This needs to be settled, vote on Empire here

[StellarWind]

It is normal practice in many industries to turn away undesirable or unprofitable customers. Empire has been heavy-handed but there is no point in arguing that they have done something unusual.

[ QUOTE ]
free samples in the grocery store or free giveaways the day after Thanksgiving at retail stores

[/ QUOTE ]
Different industries have different problems. Notice the shortage of "grocery whores" who subsist solely on freebies and loss leaders. It's not practical for an appreciable number of people to patronize dozens of grocery stores where they buy nothing but loss leaders.

Empire's problem is real and solving it will mean that they get zero business from the whores. Whether this is accomplished by banning them or simply making the bonuses unavailable or unattractive to whores is really just a detail.

Multi solved the problem the other way by imposing a 20x requirement on the two most recent reloads. When I observed that I found this solution to be more appealing than banning, someone rightly observed that this is tough on the regular players who play 3-4 hours per week. They've made it difficult for a valued customer to enjoy the bonus they want him to have.

Finally I like to give thanks for all the good things in my life. One of those good things is not working in customer service for a poker room that gives the monthly reload to 95% of its customers while excluding a 5% whore list. I totally understand why Empire is not interested in the endless negativism and customer complaints such a policy would generate.

[DMBFan23]

we miss you in the strategy forums

[Aetherish]

Everyone has got to calm down. This has become a Whore vs. Whore-hater war, and has hardly anything to do with Empire's business practices.

Is actively discouraging whoring good for Empire's bottom line: Yes.

Are they going about it in the right way: No.

If they want to discourage abuse, then remove the privilege (no more bonuses) or change the T & C so that the bonus work for them (Empire).

Banning people, with no warning, just antagonizes them. Remember that whores followed the letter of the agreement.

For those of you who think that whores are -EV players without their bonus... Who are they loosing that money to? It's not always the fish.

Whining about it either way is non-productive and juvenile. I think the overall concern should be Empires practices, not who they happen to be targeting. Who's next? 5+ bb/100 players? Why not protect this fish from the sharks, and keep the common man happy?

[Piers]

I suspect it was a 'political' decision on Empire's part not a financial one.

Also I as sure someone got a lot of satisfaction out of designing those bonus whore hating Emails.

[nervous]

Empire is only getting rid of players who are costing them money. These bonuses are supposed to attract players to keep playing on Empire even without a bonus, and Empire will profit off of that. They are just cutting out all the players who do not get "hooked" onto their marketing idea.

If you were only a bonus-chaser there before, you obviously regularly play on a different site, so Empire doesn't really care about you when you are just costing them money.

+EV for Empire.

[mack23]

This is a great debate, either way!

I used to play Empire and nothing else when I was playing for a living. Now I'm back in the corporate world and have very little time for online poker. I could see in the future this meaning I play Empire only during bonus time. And I'm afraid I'll be one of those who are banned. I just won't agree, it is not ethical to practice business this way and the result will be many lost customers.

The vote is getting closer, 53-47 now [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]

The vote is getting closer, 53-47 now [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You have the remember that the sample is hardly unbiased here. Most of us found Empire bonuses profitable and if we got to decide we would have liked to continue doing them and dislike Empire for removing that opportunity. Despite of that the majority thinks it makes sense to ban bonus hunters.

[MicroBob]

so this means that Party, Stars, crypto, UB, paradise and other rooms all have bad business plans because they keep trying to win over the business of the players on the other sites via bonuses.

Perhaps you are correct...but if so then Empire is the ONLY site to have figured this out (not even party does this).


even if 1 out of 10 of those banned bonus-chasers were to change their mind and bring the bulk of their play to empire they could turn a profit.

They really aren't losing that much on the bonus-chasers...

they could have gotten some of them to play a bit more on their site by simply telling them ahead of time that they were now having issues with this...

they could have changed the bonus-structure or simply not invited the bonus-chasers to take part in the bonus.



If you don't want someone playing for a bonus then don't offer them the freaking bonus in the first place.


This really isn't that hard and those who think that empire is actually helping their EV by banning players who could have proved profitable sometime in the future are really missing the boat here.

[Eder]

"even if 1 out of 10 of those banned bonus-chasers were to change their mind and bring the bulk of their play to empire they could turn a profit."


Very true...Empire management are morons....Banning a few potential gold mine players is idiocy.

[Freudian]

Empire perhaps can afford to take unpopular decisions because they have so many high volume players (due to that-we-don't-speak-of).

But Party also has taken some unpopular decisions (banning individual trackers, messing with PokerNow).

I get the impression that Party-network isn't feeling particularly threatned by the competition and will continue to push things to increase profitability. It may come back to haunt them, but up to now they seem to get away with it.