Death of the 'Big 4'

[GrannyMae]

rake back?

first off, rake back is happening at party to the regular players. fish don't know/care about rake and party is 90% non-pro fish. second, take a look at the last business model having to do with rake back. rake free was a flop.

i'm probably gonna get jumped for this, but alobar was a big believer that rake free had a shot and predicted good things. i'm not saying he is not credible in judging a good site, but i think it has been proven that rake don't mean shiit, squatola, nada in internet poker. the site with the highest rake is the leader and it always will be. marketing and affiliates cost money and rake stays high, but that's the price to pay for 90% fish. no internet pro will leave party for more than a week.

i ignored the rake part of his reply because it was irrelevant IMHO.

[Lamby2]

Hi,

one thing. Rake-back to all players will not work. Because that is the same as lower rake to everybody.
Of course some players will play more because they will have more back but thats is not enough.

I strongly belive that the only reason they have this is to educate the fish at other sites that they are scrued when they are paying full high rake at low limit tables.
If they reach the fish at Party with this message the fish will thing that Party is stealing thier money and move to another site with lower rake and then Pokerchamps can if marketing correctly be an option.

Pokerchamps is going with low rake
Absolutepoker are going with reloads

Next new site will try something different. Sooner or later we will see a site that will have success and break in to top 5 but top 2, no. If that are going to happend PP oc PS must screw up big time in the area of ringgames or tournies.

Just my 2c
Lamby

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
rake back?

first off, rake back is happening at party to the regular players. fish don't know/care about rake and party is 90% non-pro fish. second, take a look at the last business model having to do with rake back. rake free was a flop.

i'm probably gonna get jumped for this, but alobar was a big believer that rake free had a shot and predicted good things. i'm not saying he is not credible in judging a good site, but i think it has been proven that rake don't mean shiit, squatola, nada in internet poker. the site with the highest rake is the leader and it always will be. marketing and affiliates cost money and rake stays high, but that's the price to pay for 90% fish. no internet pro will leave party for more than a week.

i ignored the rake part of his reply because it was irrelevant IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Zerorake proved that the average fish doesnt know/care/understand rake. (Tho I still think if they knew WTF they were doing as a pokersite, they could have had a shot). The beauty of pokerchamps is that the fish don't have to understand. All they are going to see is that if they play there, they get money back at the end of the week. Sure lots of players are getting rakeback from party right now, I'd be willing to bet that maybe less than 5% of party players are aware that there are rakeback deals tho. The ones that do are players who understand rake. They also have to have a trusted affiliate, and lose a percentage of their "profit" to the affiliate. At champs, they don't have to do anything or understand anything, all they have to do is play, and they get a percentage (up to 50%) of their rake back. And for the people that actually know and understand rake, champs has a much better rake structure than party. This is the reason I think champs will be in the top 5 in a year. The customer service is just a refreshing welcome from the crap that party serves out. I'm not clueless enough to think that any site would succeed on customer service alone. If that were the case stars would be the number one site over party.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll put $100 even money on top 5

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, Alobar is wagering $100 to win $100. Here are my terms:

If PokerChamps is listed in the top 5 on www.pokerpulse.com at 1159PM EST on November 15th 2005 Alobar is the winner of this bet. If it's not, I am the winner.

If pokerpulse does not exist on November 15th 2005, the bet is void.

If PChamps is not listed on November 15th 2005, I win.

An agreed upon party will hold our $100 each. I offer the following list to choose from:
Granny Mae
Lorinda
Mike Haven
(pending their approval)

The holder of the money will also be called upon to arbitrate any dispute that comes up, and we agree to abide by that decision.

Should I win, I will give 10% to the holder.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couple of things...

I'm sort of ignorant to the way pokerpulse works, so if these are stupid stipulations, just tell me.

My view of the wager was that champs will be in the top 5 in a year. So If they crack the top 5 at anytime in the next year I should win the bet. To avoid it being just some fluke thing where they had alot of players for one day, say once they make 7 consecutive days in the top 5, I win.

