Why Party Blackjack is Wrong

[cocked&locked]

You make a reasonable point, but there also might be a hidden advantage here.

If party begins to market itself as a blackjack site as well, it might attract new players. Just like a casino, there are levels of interaction that players are comfortable with and might or might not advance through.

Many people like to play slots because there is no interaction and they aren't intimidated or afraid of making bad decisions. In table games, they will have to deal with the interaction and quicker decision making, but are not playing against other players, and only have to deal with a minor amount of hassle when they make a bad decision. Of course, the next level is poker, where the action is faster and they must deal with playing other players.

If enough people come to party to play blackjack specifically, they might eventually decide to try their hand at poker.

Not sure if it will work out this way, but who knows. the poker room looked very intimidating to me the first time I went in a casino, but after playing blackjack a while, it became less so.

[otnemem]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, he can try and take his shot at 5/10 or 10/20 against the pros where he would have to play for hours to tilt up a reasonable sum.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might be taking yourself a little too seriously.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
There will be fish who win more money to play poker with too. Yes, overall it takes a little out of our pockets probably, but don't forget there'll be fish who make a quick hit in blackjack then take it back to the poker table.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are pathetic and so is Party Poker. Yet Party is smart bringing BJ to its poker room for suckers like you and whoever else to dump their BR when going on TILT. You don't have the disipline to not play it and they know it. What a smart business decision on Party's part to do this. Now that I know there are truely more suckers than I thought possible, I will get my own BJ website to make a killing.

[B Dids]

[ QUOTE ]
Since the skin break-up and the addition of side-bets/blackjack - I've moved back to Party and I'm having my best month ever.

I don't think it's so bad. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically.

Obviously the fish giving their money to party and not us isn't great, but the fact that I keep finding 3/6 tables with 4 people sitting with like 56.85 is pretty damn awesome.

[MicroBob]

holy overreaction batman.


I don't know if the blackjack application ON the poker client will make a big difference or not. I tend to think it won't be that big a deal.




[ QUOTE ]
Now, in their greed, partypoker has robbed us of our best source of income and in doing so, marred the once pure arena of texas holdem.

[/ QUOTE ]

even if BJ really does take a lot of the fishy's money away.....this is just a ridiculous sentence.


1 - "in their greed": An online-poker business is 'greedy'?!?! Stop the presses. i have no problem with the fact that they are greedy. I'm greedy too.

2 - "partypoker has robbed us": They haven't robbed anybody. They have no obligation to set it up so that X number of players always end up winners. It's just poker. It's not welfare. You can either win or you can't. It's not incumbent upon them to make it extraordinarily easy for all half-decent, weak-tight players to grind out an income there.

3 - "pure arena of texas hold-em": I can't even figure out where to begin with this one because it's so idiotic.


4 - I still don't understand why online-gamblers at party-poker would be THAT much more inclined to lose all their money at blackjack than they were before. There are only about 9-zillion blackjack sites out there.

5 - If incorporating the BJ client on the poker-application really DOES bring about more blackjack play for them (as I suppose it is doing) then I think it is an obvious business move for them. Profits are profits. If they decide "well...I think our players would play blackjack also...if we just made it easier for them" then it would be stupid to argue "well...yes, but we can't give them blackjack because we have a responsibility to the high-volume players to keep the poker games as profitable for them as possible."

Think about what you're saying.
It's their company.
They are under no obligation to you to see to it that poker is as profitable as can be.

[ QUOTE ]
"well...I think our players would play blackjack also...if we just made it easier for them"

[/ QUOTE ]

If I designed this feature, I would also add a feature that automatically transfers you to a BJ table when you go bust at a poker table.

[wonkadaddy]

despite the hysterical rhetoric used to make your point (been listening to republican talk radio lately? [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]) i wholly agree. it's probably not a killer, but BJ does a lot more harm than good for the winning poker player on PP.

i think a lot of my money comes from tourney winners that play stakes they're not competitive at. i can totally see a lot of them taking their "shot" at BJ instead of a 10-20/20-40/etc game that they likely feel outclassed in.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
You might think that this is a post about me tilting away my bankroll at blackjack. This is not so. I am writing because I am pissed off at what party blackjack is doing to my poker game and the status of partypoker itself.

Blackjack is not a bad thing. Going to casinos to play or even playing online has its cocaine-like advantages. I love the game. The problem is that when Partypoker decided to include blackjack in with their main poker program, they have done damage to the dynamics of their poker room. This is the problem:

We poker players recognise that playing anywhere other than our own homes will require some sort of cost in the form of rake. That is generally accepted, and small enough to be little more than an inconvenience. Despite this, poker is for the *most* part a zero sum game for us. When one fish goes on tilt and blows his bankroll, the rest of us are right there to scoop it up and that's mostly how we make our living (not playing against other good players). This isn't really news to you.

The problem comes when you add blackjack to the equation. Blackjack is a black hole of fish money. Now, when something clicks inside the addicted gambler or fish on tilt's head that makes him go crazy and decide to lose half his role, the path of his money to us is blocked. Sure, he can try and take his shot at 5/10 or 10/20 against the pros where he would have to play for hours to tilt up a reasonable sum. But why do that when he can just throw it all down on blackjack and burn it up in three and a half minutes? Partypoker wins again, and instead of the fish's money going to the deserving sharks he feeds, it is sucked out of the system but the now not-so-insignificant establishment.

Again, I am not against blackjack or online casinos - if you want to get your gambling fix (and i do from time to time) that's allright with me. What really pisses me off is that by partypoker including the casino features within the poker program, they have robbed the successful players of a significant portion of their income by sucking out the tilt money that would have trickled up to us eventually.

No longer is the establishment a necesary evil skimming a little bit off the top each time. Now, in their greed, partypoker has robbed us of our best source of income and in doing so, marred the once pure arena of texas holdem.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes most fish fish, is the fact that they don't know that they are fish. Poker has the illusion to many people of being a beatable game when it is not for most of them. However, far more people know that blackjack is not beatable than know that poker isn't. You're over-reacting, there's still plenty of fishmoney in the sea that is party poker.

[SinCityGuy]

Party blackjack is wrong because they only have 10% deck penetration. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]