|
|
#231
07-28-2005, 11:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: O Doyle\'s Army - WE WANT YOU!
I think you have a great idea and I’d like to help out where I can. I own a website hosting company and would like to offer some free hosting for your venture. A site would be helpful in many ways.
Attract gaming sites, show off your idea Add legitimacy Allow you to manage your “army” via user registration PM me..... www.detroitservers.com 
|
|
#232
07-28-2005, 11:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: O Doyle\'s Army - WE WANT YOU!
[ QUOTE ]
Hey Otter, I think you are totally confused on what I have proposed. You need to go back and read my original post. For example, if there are 100 players that agree to play 120K hands of $3/$6 in 4 months on a site for a WSOP package, as long as they all hit the hand requirement in the allotted time, they all would win a seat. This is not a contest, it would be I play x amount of hands in x amount of time and I get the WSOP seat. If I don't hit the amount of hands during the time period, I get nothing. But I am guaranteed the WSOP seat as long I meet the hand requirement in the required time. You alone control the outcome, you are not in competition with any other player for the seat. [/ QUOTE ] And in my first response I said that I doubt that a large number of seats would be feasible. 100 seats into a WSOP event is very expensive. And if those 100 players end up playing each other at all, they would just be paying for the seats themselves through their rake? If they aren't paying for it through their rake (or the rake generated during their play) then why would the poker-site do it? And it just doesn't have to pay for the seat, but also all the administration costs that go with tracking, managing, and distributing the prizes. If it is a marketing cost, and the added exposure 100 people with poker-site shirts on in a tournament... then why give it to 100 people that can just play xx number of hands? Why not give the seats to people who have been proven to win tournaments, and have perhaps a better chance at making TV tables? If their generated rake IS enough to pay for the seat+costs, then why not just ask for a % of the total rake generated? Are we essentially asking here, for a percentage of all the rake generated (not just the rake we pay)? Some sort of self-affiliation, so to speak? I think I understand what you're offering, but I'm just trying to see if what you're looking for can be marketable to casual players as well, rather than just high-volume 120k in 5 months type players. And if the casual 10k-15k hand a month players can contribute. And I wonder if the general public would be suspicious of 'contract players'... people paid to play the site, essentially. I'm really just playing a bit of devil's advocate here... I think it is a very intriguing idea, and just seeing how it can fit in the whole scheme, really. KO
|
|
#234
07-28-2005, 01:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: O Doyle\'s Army - WE WANT YOU!
[ QUOTE ]
My main point here once again is that there is strength in numbers. There has been well over 100 players who have expressed an interest, and if this can balloon to several hundred or even one thousand high volume players, what would their play be worth to a poker site? [/ QUOTE ] I can't imagine it would be worth much since most of you are winning players. While doing your TruePoker 120k, you were essentially a TruePoker prop player and embassador. On a small site like TruePoker or GamingClub, a few high-volume prop players provide value because they keep the games going and generate interest, but they don't need 1,000 props. On a big site like pokerstars, they probably don't need any props to keep games going, and they don't need more embassadors when they already have Raymer, Monermaker, etc. Sorry to interupt, but it seems like everyone is arguing about what % rakeback they should get, but I think you should step back and try to see the forest through the trees. If you are a winning player, you don't pay any rake: the losers paid your rake for you, so giving the rakeback to you is overkill. Rakeback is being phased out by party for a reason. It is bad business. ODoyle and a couple others may have gotten great deals, but they are really props, not valued customers. Or maybe I'm wrong. Good luck either way.
|
|
#235
07-28-2005, 01:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: O Doyle\'s Army - WE WANT YOU!
[ QUOTE ]
If you are a winning player, you don't pay any rake: the losers paid your rake for you, so giving the rakeback to you is overkill. [/ QUOTE ] So what you're saying is, that gigantic number in the corner of my pokertracker stats, that's not actually rake? It's just a pretend number? So where's my $25,000? I want another car. Man I hope you're right and I actually haven't been paying rake since I started playing poker because I could really use that money.
|
|
#236
07-28-2005, 02:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: O Doyle\'s Army - WE WANT YOU!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If you are a winning player, you don't pay any rake: the losers paid your rake for you, so giving the rakeback to you is overkill. [/ QUOTE ] So what you're saying is, that gigantic number in the corner of my pokertracker stats, that's not actually rake? It's just a pretend number? So where's my $25,000? I want another car. Man I hope you're right and I actually haven't been paying rake since I started playing poker because I could really use that money. [/ QUOTE ] I deposited $50 into PartyPoker 2 years ago. This has been my only desposit of my own money. I've probably generated $10,000 in rake. How much money has Party made from me? a. $0 b. $10,000 The answer is a.
|
|
#238
07-28-2005, 02:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: O Doyle\'s Army - WE WANT YOU!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If you are a winning player, you don't pay any rake: the losers paid your rake for you, so giving the rakeback to you is overkill. [/ QUOTE ] So what you're saying is, that gigantic number in the corner of my pokertracker stats, that's not actually rake? It's just a pretend number? So where's my $25,000? I want another car. Man I hope you're right and I actually haven't been paying rake since I started playing poker because I could really use that money. [/ QUOTE ] I deposited $50 into PartyPoker 2 years ago. This has been my only desposit of my own money. I've probably generated $10,000 in rake. How much money has Party made from me? a. $0 b. $10,000 The answer is a. [/ QUOTE ] So, if you sit at a blackjack table with $50, run it up to $10,000, then lose it all, do you think you've only lost $50?
|
|
#240
07-28-2005, 03:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: O Doyle\'s Army - WE WANT YOU!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If you are a winning player, you don't pay any rake: the losers paid your rake for you, so giving the rakeback to you is overkill. [/ QUOTE ] So what you're saying is, that gigantic number in the corner of my pokertracker stats, that's not actually rake? It's just a pretend number? So where's my $25,000? I want another car. Man I hope you're right and I actually haven't been paying rake since I started playing poker because I could really use that money. [/ QUOTE ] I deposited $50 into PartyPoker 2 years ago. This has been my only desposit of my own money. I've probably generated $10,000 in rake. How much money has Party made from me? a. $0 b. $10,000 The answer is a. [/ QUOTE ] LMAO. You're kidding, right? You can't be this dumb. You are pretending.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
