Hey Dikshit

[EStreet20]

[ QUOTE ]
Only money regularly deposited into the system contributes to the rake

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether money is newly deposited or sitting in an account for a year, once you play with it it contributes to the rake. I think this poster means that cashing out profits offsets some of the rake you pay (in party's eyes from a profit sesne). But if they don't expect winning players to cash out they shouldn't operate a gambling website.

Party's ideal cutomer is a compulsive gambler, twice as hooked as your average heroin addict, who sucks at poker (or who prefers blackjack and "sidebets") and has millions of dollars.

Good luck all,
Matt

Lorinda,

The argument is about the relative worth of each given current market conditions. I'm not saying all poker players should be losing players, I'm saying that targeting known pros through methods such as rakeback has little worth for Party in its current situation. See OP's post.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
To run a profitable poker site according to this thread:

Conclusions:

1. From Mack, we learn that we need pro players.
2. From OOO, we learn that we need losing players.

This cancels to:

3. We need players.

I think that shows that 1+2 are both valid.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

What I think is

a) You need both sets of players for the room to achieve success on the scale of Party.
b) The balance is a lot more delicate then Freudian suggests it is. (very easy to get a situation where there are too many sharks and fish become disillusioned and move on very quickly, bringing little or no money to the poker economy)

Regards Mack

[lorinda]

Overview of "The Phantom Menace"

People should read this.

Lori

[Sintax]

[ QUOTE ]
But are these 10% of its customers, who contribute 70% of the rake, all professionals seeking rakeback? Or are they whales who play higher stakes? You can't assume who these 10% are

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa. First, dont use words like "whale", when you don't know what it means. Not a single online room provides games at the limits that would make one a "whale".

Second, the max rake at Party is $3. 10/20 and 300/600 players pay close to the same rake.

The difference is clearly that 10% of players play the most hands. This correlates very well with the previously released numbers of 7-11% of players online are winners.

[lorinda]

[ QUOTE ]
Second, the max rake at Party is $5

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

Lori

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Whoa. First, dont use words like "whale", when you don't know what it means.

[/ QUOTE ]

If everyone else knows what he means then it is okay to use the word, language is not fixed in stone, it evolves constantly.

Mack

[Sintax]

It is not ok to use words incorrectly just because their meaning will be understood.

Thanks for sharing your unique idea though.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
It is not ok to use words incorrectly just because their meaning will be understood.

Thanks for sharing your unique idea though.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong, end of crack.

Mack

[ QUOTE ]
Whoa. First, dont use words like "whale", when you don't know what it means. Not a single online room provides games at the limits that would make one a "whale".

Second, the max rake at Party is $3. 10/20 and 300/600 players pay close to the same rake.

The difference is clearly that 10% of players play the most hands. This correlates very well with the previously released numbers of 7-11% of players online are winners.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fine. Change that to "The online equivalent of a whale, someone who dumps a lot of money into high rake games and plays frequently". Phew. Shorthand is better when we both know what I'm talking about, don't you think?

I know what the max rake is. But the players concentrated above 5/10 and $200NL pay far more rake than any of the lower stakes, and even more again than most small tournaments. Players who regularly multi table the larger tournaments also contribute a lot of rake. This is small number of players contributing a large % of the total rake. How many of these really care about rakeback in making a decision to play at Party? They go where the good higher stakes games and tournaments are.

Regarding your 7-11% figure, I think 10% comes very close the number of compulsive problem gamblers in online poker. I can shoehorn figures too.

BTW do you have a link to this press release with the 10%/70% numbers you quoted? I remember seeing the numbers but would like to look at the exact wording.