TruePokerCEO, if you really want innovation, how about this deal?

[SinSixer]

First of all, I respect your recent decision to work WITH poker players. During a time when it seems like Party is taking a step backwards with regard to rakebacks and catering to their high volume players, it seems like some smaller sites are actually starting to offer more. I guess in a year or so, we will see which was the right direction to move in from a business point of view.

Anyway, what is TruePokers official policy concerning rakeback? It doesnt take Sherlock Holmes to find affilates offering up to 28% rakeback from TruePoker in the classifieds here.

I dont think you have a policy against rakeback. I also do not have an account at TruePoker. I think I downloaded the software 4 years ago (have you been around for that long already?) but I never gave the games a shot, because honestly, theres always been a better bonus or something better to play for elsewhere.

So if I was to finally deposit and play at TruePoker, I would only do so if it involved a rakeback deal obviously. Heres what I would propose:

Rakeback now requires the involvement of an affiliate. In my case (and with 90% of this forum) we dont need affiliates to steer us to a site. Its not like we havent heard of TruePoker before. I would want to cut out the middle man and his share of my play. I can be my own affiliate if it would make implementation easier. I would want my rakeback paid directly to me.

Second, 28% is not enough. PokerRoom affiliates offer 40% of rakeback with high volume play. Matching that would be good and all, but what would be innovative about it? If you want more new players, I think you would have to kick it up a notch. I would say somewhere in the ballpark of 75% rakeback for the highest volume players, thats in the range of GamesGrid's offer. Make a deal like that, and heads will turn. 10 new players for you equals 1 table of 30% rake. And well, 30% of something is a lot better than 100% of nothing.

Of course this amount of rakeback would require high volume play to work. Hypothetically (meaning these following numbers are just estimates. If you were interseted, I could work out some concrete ones) lets say I played 50,000 hands at TruePoker without any rakeback. You would make about 5k in rake off my play. Lets assume you offer me 75% rakeback but I needed to play 200,000 hands to earn it. In that case I would pay 20k in rake, I keep my 75% (15k) and you keep the other 5k. It is the same 5k to you, either way, except I propped your games for another 150,000 hands. That's more traffic and more incentive for others to join. You also have added 1 more player earning you 5k a year (or 200,000 hands etc) that you wouldnt have had otherwise. This is a win-win situation for TruePoker if you ask me. I mean, I am going to play that 200,000 hands somehwere, and as of right now its not going to be at TruePoker because Im getting a better deal elsewhere.

The bottom line is that I know what the value of my play is to a poker room, and my services are going to go where the best offer is. There are a lot players with the same mentality around here, and with the changes at Party, the right deal might scoop them away......

What do you think?

[FishHooks]

dont you just love capatilism and the competition that drives the market

[smartalecc5]

haha, yes. This is intriguing. It reminds of me back in the days when... "If XXXX is doing it, why can't I do it?"

GL all

[Rudbaeck]

SinSixer put all my thoughts in print!

[Frequitude]

I like it, but I think 75% is a little unrealistic [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[StacysMom]

Seems way too ambitious to me... If a site advertises 75% rakeback to all players, even the fish will see it, and the sites profit will diminish.

[SkittleBrau]

I think it would be fine if you offered it to everyone and called it a Frequent Player Comp or something. Then just tier the rakeback percentages by number of hands played, so that you are only paying a really good percentage back to the very high volume customers. Thus, it would still be appealing even to casual players (hey if I just play 1000 more hands this month I can get that 5% rakeback). Of course, it might be best from a marketing standpoint to keep the word "rake" out of it entirely and hence the "Frequent Player Comp" or some other equally positive name.

[UncleDuke]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems way too ambitious to me... If a site advertises 75% rakeback to all players, even the fish will see it, and the sites profit will diminish.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's true, 75% is a lot and perhaps more than they'd be willing to part with even for a high-volume player, but the concept is good. Most of the serious (and likely higher volume players) are aware of the sites out there without having to be steered there by an affiliate. It would be great to be able to have a direct arrangement with a poker site without having to go through a middleman, particularly since in some cases this is technically against the rules of the sites. I know I, and most likely many other players, feel somewhat cheated that I joined various sites directly and missed out on rakeback deals I could have had if we'd known about affiliates at the time. I would definitely play some of those sites more often if they'd give me a deal comparable to what I'd have through a decent affiliate.

While they might lose some rake by giving a break to casual players who would've played there anyway, it would likely be made back through high-volume play from serious players who shop around for a good deal. Furthermore, they could probably structure it so that they don't discount for casual play, but a rakeback would apply if the player's share of rake was at least a certain amount in the month. For example, no break for someone generating under $100 in rake for the month, but if they generate at least $100 rake, knock off 25%, and maybe scale it up for higher volume, say, 35% for $500, and so on. I doubt Party will do anything like this because they have such a dominant market share without it, but for sites like True it could be a big winner. It would also serve to increase the number of games going on the site, which is another positive selling point to attract players.

Personally, I've never played True, mostly because the interface bothers me (it may have changed since I last looked at it though), but I do like their attitude, and if they went with something innovative and player-friendly like this, I would definitely consider giving them a shot.

[TruePoker CEO]

You suggest a direct cashback, named something like Frequent Player Points.

Truepoker already offers CASH BACK to any player who plays 6,000 raked hands over a 4 month period .... That is 1500 raked hands per month ..... You qualify if you hit 6,000 raked hands and maintain that level of play.

Our True Points are given at the effective CASHBACK rate of $.01 per raked hand .... which in a 10 handed $1-$2 game works out to a 10% Cashback per raked hand.

This is direct from Truepoker, and can be redeemed instantly by qualified players in $1.00 increments.

Before we would look to expand on that sort of system, we need to learn more about high volume players and what levels of play or reward would be appropriate.

David

[UncleDuke]

[ QUOTE ]
Our True Points are given at the effective CASHBACK rate of $.01 per raked hand .... which in a 10 handed $1-$2 game works out to a 10% Cashback per raked hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

This is a good start, probably better than loyalty schemes at most other sites, but to compete with affiliate rakeback deals, it would need to increase. Other than increasing the amount, which I thnk is key to attracting rakeback fans, one suggestion I have re: your current system is to base the rebate amount on total share of rake generated rather than flat raked hands. The reason for this is that higher stakes players are effectively getting a smaller percentage rakeback using the current system (since their hands will often be raked more than 1/2 hands). Presumably you'd like to be at least as encouraging to those higher stakes players.

I realize that something that reduces your profit per hand is a business decision that you'll have to evaluate carefully, so I wouldn't expect that you'll impliment this stuff overnight. I do think you'd be likely to get positive results from this overall though, both in total profits and in market share.

Thanks for taking a real interest in the opinions of players. Your willingness to discuss these matters directly with us is both appreciated and respected.