Players Union

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
when this day comes itll be the end of online poker even if you have 10,000 8 tabling sharks theres nothing party could do to save the game even if they offered 80% rake back the sharks would still lose 20%. Sharks dont lose money sharks dont pass money around until rake gobbles it up. almost instantly those sharks will leave. luckily a sucker is born every day

[/ QUOTE ]

What would happen is some of the weaker sharks would become the losing players, that is the new fish. Poker can't exist very long with out a pond, sharks and fish.

Stu

[Nalapoint1]

You can at least triple the rake you are currently paying in and still be way ahead of ""Union" representation. You have to remember unions are still business. A little bit of money {dues} come from their members {poker players} and the majority comes from the employer. With no employer the members end up paying it all. I dont think poker sites can be considered as the employer. Also because of the money involved almost all unions have some form of unethical business practices.

[FishBurger]

How are you going to hold all these high-volume players together? If you do manage to get a large group to boycott Party and sign some kind of volume deal with another site then you will basically have a bunch of good players overwhelming one site.

The high-volume players in the "association" that boycott Party will see their BB/100 go down at the new site you sign up at (which will be populated with sharks) while the Party games get even softer. Do you really think you can get a group of players to hold together in a boycott while their overall income goes down significantly?

You've got a nice carat in the form of all the rake paid by the "association," but you don't have any kind of stick you can use to beat Party with. The only stick you have is a boycott which will prolly hurt the players in the association more than it hurts Party.

[pokerplayer28]

they could put $200 each into a franchise/skin and give themselves a 100% rebate and make $0/hr

[sumdumguy]

[ QUOTE ]
you think these sharks are just going to leave a pool full of fish where fish become sharks? party will call your bluff

[/ QUOTE ]
You give them too much credit. To be bluffing.. they would have to be smart enough know they don't have a hand! Instead, they are (a) deluded, (b) in denial, or (c) misread their hand.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
How are you going to hold all these high-volume players together? If you do manage to get a large group to boycott Party and sign some kind of volume deal with another site then you will basically have a bunch of good players overwhelming one site.

The high-volume players in the "association" that boycott Party will see their BB/100 go down at the new site you sign up at (which will be populated with sharks) while the Party games get even softer. Do you really think you can get a group of players to hold together in a boycott while their overall income goes down significantly?

You've got a nice carat in the form of all the rake paid by the "association," but you don't have any kind of stick you can use to beat Party with. The only stick you have is a boycott which will prolly hurt the players in the association more than it hurts Party.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think some of your assumptions could be incorrect. This "association" or "high volume player's discount club" (will definitely not be a union as Stu has clarified) would not need to put any restrictions on what sites its members could play at. The primary purpose of this group would be to negotiate the best possible deal for them, while still helping the site to grow the fish pond.

I don't view this to be an adversarial relationship with any poker sites at all, but moreso a relationship where both poker sites and high volume players can benefit.

In my mind, Party would not be excluded or boycotted from negotiating with our group. (That is where I might start.) If Party did sign an agreement with a High Volume Player's Association to allow them to play at their site at a discount and then issued a press release stating such, it would probably have the impact of pushing the value of their stock higher.

[O Doyle Rules]

One other thing I cannot figure out at all, is all the instant negativity from some posters bringing up all the possible reasons such an "association" is doomed from the start.

I think if the proper effort is put forth, such an effort would help high volume players even if not one site agreed to let its members play at a discount. If nothing else, it might make the sites more aware of our concerns, and in the future do more to compete for our business.

What do we have to lose?

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
You can at least triple the rake you are currently paying in and still be way ahead of ""Union" representation. You have to remember unions are still business. A little bit of money {dues} come from their members {poker players} and the majority comes from the employer. With no employer the members end up paying it all. I dont think poker sites can be considered as the employer. Also because of the money involved almost all unions have some form of unethical business practices.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to read this entire thread more carefully. The word "union" by the original poster has been deemed to be a bad choice of words. This group would either be an association or even just a high volume player's discount club where its members have the option of purchasing a coupon good for a high dollar bonus based on a high raked hand requirement.

And yes, I am trying my best to keep this thread alive for more positive discussion.

[FlFishOn]

"For example, suppose a poker players union negotiated with Party Poker for a 40% rake rebate for its members. The rebate would be paid directly into the player's account by party poker."

In RL a union would easily find a way to pocket half or more of that 40%. Oh, there will be 'good' reasons to be sure but count on 50% shrinkage.

[FlFishOn]

Every dollar cashed out by a regular winner costs the site quite a bit more than a dollar. Getting new fish $ into seats is the biggest cost of any site.

As a regular winner you might be tolerated but you damn sure will never be valued. I've faced this issue in B&M card rooms. I was barred at one joint for little more that winning regularly and bitching about the house impediments to me winning more. Online poker will follow. Not this year but soon.