recreational players who don't have a bitchin monitor.

I think their rake return and affiliate program is the best there is. The fact that EVERYONE is an affiliate and EVERYONE gets a rake return is huuuge IMO. If party is where it is today because of its affiliate program, then champs with a better program should do quite well. The rake structure is also much better than party.

I'm also impressed with the customer support so far. I've sent numerous emails and they were all answered in less than an hour, and by a real person, not some cheese dick form letter. But then I guess thats easy to do when you are still a young site and don't have a ton of emails. They've only been open real money I think for like 3 weeks now and already there are times when over 600 people are on the site. Mostly micro limit and NL, but there is usually always a 3/6 and 5/10 game going. And more often than not a 10/20 and 30/60. I've also seen the 100/200 game in action a few times.

The software is still in its infancy, right now you cant take notes, or get hand histories, and a few other things. But plans for all that are in the immediate future, as is poker tracker support, I've been told.

I just think its obvious that whoever is in charge of things over there actually knows something about poker and what it takes to run a poker site. As long as they are commited to spending the money on advertising, which I don't doubt they are as they paid for Gus's name/time, I think they will have a player retention far higher than any other site and grow to big levels.

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
what about the new site that Daniel Negreanu is sponsoring, Pokermountain?

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is what they're hanging their hat on:

[ QUOTE ]
Of course the one thing that will seperate Poker Mountain from the rest
is the speedy transactions.

[/ QUOTE ]

They'll just be another also-ran. We're in an age where speedy transactions are a necessity, not a differentiating factor. Silly thinking like this is why many sites will ultimately fail.

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'll put $100 even money on top 5

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, Alobar is wagering $100 to win $100. Here are my terms:

If PokerChamps is listed in the top 5 on www.pokerpulse.com at 1159PM EST on November 15th 2005 Alobar is the winner of this bet. If it's not, I am the winner.

If pokerpulse does not exist on November 15th 2005, the bet is void.

If PChamps is not listed on November 15th 2005, I win.

An agreed upon party will hold our $100 each. I offer the following list to choose from:
Granny Mae
Lorinda
Mike Haven
(pending their approval)

The holder of the money will also be called upon to arbitrate any dispute that comes up, and we agree to abide by that decision.

Should I win, I will give 10% to the holder.

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

Should I win, I will give 10% to the holder.


12% or stick it up your ass

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/a0/tease.gif

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

if your answer is customer service, i don't buy the fact that people will move. party & skins get bigger everyday, and it would take superbowl advertising to move that population.

if you say the software, when complete, will be a draw for people, then we will see soon i guess.

cracking top 5 in a year with the current marketing restrictions is a tall order to fill imo.

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

Granny,

What I took out of what he was saying was that a big advantage of this site (IHO) is that everyone gets rake back (and is an affiliate in that sense).

I think a site that has good software, good advertising, good customer support, frequent and juicy bonus offers AND offers a percentage of rake back to EVERY player, is going to do VERY WELL.

I think the rake back might be a big seller.

my 2 cents

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] busguy

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

Well I think if gus starts wearing pokerchamps.com t-shirts or hats (he's not a hat type of guy though) on the WPT events you'll easily win your bet. People I know who aren't "into" poker but watch WPT love to watch him play.

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

i would hold the money at stars again if you are both ok with that, jek (thanks for the generous and class offer, but i'm certain i speak for all of us when i say it is totally unnecessary)

if i'm picked as the holder i'll post it here for the record, but i'm off to Nice, France, for three days in three hours so will be off-site until thursday evening

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

rake back?

first off, rake back is happening at party to the regular players. fish don't know/care about rake and party is 90% non-pro fish. second, take a look at the last business model having to do with rake back. rake free was a flop.

i'm probably gonna get jumped for this, but alobar was a big believer that rake free had a shot and predicted good things. i'm not saying he is not credible in judging a good site, but i think it has been proven that rake don't mean shiit, squatola, nada in internet poker. the site with the highest rake is the leader and it always will be. marketing and affiliates cost money and rake stays high, but that's the price to pay for 90% fish. no internet pro will leave party for more than a week.

i ignored the rake part of his reply because it was irrelevant IMHO.

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

Hi,

one thing. Rake-back to all players will not work. Because that is the same as lower rake to everybody.
Of course some players will play more because they will have more back but thats is not enough.

