My take on the Party debacle

[GrannyMae]

5/10 and above are half multi-tabling TAGs

count the tables of 5-10 and up and compare that to the total tables, and total tournies running.

then, even if i concede your assertion that 50% of them are multi-tabling (which i don't), then the population you are speaking of is still tiny tiny compared to the total player base.

[palman]

Saying 5/10 and above is multi-tabling TAG's is flat out wrong.

If you said 10/20 you'd have a better case. But a 5/10 game couldn't possibly be more passive.

[somapopper]

fair enough, but do those limits and above account for the majority of pp's profit?

I honestly don't know, I'm asking.

[somapopper]

Sorry, that's what I see. When I open a 5/10 table, I'm surprised if I don't see 3 of these guys (of varying skills, I'm still going to consider a 26/10/2.0 or a 12/8/3.0 a "TAG" just not a very good one). I'm surprised if I see 6 or more of them, hence I probably should have said 40%, but if you think the 5/10 tables are extremly LLP I don't think you're spending a lot of time there.

edit: My first example of a TAG probably wouldn't be considered one if we were discussing strategy, but in the context of multi-tablers who are at least breaking even, I feel like this player should be included in the group I refered to in my OP. Perhaps that is where we differ?

[GrannyMae]

[ QUOTE ]
fair enough, but do those limits and above account for the majority of pp's profit?

I honestly don't know, I'm asking.

[/ QUOTE ]

remember that casino's make more money on the penny slots than they do on multi-millionaire whales. it is the same concept. there are tens of thousands of players playing below 5-10 and this income generates more than the higher limits. the higher limits are profitable of course because max rake is usually taken, but in the long run there are much more lower limit and tourney players on site (and these players are more likely to be house accounts).

there is profit for the site in 10 tablers, HOWEVER, most 10 tablers are under an affiliate so the house makes much less than you would think on these multi-table monsters. imagine a full 15-30 with 50% of the players signed up through an MGR affiliate. then take a 1-2 table of house accounts and the site is making substantially more on the 1-2 table.

[Sniper]

For the mathematically inclined...

Party raked in $17/person/day they sat at a poker table, on average during Apr-Jun 2005. (for comparison a casino player was worth around $80/person/day played, to Party)

[somapopper]

Good post, I see it now. I still think we matter though damnit. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Inthacup]

imagine a full 15-30 with 50% of the players signed up through an MGR affiliate. then take a 1-2 table of house accounts and the site is making substantially more on the 1-2 table.

Interesting situation. I'm going to crunch some numbers based on some rake stats I have.

Assuming 60 hands per hour and $2.30 avg. rake/hand at 15-30, the table generates $138/hr.

Assuming 60 hands/hr and $.50 avg. rake/hand at 1-2, the table generated $30/hr.

Assuming the same conditions, at 3-6, the table generates about $79/hr.

These numbers are based on PT stats I've collected from each limit at Party.

Even if the entire table of 15-30 players were on an affiliate account getting 35% MGR, the house still makes about $90/hr, which is 3x more than at 1-2 and about $10 more than at 3-6.

Cup

[Sniper]

Cup,

The point is there are far more people playing low limit tables... and you haven't even factored in the tournament players.

[palman]

Oh, sorry. I sometimes forget that there are people who play full ring =) I'm a 6 max player and the difference in limits at 6 max is night and day.