My take on the Party debacle - Page 3

MyTurn2Raise · #21 10-14-2005, 06:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
When they started calling everyone saying rakeback was open again was this not in direct contrast with their own terms and agreements.

[/ QUOTE ]

????Who did this? When? Is they the affiliates or party? Intriguing storyline here

beanie · #22 10-14-2005, 07:45 AM

About 3 weeks ago Party affiliate managers started calling affiliates saying you can do rakeback on the DL, they approached many big Empire and Eurobet affiliates as well. In retrospect it seemed to set up what happened, at the time everyone thought it was a bit odd but their was a lot of uncertainty with Empire at least. In fact many people were set to go then got another call saying things are changing, some agreed upon percentages started to change. Got real ugly real fast. Essentially poured salt in an already deepening wound.

#23 10-14-2005, 05:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Party created this problem themselves and turned on the people that made them who they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

For bonus points, identify this quote:

"Once you get a piece of a business like that, it's a cinch to squeeze your partners out. Then you're on Easy Street."

#24 10-14-2005, 05:51 PM

My take may be a little different from some of yours. I haven't seen it elsewhere on the forum so I'd thought I'd mention it in this thread.

I don't think the split was about rakeback but who it was going to. Looking at Empire post-split, the rooms are full of TAGs and rocks, who I'd guess were winning players. These players are not a profit source - they are in competition with Party for the fish's money. Why would Party want to indirectly pay these guys to play.

If a fish has $100/month to lose. Isn't Party better off if he loses it all in rake rather than to other players

My guess is Party looked at the skin players as a group and saw they were not net losers. They then decided that they could either pay full retail rake by signing up with Party directly or leave the fish to be sucked dry by Party's rake.

If you think I'm wrong, please answer this question. Do you think the split would have happened if Empire players were fish? Would Party risk losing these players?

GrannyMae · #25 10-14-2005, 06:49 PM

Party Poker single handedly gave every card room an opportunity to gain marketshare on them

the total players getting rakeback are statistically insignificant to the population of online players. there will be no discernible difference in marketshare because of this blip.

sublime · #26 10-14-2005, 07:08 PM

I think its quite humerous that the majority of online players have no idea that somethign changed this week. they are just excited they can bet on sooted flops now.

GrannyMae · #27 10-14-2005, 07:20 PM

HA!!!

love the avatar.

nice of cup to make it 80x80, huh?

AAAA · #28 10-14-2005, 07:38 PM

sounds like the "Godfather" or something from "Casino," the movie? Maybe the start of a new epic mini-series, "The Party Game."

was I close?

#29 10-14-2005, 11:18 PM

Scarlet Street. A nice film noir. Dan Duryea is trying to convince his girlfriend to scam Edward G. Robinson. He says that if he can get so much money together, he could get a share in a garage, and then squeeze his partners out.

Doesn't play well on the Internet. Check out the movie and see Dan Duryea say this in his deliciously evil manner.

somapopper · #30 10-15-2005, 02:19 AM

Um, evidence? Mmost games you sit in 5/10 and above are half multi-tabling TAGs unless you find a really good one, are you suggesting that these people don't know you about rake back, because I can assure you they are not a figment of my imagination.