Hey Dikshit

[Sintax]

Business 101

[ QUOTE ]
Studies have shown that the cost for acqusition, on a per customer basis, may be 5 to 10 times that of customer retention. Such numerical advantages also extend to winning back former customers. For instance, research has proven that there is a 5 to 20 percent chance of converting a prospect to first-time customer status, yet there is also a 20 to 40 percent chance of reacquiring a defected customer.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what to do...

You're forgetting the fact that pros are mostly useless customers, since they don't put any of their own money in. What Party is looking for is new money, not people to take money out of the system forever.

Common sense 101

[Photoc]

So in your reasoning, most B&M rooms should kick out all the pros because they contribute nothing and take money out constantly.

B&M's are very different. It's a matter of scale - pros are needed to start new games and keep old ones going. Plus, the rake is much bigger in B&M.

But once you've got thousands of players online 24/7 and every variation of the game available on multiple tables, pros aren't really that important.

The problem that Party appears to have is getting new money to deposit and existing customers to continue to deposit. Only money regularly deposited into the system contributes to the rake. In that regards pros contribute very little, so they are 'acceptable but sub optimal customers' as quoted in another post.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
B&M's are very different. It's a matter of scale - pros are needed to start new games and keep old ones going. Plus, the rake is much bigger in B&M.

But once you've got thousands of players online 24/7 and every variation of the game available on multiple tables, pros aren't really that important.

The problem that Party appears to have is getting new money to deposit and existing customers to continue to deposit. Only money regularly deposited into the system contributes to the rake. In that regards pros contribute very little, so they are 'acceptable but sub optimal customers' as quoted in another post.

[/ QUOTE ]

How much money the players have in their accounts at any given time is largely irrelevant. If they play or not is what counts.

Or are you seriuosly suggesting that it would matter if I deposited $1k each week if I still had the same playing habits?

As long as the poker economy on a site has enough money to avoid big bottlenecks, depositing and withdrawing are non-factors.

[ QUOTE ]
How much money the players have in their accounts at any given time is largely irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course. When did I suggest otherwise?

[ QUOTE ]
As long as the poker economy on a site has enough money to avoid big bottlenecks, depositing and withdrawing are non-factors.

[/ QUOTE ]
The main issue Party Poker has at the moment is getting new money into the site. There have been far fewer new players and old customers depositing than Party expected, and it's causing concern. Attracting and catering to pros who contribute NO new money doesn't help that situation. That's what's OP's post referred to and I was pointing out that pros were useless in that regard.

[ QUOTE ]
I rarely cash-in. I paid $2k in rake last month and I'm a small stakes player.

[/ QUOTE ]
Paying rake and being a source of rake are two different things. The person you won money off is paying the rake for you, out of their deposit. That's where the rake is coming from, not you. Over the long term a pro who consistently shows a profit is not a source of rake. All pros can do is help generate more volume in the short term, at a cost.

Every successful pro you recruit generates more volume, but requires a greater number of new deposits, or else the site will decline faster. Like I said, when you've got a huge influx of new players and money, pros are great, as the current situation is, they can be -EV. And thus there is no reason for Party to attempt to keep or recruit them (e.g. via rakeback deals).

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
How much money the players have in their accounts at any given time is largely irrelevant. If they play or not is what counts.

Or are you seriuosly suggesting that it would matter if I deposited $1k each week if I still had the same playing habits?

[/ QUOTE ]

Freudian,

I read somewhere that FDIC insured banks have to keep something like 20% of assets on hand for withdrawal, the rest can be invested. I wonder what percent party has to keep on hand? I would venture to say that the amount deposited in PP generates some hefty interest. not that it's really relevant to the argument at hand.

[Sintax]

Wrong. They put hundreds of millions of dollars of their own money into partys coffers each year. Perhaps you missed the post with the press release where PartyGaming admits that 10% of its customers contribute 70% of the rake?

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong. They put hundreds of millions of dollars of their own money into partys coffers each year. Perhaps you missed the post with the press release where PartyGaming admits that 10% of its customers contribute 70% of the rake?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I didn't. I just didn't interpret it to fit my worldview.

People who cash out regularly and show a profit are not a source of rake. Please understand this before continuing to read. In the short term, they do generate action, and if you've got unlimited numbers of customers continually depositing, pros are great. But if your bottleneck is attracting new money and getting old customers to continue depositing, pros aren't very good.

Do you understand this concept?

[Sintax]

[ QUOTE ]
People who cash out regularly and show a profit are not a source of rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Every single cash player on that site is a a source of rake. I don't care if you care if you lose all your money, never cash out, or if Dikshit hand delivers a check to you. If you play with real money, you have an MGR. The more you play, the higher that MGR is.

Wake up and smell the rake man.