O Doyle's Army - WE WANT YOU!

count me in as well.

[TruePoker CEO]

We are studying the economics of this sort of promotion, with or without an "Army" element. (For the record, the rake from ODoyle's 120,000 hands did not cover the cost of the promotion, although it was certainly worth doing. If we want to launch a promo similar to this thread, it likely would be tied to raked hands played, not just hands played).

I was off 2+2 for a couple of days and will take the time to read the entire thread, but did want to express our thanks to ODoyle for bringing this up.

Truepoker CEO

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
We are studying the economics of this sort of promotion, with or without an "Army" element. (For the record, the rake from ODoyle's 120,000 hands did not cover the cost of the promotion, although it was certainly worth doing. If we want to launch a promo similar to this thread, it likely would be tied to raked hands played, not just hands played).

I was off 2+2 for a couple of days and will take the time to read the entire thread, but did want to express our thanks to ODoyle for bringing this up.

Truepoker CEO

[/ QUOTE ]


Thanks TruePoker CEO!

I appreciate the feedback and I understand that a lot of rough edges would have to be ironed out. I also would like to publicly thank you for giving me the opportunity you did in the original 120K hands challenge. Had you not agreed to my original proposal, we would not be talking about this today and so for that I applaud you.

The 120K figure naturally came about as a result of my challenge with TruePoker. I understand that there will have to be some tinkering with this proposal to make it viable for all parties.

I do believe this overall proposal (once the rough edges are ironed out) has the potential to turn a site into the next PokerStars.

I look forward in discussing this matter further with you.

Thanks again,

O Doyle

[Sintax]

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, the rake from ODoyle's 120,000 hands did not cover the cost of the promotion

[/ QUOTE ]

The only reason that did not happen was because O'Doyle was relagated to playing every and any table he could because of the short timeframe. Obviously this included a number of low and microlimit tables.

A flat 120k hands of 3/6 or higher (and maybe as low as 2/4)would easily cover the WSOP expense.

I've noticed that a large contingency of zoo'ers are microlimt players, and I suspect many of the interested posters in this thread fit that description. I hate to burst the bubble, but at 1/2 or less, a deal such as 120,000 hands for a WSOP is never going to happen. Now, 120,000 raked hands would work, and probably even less than that but I havent done the math.

[Shoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the record, the rake from ODoyle's 120,000 hands did not cover the cost of the promotion

[/ QUOTE ]

The only reason that did not happen was because O'Doyle was relagated to playing every and any table he could because of the short timeframe. Obviously this included a number of low and microlimit tables.

A flat 120k hands of 3/6 or higher (and maybe as low as 2/4)would easily cover the WSOP expense.

I've noticed that a large contingency of zoo'ers are microlimt players, and I suspect many of the interested posters in this thread fit that description. I hate to burst the bubble, but at 1/2 or less, a deal such as 120,000 hands for a WSOP is never going to happen. Now, 120,000 raked hands would work, and probably even less than that but I havent done the math.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be playing most of my hands at $5/$10. I would also be willing to play $3/$6 but I would not want to play any lower than that. If the site also has limits like $4/$8, $6/$12 or $8/$16, I would play those too. I play $10/$20 occasionally but currently I only take very limited shots at those stakes (hopefully it will be my regular game soon). So I would need to play at a site where I could clear 120k hands at those stakes (and have enough time to clear at those stakes - if the site only has 2 $5/$10 tables going, then give me an adequate amount of time for how long it would take to play 120k hands 2-tabling).

I'm not willing to play 120k hands of $1/$2, although that may work for many others.

I play almost every day, with my play spread over 10+ sites. I would be willing to consolidate almost all of my play to this single site if I was given a long enough time frame to play the hands.

Whichever site does this will be gaining 120k of my hands that they would not otherwise have received. I get to live my dream of going to the WSOP. The site also gets a promotional bonus in that I will be wearing their clothing (even if the site does not require it I will definitely be wearing their clothing to show my appreciate for the opportunity), so they also have the promotional gain going for them as well.

I know most of what I said has already been covered in other posts, so I'll stop now.

EDIT: In rakeback alone I would come pretty darn close to 12k after playing 120k raked hands at my current limits. I think the sites should come up with a method to award the seat based on your MGR, not on your number of raked hands. After looking over the numbers I don't think I would be in it it was 120k raked hands for me, as i would not be gaining much over rakeback alone, where the games are most likely juicier and more widely available. Regardless, I am still very interested in this and hope it moves forward. Please keep me updated.

