O Doyle's Army - WE WANT YOU!

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
O'Doyle's plan is not to have 100 2+2ers log on to pokerstars and demand 30% of their rake. O'Doyle's plan is to have 100 2+2ers log onto your average crappy site and get the games going.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I'm not sure I'm on board with O'Doyle's plan.

I wish everyone the best of luck, but I think my idea (for Stars rakeback) is pretty different.

I just think Stars (and perhaps only Stars) is in position to steal lots of market share from Party by offering rakeback to high volume players. I offered an idea to how this might be done. I'm not trying to wield a collective bargaining force... I'm just sharing an idea that would seem to be beneficial for both parties (Stars and HVPs).

The reasons Stars might succeed in this.

1) They're already big and have good games. As sthief pointed out, pro and semi-pro grinders aren't going to leave party to play on startuppoker.com for 50% rakeback. The games won't be juicy enough, and it'll be too hard to multitable.

2) They've already got a very good reputation and excellent support.

3) It seems that Party is doing everything it can to alienate its best customers. I think a lot of people would switch to Stars in a second if the rakeback was comparable.

[/ QUOTE ]


Just to get a 30% rakeback offer from any site has never been my plan. However, I would not eliminate Pokerstars as a possiblity altogether. I agree if it is just a group of 100 players under my original plan it would be a lot more attractive for several other sites besides Stars.

But, if our group is several hundred strong we would be more apt to get even a larger site's attention. I can think of some compelling reasons why Stars might negotiate with our group if it is much larger and a plan where it could possibly benefit all parties involved.

If Stars wanted to just steal some of Party's rakeback players by offerring 30% directly to high volume players, they could have already done this yesterday.

The common thread that both of our groups still have is that we want something of value for our high volume play. And, if we are several hundred hundred strong it gives us more bargaining power.

An "army of high volume players" with different objectives might not be able to fit under one umbrella. However, if our group is large with different objectives, it gives us more of an opportunity to strike a deal with a site or perhaps even more than one site.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey O'Doyle are you considering starting an email or PM list to keep in touch with all thsoe itnerested? I may be gonig away for a week or two, and I want to stay in the loop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't worry I will contact anyone that has expressed an interest. Naturally there will be a post here, but I am developing of list of interested players.

I would say be patient, as I would be surprised if something breaks in a few days. Any site that does this will definitely evaluate it carefully before making a decision.

It is still important that we still get as many high volume players as possible to have an interest in this.

[baronzeus]

This argument is stupid. It is clear you pay pay rake whether you win or lose. End of discussion

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah. And a core group of 100 players would certainly be valueable to a site that is struggling to keep games going. O'Doyle's plan is not to have 100 2+2ers log on to pokerstars and demand 30% of their rake. O'Doyle's plan is to have 100 2+2ers log onto your average crappy site and get the games going.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I don't know what the point of that other argument was.

It seems we are in agreement on my main point: your real value are as prop players. ODoyle basically propped for True, and now you are trying to get together to prop as a group.

As you said, I agree that pokerstars would have no interest in hundreds for props. Maybe you could prop as a group at a smaller site, but I just can't see that happenning on the scale you are talking about. Good luck though.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah. And a core group of 100 players would certainly be valueable to a site that is struggling to keep games going. O'Doyle's plan is not to have 100 2+2ers log on to pokerstars and demand 30% of their rake. O'Doyle's plan is to have 100 2+2ers log onto your average crappy site and get the games going.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I don't know what the point of that other argument was.

It seems we are in agreement on my main point: your real value are as prop players. ODoyle basically propped for True, and now you are trying to get together to prop as a group.

As you said, I agree that pokerstars would have no interest in hundreds for props. Maybe you could prop as a group at a smaller site, but I just can't see that happenning on the scale you are talking about. Good luck though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Phil,

These are not my words, they are somebody elses.

My plan I think could have appeal to many sites if they would take a really serious look at it.

And this is not about propping at all. It is about high volume players receving more value for their play that they presently do today.

Yes, there has to be something in it for the sites. This could be a temendous PR tool for any size site.

An "army of high volume player's endorsement" of a poker site could prove to have much more long term value to a poker site than any pro's, if it is properly promoted.

[jrstout]

Im interested

[Reckless_Abandon]

I'm a very high volume player who is interested in cash or a seat. Since I live in Vegas, I would want the option of pocketing travel money.

One other quick concern, I would want players to get out what they put in. Heads up and shorthanded players contribute much more to rake than full tablers. I suggest getting points per hand played based on number of players and limits. Or even a sliding scale of rakeback based on the speed of completion.

Just some thoughts

[O Doyle Rules]

Hi All,

Just thought I would give a little update so far.

First off, I appreciate the overwhelming interest that this idea has generated to date. (Here's hoping that some poker sites will appreciate it even more)

Players expressing an interest in the the original idea (without and with reservations and or concerns - for example the army uniform idea) - 113 players

There have been another 40 some players expressing interest, but only if they could play on a certain site or for a cash bonus.

I feel that there is also an "undercurrent" of interest out there that is not yet known. This post has had over 5700 views (in a little over a week) and I have noticed that several posters that have expressed interest are in the "stranger" category.

I am cautiously optimistic that this "army of high volume players" idea has a fairly good chance of becoming a reality. I would ask for patience because I think it will be later rather than sooner. Some of the "rough edges" have to be ironed out.

Once again, thanks for all the interest and wish me luck with the negotiations!

[Anders]

Good luck, ODoyle. I hope this works out [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[LostMyCaseMoney]

Okay here are my thoughts on the matter.

1) The negative first. No need for a name or symbol or uniform for the organization. The sole purpose is to get a deal with a poker site.

2) Make it an 18+ site and allow entries to 18+ major tournies like the EPT because otherwise I'm SOL =\ Not actually needed but to increase the number of participants it would be.

3) Run it off FPP rather then # of hands played. The person playing 150k hands of 10/20 deserves more then the same number of hands played @ 2/4. That way everyone will still have a set goal but the higher you play (the more rake you generate) the quicker you can get there. This also allows the sites to determine an amount which would not cost them to take a hit (or @ least not a large one) to their bottom line. If the offer is 75%+ rakeback that can only go towards a major tourney I still make out quite well and everyone wins. However "chumming" would be needed because I don't prefer to play in games with a large % of high volume winning players from 2+2