Party 30/60 question

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Opening unlimited 30-60 games would have a noticably negative effect on the 15-30 games. From a business standpoint, why would Party risk a good thing?


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely - and the negative effect (based on empirical evidence from cardrooms experimenting with bigger games) on both the smaller games and player base in general could be significant. If I were them, I'd do exactly the same thing - have the game so at least a higher option does exist along with the cachet that carries. Since I think that's by far the right business decision for them, that's why I pegged my percentages that way.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
When Party eventually starts spreading all the games people want BIG NL games (like UB and Stars) Big limit games (like Stars) Do you think they will attain over 85% of the online market

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that would help their growth rate or market share.

1) The pool of players who want to play bigger NL games and big limit games is pretty small in the grand scheme of things. At cardrooms, those games are often spread for the prestige of having those games, not as a big moneymaker. I don't think the prestige of running a big game is nearly as significant a factor online.

2) With games like this, more players will go broke faster and not play online poker - or play it less frequently. Imagine player X. Scenario 1, he goes and plays $1000 buy-in NL a few times. He loses each time and quits Internet poker. Scenario 2, he goes and plays $1000 buy-in NL, loses, comes back a month later, plays another session, etc. Scenario 3, he goes and plays small max buy-in NL every day and loses a little or wins a little every day. Then he starts telling all his friends what he's doing every night. I think Scenario 3 (and the same holds true for limit or no-limit) is what gets the most player growth - having people able to come to the site and play poker for fun for hours on end every day without losing a lot of money really quickly and sometimes winning.

The people who want those bigger games aren't people who are going to bring new faces into the game. Instead, they are largely people who are looking for quicker and easier ways to separate bad players from their money. So, having those games and those players isn't going to have a big positive impact on growing market share.

On the other hand, I think having bad beat jackpots or high hand jackpots would definitely help their growth rate and market share.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Word of the day: Fankles(n)- an abbreviation for fat ankles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't the more proper term cankles (calf-ankles)? Or is there a distinction between cankles and fankles?

[Inthacup]

You're right. Cankles is more better than Fankles. To my knowledge they're interchangable. In any case, it's a term every man should know.


Cup

[J.A.Sucker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


1) The pool of players who want to play bigger NL games and big limit games is pretty small in the grand scheme of things. At cardrooms, those games are often spread for the prestige of having those games, not as a big moneymaker. I don't think the prestige of running a big game is nearly as significant a factor online.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is likely true for online poker and for most cardhouses in general, since they don't have the player base. However, in markets that can sustatin it, high-limit games make a LOT more money for the house. San Jose can maintain a core of 40/80 games (with higher games several days a week), and Marco (Bay 101 owner) loves this, since the 40 game gets him 9 bucks a half hour (no comps) times 9 people. The games also keep going shorthanded, so the collection continues, though it's obviously lower. The 80/160 game charges even more (I think 11 a half).

LA is the only other area that I know of that can sustain these high limit games all the time. They have an extensive list of games that generate in excess of 160 dollars an hour from the table. This is much better than a bunch of 3/6 games, where the 3 dollar drop (assume the jackpot really all does returned to the players) produces about 90 bucks an hour for the house.

At Lucky Chances, since they cap the time collection, then I agree with you that the house makes little from having the big games, and they likely do it for prestige. However, at Commerce (and elsewhere in LA, I suspect) and Bay 101, I don't think this is the case.

Online, I think the pool of players is artifically limited primarily because it's so much more difficult to move large bankrolls around online.

[RollaJ]

So it seems, according to what you are saying, that if Party never opens a bigger game they will eventually get that 90% mkt share, as players on the other sites will go broke sooner than the players on Party will

[Dante]

I think if they stole Ultimate Bet's software and starting using that, they would jump to 85% immediately....I primarily played UB, then switched to play party and UB...the party software is hideous.

[Prickly Pete]

I think it's somewhat a matter of taste. I'm not a lover of Party's SW, but I like it just as well as UB. With the exception that the miniview tables are a fantastic idea.

[Ulysses]

By big games I was referring to games like the Bellagio $2000/4000 game or maybe even the LC big NL game. Those games aren't what's going to make or break a cardroom, but it's really cool for a cardroom to have them. I think the same thing holds true for games like 200-400 and $1000+ buyin NL games online.

Also note that cardrooms have physical constraints - they only have so many tables, so maximizing the per table earn is a bigger factor in maximizing the total earn. Online, they can optimize for the maximum long-term earn, whatever that might be.

[J.A.Sucker]

Good points, the both of them.