[xniNja]

I'm not sure I would do this, just because I'm not sure it's worth the trouble unless they were handing out 100 WSOP packages? (1 per each member) The reason it doesn't matter that 120K raked hands is less than, equal to, or greater than the price of the WSOP package, is because it's a larger rakeback than 0 or even 26%. If you put in that amount of hands anyway, and theres enough players on the site, it's a win-win deal, isn't it?

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]

I would be playing most of my hands at $5/$10.


I'm not willing to play 120k hands of $1/$2, although that may work for many others.


[/ QUOTE ]

As stated before, this might turn into a situation where the player who plays only 1/2 might have to play 150K hands while the 5/10 player might only have to play 90K hands. (just guestimates off the top of my head)

The 120K hands figure I used was just strictly because of the benchmark that was set with True.

[pokerrookie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the record, the rake from ODoyle's 120,000 hands did not cover the cost of the promotion

[/ QUOTE ]

The only reason that did not happen was because O'Doyle was relagated to playing every and any table he could because of the short timeframe. Obviously this included a number of low and microlimit tables.

A flat 120k hands of 3/6 or higher (and maybe as low as 2/4)would easily cover the WSOP expense.

I've noticed that a large contingency of zoo'ers are microlimt players, and I suspect many of the interested posters in this thread fit that description. I hate to burst the bubble, but at 1/2 or less, a deal such as 120,000 hands for a WSOP is never going to happen. Now, 120,000 raked hands would work, and probably even less than that but I havent done the math.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder whether they would have made money if they collected rake when the pot reached $5 at 1/2 or $10 at 2/4. If they had 50 cent chips at their site, more of ODoyles hands would have been raked.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the record, the rake from ODoyle's 120,000 hands did not cover the cost of the promotion

[/ QUOTE ]

The only reason that did not happen was because O'Doyle was relagated to playing every and any table he could because of the short timeframe. Obviously this included a number of low and microlimit tables.

A flat 120k hands of 3/6 or higher (and maybe as low as 2/4)would easily cover the WSOP expense.

I've noticed that a large contingency of zoo'ers are microlimt players, and I suspect many of the interested posters in this thread fit that description. I hate to burst the bubble, but at 1/2 or less, a deal such as 120,000 hands for a WSOP is never going to happen. Now, 120,000 raked hands would work, and probably even less than that but I havent done the math.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Sintax,

You are quite correct. I did have to play all sorts of limits to be able to get these hands in during the challenge period. Without going back and checking, I think almost 65 - 70% of my play was at $1/$2 and another 10% was at $ 25 NL.

And you are also correct and stating if all my play would have been spread between 2/4 and 3/6 it would easily cover the cost.

However, I would mention there were residual benefits for TruePoker as well. I don't have any hard data, but I believe as the result of the attention my challenge got, a good number of players went and played at TruePoker. Some may have become permanent customers.

Also just all the attention TruePoker received here at this forum has a long term positive effect for the site that can't be put in dollars and cents, but does bring value for a longer period of time.

While I definitely believe my rake alone did not cover the cost of the trip, from my perspective, TruePoker got excellent value for my 120K hands challenge given all of the residual value they received. In any business, the goodwill of that business is a huge component of the value.

In saying that, I also understand that any poker site will have to look at all the factors to see if this is viable or not. I would like to caution everyone the 120k hand figure that I have used is not set in stone. That was merely the benchmark I used since that was my agreement with TruePoker.

Even though we would be a group, this proposal might have to be fine tuned where someone exclusively playing $1/$2 might have to play 150K hands, where someone that plays nothing but $5/$10 and higher might only have to play 90K hands. (These examples I'm giving are just off the top of my head without doing any type of exact calculations.)

Another approach a site might use, which would not be quite as fair to the higher limit players, would be to use an average rake calculaton for all players in the challenge and then use the same hand requirement for all players.

A site would also hopefully take in all the other residual value they pick up as a result of taking on our group. Especially when we show up at a major poker event 100+ members strong and one of us wins it!

[pokerrookie]

[ QUOTE ]
...and one of us wins it!

[/ QUOTE ]

You can go ahead and call me by my name.

Although, every day that ticks by requires more hands to be played per day. I hope something is figured out sooner than later.