Party thoughts from the Uber-troll

[FlFishOn]

Worthy points all.

I really didn't follow the affiliate thing. Did it begin at Party's start? Would you say it was a big influence at the begining?

[TerraUbrett]

I can't believe it, you just asked a question and said nothing that reminded me of a mentally retarded child. As for the answer to your question, i have no idea.

[FlFishOn]

Last shot.

Winning players does not equal poor players.
Got it. Two groups. Two ideas.

I blame Lyndon Johnson for your inability to understand the written word. You have my sympathy.

[FlFishOn]

"...said nothing that reminded me of a mentally retarded child."

High praise indeed!

[FlFishOn]

"FlFish....you claim to have already done the statistical analysis to prove your claims that the Fish win 20% more on Party than they statistically should.

Please post these results for the benefit of your fans and the rest that feel you are retarded."

No minds will change via any post of mine. It is impossible to sway the believers. Think about it. I could post any tripe that looks persuasive and rigorous. BFD. It has no provinance.

Someone needs to duplicate my research. Then they'll be two of us convinced.

Uber-troll in good standing

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
I really didn't follow the affiliate thing. Did it begin at Party's start? Would you say it was a big influence at the begining?

[/ QUOTE ]

That I do not know. If they weren't the first to do it, they at least seem to have perfected the art. I have no idea how many affiliates they have - but is it crazy to not guess it's in the thousands? That's essentially say 1000+ Party employees who exist solely to recruit players to the site. And they do this for 25% of the player's rake (if I understand correctly). Party still gets 75% of the rake on each player, while having to do almost none of the work to get the player there in the first place. Seems genius to me.

I've seen other sites mirror this strategy, but unfortunately if you're entering the online poker game now, it's hard to start up and attract players when your site has few players to begin with. Plenty of sites don't get off the ground because there just aren't many low limit games to play in.

Full Tilt will be a good litmus test of this. From a business model standpoint, they have a strategy that in a traditional business/entertainment setting should succeed - name brand pros playing the site, etc. Yet they've been slow getting off the ground. Why? I think it's because they've done little besides print advertising in trade mags, and their initial rake-back promotion.

Without affiliates actively recruiting players, and without a clear-able initial deposit bonus, new players just aren't going to be attracted to the site. Yes, I know they have a good deposit bonus going right now. But you have to play a higher level to clear it than most fish will be comfortable with.

This is what I think Party understands - their bonuses are easy to clear. They're sacrificing a small amount of rake the could be making if the bonus was harder to clear, for the additional traffic that the easy bonus creates. I think they "get" the fact that the big sharks, who are the true revenue generators, need the little fish around to survive. I'm not just talking about the 15/30 players either. I'd bet there are plenty of 2/4 and 3/6 players who cringe looking at the rake they've paid, when checking out Pokertracker.

I hope Party does end up going public on the London exchange. Not simply because we'd likely be able to see some of their operating costs and revenue, but because it would probably work to clear the murky legality of online poker in the US. Money talks - and I'd love to see US investors adding Party stock to their portfolio...lets see the government move to officially outlaw online poker if that happens...

[TerraUbrett]

Retarded child again. You just posted the exact same thing 10 min ago in another thread. I was going to look for it, but what's the point, you will still say things that people find to be idiotic, and we will still tell you so. I still like my theory about how you do your research. I think it involved a hammer and you hitting yourself in the head.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
Last shot.

Winning players does not equal poor players.
Got it. Two groups. Two ideas.

I blame Lyndon Johnson for your inability to understand the written word. You have my sympathy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read your own goddamn post; once again, and carefully this time.

[ QUOTE ]
Party came outta nowhere and grabbed so much market share so fast I was awestruck. Looking back I suspect that the fish really enjoyed the help, stretching their bankroll, hitting a few more suckouts, that kinda thing. The pros liked the games and the site blossomed. I believe a major reason for their success was the helping hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

STOP: You identify two classes of players from the outset of Party's existence; 1) Fish, 2) Pros. Since, you reference the beginning of Party, the Pros have to had come from other sites, or B&M's.

Let's continue:

[ QUOTE ]
There exists today a large number of winning Party players that have almost zero B&M poker experience and little time spent at other sites. They are Party childern and all looks right with their world. How would they know something is amiss?

Uber-troll since 2004


[/ QUOTE ]

By your own words, these winning Party players had "almost zero B&M poker experience and little time spent at other sites." These certainly cannot be the "pros" you reference in the first quoted paragraph. Therefore, these must be the fish, who were bad, but because of the "helping hand" became winners. Since they are Party children, they don't realize they are crappy players and happily believe nothing is amiss.

Am I missing anything? Refer to my last post on the subject.

[TerraUbrett]

Try using pictures and candy.

[FlFishOn]

"Am I missing anything?"

The boat.