I strongly belive that the only reason they have this is to educate the fish at other sites that they are scrued when they are paying full high rake at low limit tables.
If they reach the fish at Party with this message the fish will thing that Party is stealing thier money and move to another site with lower rake and then Pokerchamps can if marketing correctly be an option.

Pokerchamps is going with low rake
Absolutepoker are going with reloads

Next new site will try something different. Sooner or later we will see a site that will have success and break in to top 5 but top 2, no. If that are going to happend PP oc PS must screw up big time in the area of ringgames or tournies.

Just my 2c
Lamby

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
rake back?

first off, rake back is happening at party to the regular players. fish don't know/care about rake and party is 90% non-pro fish. second, take a look at the last business model having to do with rake back. rake free was a flop.

i'm probably gonna get jumped for this, but alobar was a big believer that rake free had a shot and predicted good things. i'm not saying he is not credible in judging a good site, but i think it has been proven that rake don't mean shiit, squatola, nada in internet poker. the site with the highest rake is the leader and it always will be. marketing and affiliates cost money and rake stays high, but that's the price to pay for 90% fish. no internet pro will leave party for more than a week.

i ignored the rake part of his reply because it was irrelevant IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Zerorake proved that the average fish doesnt know/care/understand rake. (Tho I still think if they knew WTF they were doing as a pokersite, they could have had a shot). The beauty of pokerchamps is that the fish don't have to understand. All they are going to see is that if they play there, they get money back at the end of the week. Sure lots of players are getting rakeback from party right now, I'd be willing to bet that maybe less than 5% of party players are aware that there are rakeback deals tho. The ones that do are players who understand rake. They also have to have a trusted affiliate, and lose a percentage of their "profit" to the affiliate. At champs, they don't have to do anything or understand anything, all they have to do is play, and they get a percentage (up to 50%) of their rake back. And for the people that actually know and understand rake, champs has a much better rake structure than party. This is the reason I think champs will be in the top 5 in a year. The customer service is just a refreshing welcome from the crap that party serves out. I'm not clueless enough to think that any site would succeed on customer service alone. If that were the case stars would be the number one site over party.

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll put $100 even money on top 5

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, Alobar is wagering $100 to win $100. Here are my terms:

If PokerChamps is listed in the top 5 on www.pokerpulse.com at 1159PM EST on November 15th 2005 Alobar is the winner of this bet. If it's not, I am the winner.

If pokerpulse does not exist on November 15th 2005, the bet is void.

If PChamps is not listed on November 15th 2005, I win.

An agreed upon party will hold our $100 each. I offer the following list to choose from:
Granny Mae
Lorinda
Mike Haven
(pending their approval)

The holder of the money will also be called upon to arbitrate any dispute that comes up, and we agree to abide by that decision.

Should I win, I will give 10% to the holder.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couple of things...

I'm sort of ignorant to the way pokerpulse works, so if these are stupid stipulations, just tell me.

My view of the wager was that champs will be in the top 5 in a year. So If they crack the top 5 at anytime in the next year I should win the bet. To avoid it being just some fluke thing where they had alot of players for one day, say once they make 7 consecutive days in the top 5, I win.

If they aren't listed on pokerpulse (again, i'm ignorant to how pokerpulse works, I don't see their name on there now, and they have enough players to at least be ranked) then some other form of tracking should be used.

If pokerpulse isn't in existence, but another such site is, and it's numbers are found to be accurate, then that site should be used for judging.

I'd prefer the bet to be among two gentlemen bound by honor. We've both been around long enough that neither of us is going to disappear in the next year. A hundred bucks also isn't the type of money either of us is going to "vanish" over. If you still want a 3rd party to hold onto it tho, I'm fine with any of the names you listed. I'd just prefer to hold onto my money myself, I have no doubt you'll make good on your debt, and no doubt I'll make good on mine.

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

I am surprised Prima is on there cos going off the games during the OIC at gaming club it just doenst seem that busy to me. Obviously on UK times so perhaps it comes alive american peak hours.

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
I predict that in a year, pokerchamps will be 2nd only to party in numbers, and I think eventually will become the number one site.

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of odds are you giving for this prediction?
I want some action!


outs

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

"What I took out of what he was saying was that a big advantage of this site (IHO) is that everyone gets rake back (and is an affiliate in that sense). I think the rake back might be a big seller."

I have to agree with Granny on this one, the majority doesnt know what rake is, the rest doesnt understand rakeback, so for this to be a seller, how coudld it be? they are offering a product that very few ppl understand...