If they aren't listed on pokerpulse (again, i'm ignorant to how pokerpulse works, I don't see their name on there now, and they have enough players to at least be ranked) then some other form of tracking should be used.

If pokerpulse isn't in existence, but another such site is, and it's numbers are found to be accurate, then that site should be used for judging.

I'd prefer the bet to be among two gentlemen bound by honor. We've both been around long enough that neither of us is going to disappear in the next year. A hundred bucks also isn't the type of money either of us is going to "vanish" over. If you still want a 3rd party to hold onto it tho, I'm fine with any of the names you listed. I'd just prefer to hold onto my money myself, I have no doubt you'll make good on your debt, and no doubt I'll make good on mine.

[daveymck]

I am surprised Prima is on there cos going off the games during the OIC at gaming club it just doenst seem that busy to me. Obviously on UK times so perhaps it comes alive american peak hours.

[47outs]

[ QUOTE ]
I predict that in a year, pokerchamps will be 2nd only to party in numbers, and I think eventually will become the number one site.

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of odds are you giving for this prediction?
I want some action!


outs

[_And1_]

"What I took out of what he was saying was that a big advantage of this site (IHO) is that everyone gets rake back (and is an affiliate in that sense). I think the rake back might be a big seller."

I have to agree with Granny on this one, the majority doesnt know what rake is, the rest doesnt understand rakeback, so for this to be a seller, how coudld it be? they are offering a product that very few ppl understand...

Freebucks for everybody that sign up and skyhigh rake is a far better bisnis plan (thou already taken)...

[GrannyMae]

Zerorake

oops, this is what i meant obviously. my bad

[jek187]

[ QUOTE ]
My view of the wager was that champs will be in the top 5 in a year. So If they crack the top 5 at anytime in the next year I should win the bet. To avoid it being just some fluke thing where they had alot of players for one day, say once they make 7 consecutive days in the top 5, I win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker Pulse updates their rankings ~monthly based on the prveious month's action. But I can agree that anytime PPulse has PChamps in the top 5, we say you won.

[ QUOTE ]
If they aren't listed on pokerpulse (again, i'm ignorant to how pokerpulse works, I don't see their name on there now, and they have enough players to at least be ranked) then some other form of tracking should be used.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is not a site in the top 11 that's not listed on PPulse. If PChamps can't get on PPulse, there's virtually no chance they are in the top 5.

[ QUOTE ]
If pokerpulse isn't in existence, but another such site is, and it's numbers are found to be accurate, then that site should be used for judging.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree to this, if there's a 3rd party to make this distinction.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd prefer the bet to be among two gentlemen bound by honor. We've both been around long enough that neither of us is going to disappear in the next year. A hundred bucks also isn't the type of money either of us is going to "vanish" over. If you still want a 3rd party to hold onto it tho, I'm fine with any of the names you listed. I'd just prefer to hold onto my money myself, I have no doubt you'll make good on your debt, and no doubt I'll make good on mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Besides the benefits of having an arbitrator who we have to abide by, a year is a long time for internet forum posters. I may get in a fight w/the new BW owner, quit, and lose all interest in poker. You may grow an 8 inch schlong and not be able to keep it in your pants long enough to continue blessing us w/your prescence. [censored] happens, and I just want to be prepared for it.

Anyways, if these terms aren't acceptable to you, you are welcome to bet w/any of these other guys clamoring for action. I honestly don't care if we do or not, since I feel my point was already made when you declined to take top 2 at 2.5-1. (I think according to your post, you should of been happy with 1-1.)

[Alobar]

Thanks for explaining pokerpulse. I'm down with everything then.

I think if I had an 8" schlong the reason I wouldn't be posting here anymore isn't because I wouldn't be able to keep it in my pants. It's because I would be so depressed at how much it shrunk that I wouldn't be able to cope with life anymore, and I shut myself away in the attic or something [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

When it came to putting my money where my mouth was on a top 2, I actually thought about it, and a year isn't enough time for that kinda jump for anyone, odds or no odds. But I'll gladly take even money on a top 5.

Lemme know who you want to hold on to the money, Haven has already offered to do it, so he is probbly the best choice.