O Doyle's Army - WE WANT YOU!

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
I want a promotion where I control my destiny. Give me a certain number of hands, or certain amount of rake that I need to generate in X number of days. I want something that I can figure out how much I need to play each day, set a goal to average that amount of play each day for as long as it takes, and then do it. Basically, I want something like O'Doyle has already described.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the exact sentiment why the poker sites should be all over themselves to offer our group a promotion like what was described in this thread.

Shoe, you are just one of many high volume players with this exact feeling.

Would it be okay if I use your words to continue to sell our group to the poker sites?

[Shoe]

Sure, feel free to use anything I have posted [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[WackityWhiz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If any site ran a promotion where the top 10 players in rake each month got a wsop seat, then I think this idea could work. That would draw so many customers and they would be playing so many hands. If the sites would lose money doing that, then they could do this one as an alternative. If a player makes the top 10 one month, he gets 1/2 a seat. In order to fill his seat up, he'd have to be in the top 10 another month. Once a player gets his seat, he could no longer be in the running.

I like this idea a lot, do you guys?

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not like promotions like this one you describe where "the top 10 players get a seat"

I don't like promotions like that because I do not have control over the situation. Especially on a bigger site, I'll just laugh it off and say, yeah right, what are the chances that I would be in the top 10? I want a promotion where I control my destiny. Give me a certain number of hands, or certain amount of rake that I need to generate in X number of days. I want something that I can figure out how much I need to play each day, set a goal to average that amount of play each day for as long as it takes, and then do it. Basically, I want something like O'Doyle has already described.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see your point, but from a poker site's standpoint, what way is going to make you more money?

I would have no chance to be in the top 10, so it's not like I want them to do that. If they did do a top 10 thing, people would just get together with friends and make sure that someone is playing on their account at all times, then let one of them go to the wsop and split the profits, if any.

Just my opinion that a site would want to go this way rather than have a group of people playing for guaranteed seats. It's really cool that you're trying to get this together and really cool that so many people are interested.

good luck man, I hope it works out for you, as well as all the other posters on here.

[Shoe]

[ QUOTE ]
I see your point, but from a poker site's standpoint, what way is going to make you more money?

I would have no chance to be in the top 10, so it's not like I want them to do that. If they did do a top 10 thing, people would just get together with friends and make sure that someone is playing on their account at all times, then let one of them go to the wsop and split the profits, if any.

Just my opinion that a site would want to go this way rather than have a group of people playing for guaranteed seats. It's really cool that you're trying to get this together and really cool that so many people are interested.

good luck man, I hope it works out for you, as well as all the other posters on here.


[/ QUOTE ]

I see your point too, and agree that this method should show a good increase in number of hands played as well (I just personally would prefer that they use the method O'Doyle is suggesting). However, The casual gamers who only play 1 table at a time, might get really excited and play their one table for an extra couple of hours to try to get this. They sign on the next day and see they are in 900,000th place. Now they are done trying. The 10 people that win these seats probably would have played close to that many hands anyways (maybe not, maybe it does make them go crazy too -- the poker sites would know much better than me on this).

If a site offered a WSOP package to anyone on their site who played 120k hands (or some other number) in a year, they would prpbably have a lot more players playing a lot more hands over the entire year. Many people will fall short, but have played many more hands than they otherwise would have at that site, which would all be pure extra profit for the site. The people who do make it will have contributed enough rake to atleast cover their seat and will help to promote the seat if they get on TV.

Which way is better? Who knows. Both ideas, in theory sound like they would work great for the site. Best of luck to you as well.

[Perseus]

I am interested in the details when they are put together. Email at jwc193@psu.edu ..or just PM me.

My participation hinges on what sites are used.

[Toyboy]

I'm interested.

Like you say: the idea behind this is that you are able to control your own destiny. And for a group of people with such variety in #hands played, stakes, NL/limit etc etc, it would make no sense to have the same #hands target for everybody.

my 2 cents:
In one way or the other it all boils down to MGR. Selling this based on MGR to a site would be easy; basically they would be offering a high rakeback deal (must be at least 50%, and preferably around 75% to be worth it for us?) with no risk for them other than giving up part of their rake.
The site could "block" the bonus/rakeback until we had earned enough for a WPT buy-in. They could give us say 2 years to finish; failing which the site would take the rakeback back, giving them an upside. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]
Only potential "problem": they need to keep a good track of MGR and make this transparent to us (which shouldnt really be a problem!?).

The PR value is potentially huge of course, so this should interest the mid-small sites with need for growth a lot. We could have the choice between a number of tournies, with buy-ins ranging from $5.000 up to $25.000 or whatever. Limit the #of tournies for max effect (max # of team entrants per event = publicity). The site should sponsor at least parts of air tickets + spending money as a sign of good will.

My question is: why haven't any of the sites/skins done this already? Sure, the existing sites would cannibalise on their existing client base. But what about new sites/skins? This promo should attract both high rollers and fish. This is how I would go about starting my own site anyway. Damn that would be fun (dream dream).

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]

The PR value is potentially huge of course, so this should interest the mid-small sites with need for growth a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

The PR value of this is tremendous. Let's face it Moneymaker's win followed by Raymer is what has helped make PokerStars what it is today. I think this year PokerStars sent over 1100 players, almost 20% of the field.

I agree that on face value a smaller site might be more interested than a larger one, but I would argue there are compelling reasons why even a larger site should consider this, even PokerStars.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
perhaps a cashout value less than the wsop package (the difference being the value for the site so to speak). For example take 10k in cash or take the wsop package worth probably 12-13k including travel, lodging, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]


Jason said a mouthful when he spoke these words and I did not realize it. The ones that are wanting rake return from sites instead of a WSOP trip still need to band together and support this effort.

As Jason points out the cash option would have to be less because it does not have the value to the site as the WSOP would. (No PR value for rakeback unfortunately)

Something Clever started a thread - An Idea for Stars Rakeback - laying out a plan why Stars should consider giving high volume players a rake return.

I respectfully suggest that this Poker Stars rake return crowd should throw their support our way as well.

Why? Because we both want the same thing. Something of value in exchange for our high volume play.

There is strength in numbers. We already have over 100 players indicating an interest in this plan, if that number was to swell to 2,3,4 or ten times that amount, then we might get the attention of a site like Stars.

Please keep this thread alive if you do have an interest either way and please indicate a WSOP package or a lesser rake rebate option.

Thanks to everyone who has supported this idea so far!

[bboy303]

Count me in as long as there's good game selection

[MrWookie47]

I'm not too big on tourney play or WSOP seats. I do, however, like cash money. If we can neogtiate cash for a block of play, I'm in.