High Volume Players - What value do you want for your play? - Page 5

danvh · #41 07-28-2005, 04:08 PM

If it is with a site that allready has rakeback of some kind. Why not try to add the tourny fund on top. Try for a deal with a base rakeback (cash) of 30 or 40 or whatever. Then an additional 10 or 20% that goes into a tourny fund you can use for these bigger tournys.

Essentially nothing would change in terms of the cash you allready get. But in return for being part of a large number of higher volume players and representing the site in tournys, you get a additional percentage that can be used for tournys. Basically a much better paying player points system.

sthief09 · #42 07-28-2005, 04:16 PM

it's just so convenient. think about how much money you miss out on by playing less tables than you would on Party as a result of there not being enough games or even just having to wait for a seat

Elijah Bailey · #43 07-28-2005, 04:16 PM

The best idea I have seen so far.

I don't think the sites would like the idea of rakeback only as they get no benefit. A big part of this would be the advertising that the site would get at live tournies.

sthief09 · #44 07-28-2005, 04:18 PM

stars rakes less than party, so it's as if you're getting some rakeback already. I'm surprised they haven't jacked up the rake and started giving rakeback. they wouldn't lose much off people who get rakeback, since they're paying more in rake, and they make it up in the people who don't notice a rake increase and won't get rakeback

RunDownHouse · #45 07-28-2005, 04:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If a percent of our rake went into an acount (I guess similar to the W$ at Stars, for lack of better example) that can be redeamed for entries into majot events, I think that could work for both sides.

[/ QUOTE ]
The whole point of having both tournament buy-ins and straight rakeback as options is that many high-volume players don't give a flip about tournaments. I couldn't care less if I can get into the 100+9 weekly for "free." Just give me my rakeback.

So, no, it would not work for both sides.

EDIT: Unless you can cash in the Stars W$ or whatever they are, I'm not real familiar with Stars (only play there when they have a bonus going on).

SomethingClever · #46 07-28-2005, 05:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
it's just so convenient. think about how much money you miss out on by playing less tables than you would on Party as a result of there not being enough games or even just having to wait for a seat

[/ QUOTE ]

I never had a hard time 4-tabling during the brief time I played on Stars.

I think UB, Paradise and Pokerroom would be fine as well.

Al P · #47 07-28-2005, 05:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That depends on the site in question and their operating costs. There are many sites that would not turn a profit if they gave 70% away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Party Gaming NET margins are 58%. If the rake is $3, party nets $1.74. Your share of the rake was $.30 at a 10 handed table. 70% of that is $.21 leaving party with $1.53 net.

The 58% net margin already includes things like paying existing affiliates/skins so the true margins for party players would be quite a bit higher most likely high enough to cover the $2.10 payout if everyone on the entire site had 70%.

josie_wales · #48 07-28-2005, 05:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Party Gaming NET margins are 58%. If the rake is $3, party nets $1.74. Your share of the rake was $.30 at a 10 handed table. 70% of that is $.21 leaving party with $1.53 net.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if everyone at the table has rake back? .21 x 10 = 2.10 leaving them .36 in the red.

jw

Al P · #49 07-28-2005, 05:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The 58% net margin already includes things like paying existing affiliates/skins so the true margins for party players would be quite a bit higher most likely high enough to cover the $2.10 payout if everyone on the entire site had 70%.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be close. Just pointing out that 70% would be very possible but not ever likely.

baronzeus · #50 07-28-2005, 05:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Party Gaming NET margins are 58%. If the rake is $3, party nets $1.74. Your share of the rake was $.30 at a 10 handed table. 70% of that is $.21 leaving party with $1.53 net.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if everyone at the table has rake back? .21 x 10 = 2.10 leaving them .36 in the red.

jw

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you honestly think that everyone at party plays 30K hands a month? Because I think only 1% of the people do, and if 1% are getting ridiculous rakeback, then Party is still making a huge profit.