Party CFO conversation: Trip report - Page 5

StellarWind · #41 10-10-2005, 06:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
-PartyPoker regards the high-volume, serious gambler as an acceptable, but sub-optimal customer.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's exactly what we are. Useful customers worth some effort to retain because we fill seats and allow them to collect rake. Winning players are an inevitable side effect of running a poker room and it might as well be us. Better than having the top tier of losers convert into winners which would leave them with fewer losers donating money.

But the big losers are the customers they really have to have to attract to make their business work. If you have fish, you will also have pros. The reverse is absolutely not true.

A key strategic issue has not been mentioned. The upcoming battle for market share is a crisis point in the industry that will likely determine winners and losers for a long time to come. Retaining pros right now should be important to Party because they need to keep our rake dollars from feeding the marketing budgets of their competitiors. They shouldn't make it easy for small competitors to get big fast by grabbing a big player base on the cheap. Growing rooms enjoy an upward spiral as greater game selection and increased revenues fuel even more growth. The opposite is true for shrinking rooms. Keeping the small rooms at bay and putting the skins into a tailspin will pay big dividends for Party down the road.

Shaun · #42 10-10-2005, 06:37 PM

The market will adjust to Party's "treachery" and there will still be viable options for pros. This is a minor inconvenience. Frankly, whatever makes it harder for pros and better for fish is fine with me. I want the pond to remain stocked.

#43 10-10-2005, 06:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Professionals generate a lot of rake, but they also have a really annoying habit of making regular cashouts for icky stuff like paying bills. Rent money is not raked money. So I can't see Party going out of its way to cater to or attract people who withdraw more than they deposit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most winnings players don't just withdraw more than they deposit, they withdraw everything they win ultimately and deposit nothing. That's the whole idea of being a winning player, you start with a small bankroll, build it and build it, moving up and always playing within your bankroll, taking out as much of your winnings as you can while still having enough of a bankroll left to withstand losing streaks.

This is why winning professional players are suboptimal. They don't deposit anything. Where does the hundreds of millions of dollars that partypoker makes per year actually come from? From players depositing money.

Optimal players are those who deposit money and then lose it to the online casino or cardroom. High volume players who deposit nothing (shuffling money back and forth between neteller and skins doesn't count) and siphon money out of the system are merely tolerated.

Synergistic Explosions · #44 10-10-2005, 06:49 PM

I think they should appreciate each and every customer they have. Other poker rooms do.

Los Feliz Slim · #45 10-10-2005, 07:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i like how everyone is talking about all the "pros" leaving party. wow, really? ok then, see ya guys!

[/ QUOTE ]

As a non-professional "serious amateur", the prospect of all you ballbusters leaving Party couldn't make me happier. I don't play enough to care about r**eback, reload bonuses are good enough for me. Party is going to keep player traffic just fine IMO due to their advertising and promotions.

I've been reading all the panic posts looking for the downside for myself, and I can't find it. R**eback or no, if poor players abound at Party people who play for a living are going to play there too. If not, then GREAT.

2+2 wannabe · #46 10-10-2005, 07:21 PM

stock down - one word - uncertainty

Innocentius · #47 10-10-2005, 07:22 PM

First of all, thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread; its been excellent reading, with lots of interesting points.

I think one point is missing in the whole discussion about whether the sites want winning, high-volume players or not. The fact is that winning players ARE advertisement. Thousands of people hear every day about a friend or a friend of a friend who has made thousands online. I know I wouldn't have started playing if it wasn't for a friend of mine telling me that you could actually MAKE money while at the same time having fun playing.

This of course doesn't make it self-evident that the sites want lots of winning players taking money away from the tables, but I think it must be a factor they consider.

Synergistic Explosions · #48 10-10-2005, 07:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
stock down - one word - uncertainty

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't worry, at some point the insiders will be covering their shorts I'm sure.

Greg J · #49 10-10-2005, 07:51 PM

Nice post (now STFU n00b [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]).

Seriously:
[ QUOTE ]
Party is hedging their bets in case the poker boom dies down...

[/ QUOTE ]
My thought while reading this thread was something similar. Is Party management thinking the poker "boom" is settling down?

On a side note: This has been one the the most intelligent threads I've read in the zoo. Among those not started by Cubswin, it might be the best.

paperboyNC · #50 10-10-2005, 08:14 PM

The key point is to realize that casinos make money from more than just the house edge and volume. They make money from gamblers.

They make money by having players that keep playing until they losing everything. Party would love for nothing more than a player that wins $100k at a tournament to play $100/$200 until he loses it all and for everyone that wins from him to eventually lose it all.

Partypoker doesn't like players with discipline. They don't like that discipline to cashout.