Sharks are the suckers at Party ..

From UBS Warburgs partygaming report 5 october, they split the rake revenues by player types.
Type __ Sharks ____ Fish _____ Plankton
Top ___ 10% ______ 15% ______ 75%
# _____ 74'200 ___ 111'300 ___ 556'500
Rake __ 377m _____ 108m ______ 54m
NetWin__ 37m

Who said that rake doesn't matter. Focus on the high rakeback programs ought to be the road to success for the majority of the sharks. PS sorry about the layout

[Vavavoom]

can u post the source please...by link...i'd be interested to see the figures..

[ElSapo]

[ QUOTE ]
can u post the source please...by link...i'd be interested to see the figures..

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an understatement.

I am not sure I would agree with their reasoning but this is what they write

Understanding whether PartyGaming’s online poker activity can be a sustainable business model depends on the ratio between consistent winners, steady losers and rapid losers or, to use an aquatic metaphor, one’s belief in the ratio of Sharks to Fish to Plankton.
In Figure 1. we set out a tentative breakdown of the 2004 rake and net winnings and losses from each of these groups of players. As with several of the tables in this note,
we offer a Figure 1. as a way of thinking about the business rather than a hard financial analysis, which can be directly rooted in information given from PartyGaming. The drivers for Figure 1. are as follows:
➤ 10% of players account for 70% of the rake (as indicated by PartyGaming); we assume that this group is largely net winners — Sharks ➤ 75% of players are inactive after 12 months (our interpretation of the information given with the 1H results) — Plankton
➤ Relating these two figures (which we are cautious about relating) results in our estimate of a core of 15% of the players who are regular but ‘reasonable’ losers
— Fish.
Figure 1. Breakdown of 2004 Rake Between Different Categories of Players (US$ Million)
2004 Sharks Fish Plankton Total Notes
Proportion of players 10% 15% 75% 100%
Number of players 74,200 111,300 556,500 742,000 Unique players in 2004
Proportion of rake 70% 20% 10% 100% 70%/30% split from company Amount of rake (US$ m) (PartyGaming’s revenue) 377 108 54 539 Excluding skins Net win of the winners after paying rake (US$ m) 37 Net loss of the losers after paying rake (US$ m) (501) (111) (576)
In aggregate the losers have to
be down the rake plus the
winners winnings
Net win/(loss) per player (US$) (transfer between players) 500 (4505) (200) Key drivers: Citigroup estimates
Source: Company reports and Citigroup Investment Research estimates Figure 1 shows that we believe that the US$539 million of rake generated by PartyGaming in 2004 was mainly attributable to Sharks (10%/70% as stated by the company), and that the minority was largely attributable to Fish and the minority to Plankton. However, this is only telling us, who won winning the hands. It is not telling us who
was providing the net winnings of the winners. In order to estimate this we have started from the company’s estimate that 67% of players have, since the start of their play, lost less than US$1,000. We have assumed that the Plankton lose less thanUS$200 before stopping playing. Although this is a small amount per head, because the Plankton are large in number this results in our estimate that they lost US$111 million in 2004. (This is not a figure on which we
have had any help from the company). Similarly, we have had to crudely estimate that the average Shark wins US$500 per year, although we knw that there will be some much bigger winners and perhaps some losers within this highly active gro

[canis582]

Am i Plankton? I have been on the same $100 at UB for over a year.

[MarkGritter]

Yeah, the reasoning is a little screwy.

I am a winner (so far) at Party, but I only bonus-whore since they cut off PSO. Thus I would be lumped into the 'fish' category since I don't contribute much in the way of rake.

What the numbers really show is that 10% of players contribute most of the rake, which is interesting. I think it's _likely_ that many of these are multi-tabling TAGs. But there are probably also some big fish in that group, too.

[Vavavoom]

There is no way they would use the terms sharks n plankton...I'm sorry but no compmay will direspect its users like that !!

[krimson]

[ QUOTE ]
Am i Plankton? I have been on the same $100 at UB for over a year.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is what they are referring to as a fish. Plankton makes constant deposits and feeds the system.

[sfer]

With no sense of proportionality, i.e. the average number of hands played per type, this data is fairly useless.

[BruinEric]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way they would use the terms sharks n plankton...I'm sorry but no compmay will direspect its users like that !!

[/ QUOTE ]

These are not terms from the company itself. It purports to be from an investment analyst.