Players Union

[GrannyMae]

incidentally, would you see this union being inclusive? it won't be.

do you think that serious online players like fischman and daniel would want to be involved in the union? i think they would want to stay away from it because their best interests are served by sucking up to sites, NOT by organizing against them (which is exactly what a union like this would do).

point is that there will be dividing forces within the established community and that will be a problem.

the sites would not give us the time of day i fear.

[scotty34]

I agree with Granny's sentiments, and also I see another problem with organizing a union. Unions are able to excercise control over its members. For instance, if you want to work as a teacher, you have to join the Teacher's Union. If the teachers want to strike, but you still want to work, you are out of luck - it is illegal for you to cross that picket line.

I think it would be exceedingly difficult to organize an effective union and maintain control of it. Similar to the player strike that was proposed the other day, if the union attempted to withdraw its members from a site, many would not oblige. They would be under no legal obligation to do so. Many are making their entire living by playing high limits on their preferred site of Party Poker. They would be thrilled that the twoplustwo crowd and other pros would be getting up and leaving, as they would have a much greater fish ratio.

I doubt its possible to effectively convince hundreds of pros that they should just pick up and leave because Party is not paying enough attention to them. Playing at Party is too important to their way of life.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
i think they would want to stay away from it because their best interests are served by sucking up to sites, NOT by organizing against them (which is exactly what a union like this would do).

[/ QUOTE ]

As I stated in my post the terminology "union" and "dues" should not have been used and I think Stu now wholeheartedly agrees.

Granny, how does a High Volume Poker Player's Discount Club that can offer substantial discounts to its members due to their high volume of play cause a problem for anyone? We are talking about a very small group of players in the whole scheme of things and the online poker site's best customers.

I would have to respectfully disagree that any industry would want to run off their best customers. In fact, I can see a world where these online sites are competing for our business very aggressively if we market ourselves correctly.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with Granny's sentiments, and also I see another problem with organizing a union. Unions are able to excercise control over its members. For instance, if you want to work as a teacher, you have to join the Teacher's Union. If the teachers want to strike, but you still want to work, you are out of luck - it is illegal for you to cross that picket line.

I think it would be exceedingly difficult to organize an effective union and maintain control of it. Similar to the player strike that was proposed the other day, if the union attempted to withdraw its members from a site, many would not oblige. They would be under no legal obligation to do so. Many are making their entire living by playing high limits on their preferred site of Party Poker. They would be thrilled that the twoplustwo crowd and other pros would be getting up and leaving, as they would have a much greater fish ratio.

I doubt its possible to effectively convince hundreds of pros that they should just pick up and leave because Party is not paying enough attention to them. Playing at Party is too important to their way of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Scott,

As I mentioned to Stu in my original post the words "union" and "dues" were not good ones to use for precisely some of the reasons use state. This would not be a union. It could be like a Sam's Club for high volume poker players. A High Volume Poker Player's Discount Club would be able to offer its members a large discount on rake (40-50% rake return) because a poker site will agree to it to secure this group's play. A membership fee would have to be charged and a player would have to document their play to be able to join. This would limit membership to only truly serious high volume players. Las Vegas competes for "whales" very vigorously and I could see the major poker sites competing very vigorously for ours.

[GrannyMae]

Granny, how does a High Volume Poker Player's Discount Club that can offer substantial discounts to its members due to their high volume of play cause a problem for anyone?

it causes no problems and is an excellent idea. however, you would have to get a proposal together to purchase a set block of table hours for a discounted rake. this requires you to put up that cash in advance, and it would be more of a group buy business move and not any form of players union.

and to clarify, i am not against rakeback. however, it has to be in the rules because i have a legitimate business and have no desire to operate in the semi covert way that big party affiliates have had to operate in. people give me crap all the time for opening my trap about paradise rakeback. that's simply because they won't allow ME to do it. if granny can't do it, then no one should. so if every tom dick and harry is giving rakeback, when only the super affiliates are offering good prices, then there is going to be trouble in the rakeback business. the sites want to avoid trouble. that's really what this is all about. they are mitigating any potential problems before the float.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
Granny, how does a High Volume Poker Player's Discount Club that can offer substantial discounts to its members due to their high volume of play cause a problem for anyone?

it causes no problems and is an excellent idea. however, you would have to get a proposal together to purchase a set block of table hours for a discounted rake. this requires you to put up that cash in advance, and it would be more of a group buy business move and not any form of players union.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is moreso what I would envision. A group of high volume players each make a 1-2k contribution with the majority of that going to a site, which in turn would promise us a high rake rebate on our play.

[sourbeaver]

I think Party could definitely garantee themselves the loyalty of a lot of high volumes players by creating a program where players with, say, X thousand hands a month get a % of their rake back.

[pokerplayer28]

you guys overestimate how valuable you are to a site. They know youll play where you make the most money so give money back to high volume players? or use it on marketing which will attract more fish to the site and you keep the high volume players?

remember choice poker 50% rakeback where are they now?
zerorake no rake where are they now?

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
do you think that serious online players like fischman and daniel would want to be involved in the union?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fischman was propping for Ultimate Bet, but I'm not sure he's still there. As for Ultimate Bet, they appear to be one of the few sites that welcome rakeback. It's pretty much done out in the open, and I guess they think it's good for business.

[SinSixer]

[ QUOTE ]
I would have to respectfully disagree that any industry would want to run off their best customers. In fact, I can see a world where these online sites are competing for our business very aggressively if we market ourselves correctly.



[/ QUOTE ]

First sentence is correct.

Second sentence you falsely assume that high volume winning players are a poker sites best customers.

8 fish are playing in a game with 2 8-tabling 2+2 sharks. Who gets the money? The sharks make their 2 BB hour off the fish, cashes out and pays the rent with it; Party scoops up the remains.

10 fish in a game. Who gets the money? Party gets all of it over time.

Who do you think are "the whales" in Party's eyes? Who do you think are the "card-counters and advantage player scum"?