2+2 Player Endorsed Sites

[Sarge85]

So it occurred to me after reading the PokerRoom rate structure debacle, that perhaps as a group (2+2 collective), we may have some “buying power”.

By that I mean that perhaps with our buying power we can “leverage” sites into offering better bonuses, lower rake, more promotions etc.

Quite frankly I don’t know how – I’m an idea man [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

But what if a site was labeled 2+2 Player Endorsed? Would that mean anything to a site?

I realize that the 2+2 community probably really isn’t much in the scheme of total poker players, but I would venture that per capita, we probably represent a larger portion of long term poker players than any other group out there. That should mean something to sites as it costs more to recruit more players rather than keep existing ones happy.

A few immediate drawbacks.
[*] A lot of the 2+2 community is very leary about spreading the word about 2+2, fearing it will dry up the fish ponds if people come here.
[*]2+2 probably doesn’t want to “endorse” any site. I’m not sure if there is a line between a “2+2 Player” Endorsement compared to just a 2+2 Endorsement.

Perhaps other sites would take notice if there was a sidebar on this site indicating that XXX Site has been 2+2 Player endorsed.

To be endorsed sites would need to meet certain requirements regarding rake, promotions, CS, etc…

I think maybe a panel of 2+2 internet posters would present “nominees” to be endorsed by the collective?

A lot of this is just off the top of my head, and would be happy to see someone spearhead this.

Sarge[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

[MaxPower]

Mason would never allow it.

[Sarge85]

What about concept?

Stepping away from logistics - if there was some sort of "Player Endorsement" - that actually meant something - would sites take notice?

Sarge[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

[playersare]

the zoo is simply not that big, when you take into account that only a percentage of knowledgeable poker players make their primary income online. even cardplayer.com forums have more accounts overall than 2+2 does, and those are some of the biggest fish on the planet. marketing-wise, an endorsement from "Barry S" would be more commercially advantageous than we would be.

the strongest power any 2+2 reader can wield is their own personal freedom of choice.

[ohnonotthat]

really doesn't matter. :-) At least in some areas.

I was playing at PARTY when they had less than 1,000 active accounts and the usual head count was under 100 due to one name; Mr. Sexton.

Great player ? (Him that is) Probably.

Great businessman ? Probably

Disgustingly honorable person ? You bet your ass he is.

I had a small issue arising from a technical glitch.

I emailed HIM - not the site - and received an preliminary answer within an hour and a settlement within 24 hours.

The settlement, btw, was for 100 cents on the $.

It happened again a week or so later, this time to a friend of mine and their result was as good and as expedient.

These were but two of my personal interactions with him; there were numerous others.

Similar events occurred way back in the day at PLANET with Roy Cooke. Allow me to add that I have met and do not particularly like Mr. Cooke but if he ever decides to revive PLANET and promises to have a hand in the day to day operations I'm there.

Anyone out there feel the same, not necessarily about these two men but about the concept ?

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
So it occurred to me after reading the PokerRoom rate structure debacle, that perhaps as a group (2+2 collective), we may have some “buying power”.

By that I mean that perhaps with our buying power we can “leverage” sites into offering better bonuses, lower rake, more promotions etc.[ QUOTE ]


Hey Sarge,

Did you happen to see any of the O Doyle's Army posts? I think to a large degree we were on the same page, except for the fact our "army" was an association of high volume players.

I would encourage you to join our effort!