Party Poker's Long Term Health - Page 3

lorinda · #21 01-30-2005, 10:52 AM

Deleted.

Lori

Rudbaeck · #22 01-30-2005, 11:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Haven't people been saying that about live poker for years?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the death of live poker was to happen about three months after the original Super System got published. Seems to be a rather slow death though.

Uglyowl · #23 01-30-2005, 11:04 AM

"I also wonder about Party's profits"

Don't lose sleep over this please [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Rudbaeck · #24 01-30-2005, 12:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I also wonder about Party's profits as most of the big multitablers must be getting rakeback.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to eGamingReview it was projected at $500 million for 2004. According to the rumours around a possible float it was 'merely' $350 million for 2004.

Their server park doesn't cost much to run, the software development must have been virtually free. Compare Party to a major online computer game like Everquest 2 and it's virtually free to run Party. Their only real expense is advertising.

barongreenback · #25 01-30-2005, 12:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"I also wonder about Party's profits"

Don't lose sleep over this please [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I was being hopeful. If only all those players could migrate to a site that spent some money on something other than marketing (you know, software, CS etc.)

FlFishOn · #26 01-30-2005, 02:52 PM

Everyone here want you to be right. The last thing I want to do is spend 10 hours a day in a smokey card room.

The general, structural thing that bothers me, makes me most concerned, is the hyper-speed of all silicon-based things. To quote Ferris Beuller "Things move pretty fast."
Today, they move even faster than I can imagine.

Go back and read some 1970s SciFi and see what they expected from computer technology. Most authors missed it by several orders of magnitude. We are making the same underestimations today.

Online poker will move at similar speed, both up and down. I was discussing this with a well respected poker author and our mutual opinion was that the gravy train derails in 4-5 years. Make sure you have an out.

Cubswin · #27 01-30-2005, 03:14 PM

You completely lost me. What is exactly is your argument?

cubs

Ben · #28 01-30-2005, 04:44 PM

I don't understand the theory that fish who lose money will stop playing.

Casinos are thriving on people who are THRILLED to put themselves in guaranteed negative EV situations on EVERY round simply because when they do win, it's a thrill for them.

Does this sound reasonable: if casinos keep taking people's money, eventually no one will frequent them anymore? Why do people apply this same logic to poker? I don't think the fish I play against are any smarter, I think they play for fun and don't really care if they lose over time (or are addicted, or THINK they're winning players or will be soon).

Ben

BillsChips · #29 01-30-2005, 06:22 PM

Reading this thread, it's painfully obvious that most of you are twenty-somethings who think they have a handle on the way the world works - wrong! Right now poker is the current fad. This will change, I promise you. An internet site scandal, a Federal Regulation, a stock market crash, Shawna Hyatt coming out of the closet...almost anything will cause the bubble to burst. Probably 95% of you will no longer be playing online poker within 5 years.

To say the ocean can never run out of fish is the most childish statement I've heard in a long time. Realistically or metaphorically.

I'm sure most of you weren't around in the 70's when tennis became the new hotest thing. All of a sudden you couldn't find an empty court. Everyone was taking lessons and new pro-shops were opening up everywhere. It didn't last long. Tennis is still around, as poker will be, but it will never have the same widespread participation as it did in its hayday.

eastbay · #30 01-30-2005, 06:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand the theory that fish who lose money will stop playing.

Casinos are thriving on people who are THRILLED to put themselves in guaranteed negative EV situations on EVERY round simply because when they do win, it's a thrill for them.

Does this sound reasonable: if casinos keep taking people's money, eventually no one will frequent them anymore? Why do people apply this same logic to poker? I don't think the fish I play against are any smarter, I think they play for fun and don't really care if they lose over time (or are addicted, or THINK they're winning players or will be soon).

Ben

[/ QUOTE ]

One difference is that a trip to a casino is a special occasion for most people. They're on vacation, or it's someone's bachelor party, or whatever. They know it's -EV but they don't care because so is going to a movie or a strip club or whatever. They get the blinky lights and the scantily clad drink wenches and maybe they might win a few dollars, but that's only a small part of why they're there. The whole thing is a sensory overload escape.

Compare that to the regular logging into a poker site from one's bedroom surrounded by laundry and empty mountain dew cans. It doesn't exactly have the draws, other than money, to keep bringing them back. If they don't win, there's much less incentive to keep coming back.

eastbay