Freebucks for everybody that sign up and skyhigh rake is a far better bisnis plan (thou already taken)...

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

Zerorake

oops, this is what i meant obviously. my bad

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
My view of the wager was that champs will be in the top 5 in a year. So If they crack the top 5 at anytime in the next year I should win the bet. To avoid it being just some fluke thing where they had alot of players for one day, say once they make 7 consecutive days in the top 5, I win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker Pulse updates their rankings ~monthly based on the prveious month's action. But I can agree that anytime PPulse has PChamps in the top 5, we say you won.

[ QUOTE ]
If they aren't listed on pokerpulse (again, i'm ignorant to how pokerpulse works, I don't see their name on there now, and they have enough players to at least be ranked) then some other form of tracking should be used.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is not a site in the top 11 that's not listed on PPulse. If PChamps can't get on PPulse, there's virtually no chance they are in the top 5.

[ QUOTE ]
If pokerpulse isn't in existence, but another such site is, and it's numbers are found to be accurate, then that site should be used for judging.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree to this, if there's a 3rd party to make this distinction.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd prefer the bet to be among two gentlemen bound by honor. We've both been around long enough that neither of us is going to disappear in the next year. A hundred bucks also isn't the type of money either of us is going to "vanish" over. If you still want a 3rd party to hold onto it tho, I'm fine with any of the names you listed. I'd just prefer to hold onto my money myself, I have no doubt you'll make good on your debt, and no doubt I'll make good on mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Besides the benefits of having an arbitrator who we have to abide by, a year is a long time for internet forum posters. I may get in a fight w/the new BW owner, quit, and lose all interest in poker. You may grow an 8 inch schlong and not be able to keep it in your pants long enough to continue blessing us w/your prescence. [censored] happens, and I just want to be prepared for it.

Anyways, if these terms aren't acceptable to you, you are welcome to bet w/any of these other guys clamoring for action. I honestly don't care if we do or not, since I feel my point was already made when you declined to take top 2 at 2.5-1. (I think according to your post, you should of been happy with 1-1.)

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

Thanks for explaining pokerpulse. I'm down with everything then.

I think if I had an 8" schlong the reason I wouldn't be posting here anymore isn't because I wouldn't be able to keep it in my pants. It's because I would be so depressed at how much it shrunk that I wouldn't be able to cope with life anymore, and I shut myself away in the attic or something [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

When it came to putting my money where my mouth was on a top 2, I actually thought about it, and a year isn't enough time for that kinda jump for anyone, odds or no odds. But I'll gladly take even money on a top 5.

Lemme know who you want to hold on to the money, Haven has already offered to do it, so he is probbly the best choice.

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

ok, I'll send to Haven in the next 30 minutes. He says he'll post Thursday (I assume you got his PM as well.)

Worst of luck to you [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

i have received the following two e-mails from stars:

"Hello Mike Haven,
We have transferred $100.00 to your account as requested by 'jek187'.
Good luck to you both.
Regards,
PokerStars Cashier"

"Hello Mike Haven,
We have transferred $10.00 to your account as requested by 'Alobar'.
Good luck to you both.
Regards,
PokerStars Cashier"

is this correct, jek and Alobar?

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

is this correct, jek and Alobar?

If so, I'd like some shorter term evens bets with jek about maybe throwing a die, I'd happily take jek-evens about a six coming up.

Lori

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

I'm hoping it was a typo, as I actually transfered $100


Guess the typo was on my end, I checked my Pstars acount and it had $90 in it. Transfered you the rest mike. oops.

course, not that it matters, since im going to win anyway [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

thanks - i have now received:

"Hello Mike Haven,

We have transferred $90.00 to your account as requested by 'Alobar'.

Good luck to you both.


Regards,

PokerStars Cashier"

i pledge to pass the winner of your bet the $200 i hold, when you both instruct me so to do

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

Everything looks in order. Thanks again Mike!

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well I think if gus starts wearing pokerchamps.com t-shirts or hats (he's not a hat type of guy though) on the WPT events you'll easily win your bet. People I know who aren't "into" poker but watch WPT love to watch him play.

[/ QUOTE ]

No logos allowed at WPT events.

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

< Bump >

It seems an opportune time to confirm I'm still holding your money, guys.

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

What money? Mike who?

Thank you,

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

Re: Death of the \'Big 4\'
 

[ QUOTE ]
What money? Mike who?

Thank you,

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Really, I'd trust Kaz to hold the money. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]