This needs to be settled, vote on Empire here
 

I am having a hard time believing how many 'You think it's bad business to ban players who are costing Empire money?' quotes I am seeing on this issue. To attract business, companies will have offers or sales that they expect will bring in customers. They realize that they will make little or no profit off of the sale in hope that people will buy regular priced items that they would not have otherwise bought while shopping there, or continue shopping there when no sale is offered. Many businesses DO have offers that cost them money that have no guarantee that customers will buy anything as a result (free samples in the grocery store or free giveaways the day after Thanksgiving at retail stores)

If Empire Poker has an offer or 'sale' where a customer potentially could cost them a small amount of money by careful game selection, that is not the customer's fault that they have a poor bonus or 'sale' structure. They should have the same intent that regular businesses do and hope that we will 'buy regular priced items' (tourneys) while playing there, or continue to play there after the sale (bonus time) is over. It IS bad business to ban someone for taking advantage of an offer that the business sets up to attract customers. Especially when that player is not breaking any of the contractual agreements. If it is really even affecting their bottom line at all, they need to change their bonus structure to ensure a player cannot 'cost' them money during bonus time rather than ban players who break no rules.

OK, my opinion is obvious. But I would like to find out what the % is on both sides so a poll is in order. Please vote!

-Mack

Re: This needs to be settled, vote on Empire here
 

Empire has messed it all up. Their bonus generates negative MGR for them at .5/1, their most popular level. Pokerstars and other sites have bonuses that generate negative MGR (i.e. $5 SNGs at Stars, 1/2 at Absolute) at some levels too but it is not on their most popular level.

The negative publicity created from this is very -EV for Empire.

Re: This needs to be settled, vote on Empire here
 

[ QUOTE ]
The negative publicity created from this is very -EV for Empire.

[/ QUOTE ]

What publicity?

The only ones who know about this are those who really chase the bonuses. Some one who chases the bonuses but also plays high enough to generate revenue for Empire surely can't care that much and will keep playing - though perhaps there are a few who won't (but why?). The only people who this affects are those who Empire has lost money on (speaking of that, why haven't they banned my account yet? I'll play more often then...) - and that's good for Empire, they're no longer losing money on these players.

Edited to add: I believe the OP touched on this but I think that Empire's best solution is to change their bonuses - in that they make them more account specific (ie. not the whores who are costing them money).

Re: This needs to be settled, vote on Empire here
 

I play only at Empire and I love it!!!!!! It's +ev idea if your a real player.

Re: This needs to be settled, vote on Empire here
 

jesus christ, you people who keep defending Empire are pathetic!

If you lose money in giving bonuses then DON'T GIVE BONUSES or make them harder to clear!!!! Its simple, you don't ban selected people

Re: This needs to be settled, vote on Empire here
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you lose money in giving bonuses then DON'T GIVE BONUSES or make them harder to clear!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi, thanks for pretty much reiterating my exact point.

Re: This needs to be settled, vote on Empire here
 

you registered just to post about Empire? geez MOVE SITES ALREADY

Re: This needs to be settled, vote on Empire here
 

YOU talking to me??? I have other things to talk about too

Re: This needs to be settled, vote on Empire here
 

Who could possibly vote that this is good business policy? The far better solution is to restrict reload bonuses to regular players.

Re: This needs to be settled, vote on Empire here
 

that wasnt the question as i interpreted it.

given the choice of banning or not, from a business sense banning is best.

i agree that other methods should have been taken, but thats business for you.