Hey Dikshit

[Maulik]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you know the meaning of the word 'source'? Do you understand the context I used it in?

Pros generate action, that's all. Over the long term a profitable pro IS NOT a source of rake. Please get back to me when you can understand this fairly simple concept. Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[ 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).

[Sintax]

Your idea is so convoluted and wrong that its scary.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you know the meaning of the word 'source'? Do you understand the context I used it in?

Pros generate action, that's all. Over the long term a profitable pro IS NOT a source of rake. Please get back to me when you can understand this fairly simple concept. Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

To find the truth of this, would Party make less revenue and profit if the 10% who generate 70% of the income stopped playing?

Mack

[Sintax]

[ QUOTE ]
Paying rake and being a source of rake are two different things.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is where you are WRONG. They are the exact same thing.

Whether the money a "pro" brings to the table was earned off of a lesser skilled player or washing dishes, it accounts for the same rake contribution as every other player in that game.

[ QUOTE ]
Your idea is so convoluted and wrong that its scary.

[/ QUOTE ]
If it is, I haven't seen you refute it.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Your idea is so convoluted and wrong that its scary.

[/ QUOTE ]

His idea has merit actually, if no new money comes in to be lost, then the games will disappear and so will the players.

Mack

[Freudian]

[ 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 ]

Where on earth did you get this idea? The reason they want more players is because they want the volume of play to increase. I can guarantee that the liquidity of the Partypoker player base is more than enough to handle poker transactions on the site at a satisfactory degree.

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are using faulty logic. Play generates rake and tracking the paths every single cent takes before it lands in Partys pockets is a pointless affair. Seems more like a moral argument than an economic one. There will always be winners and losers in a poker room. You could remove the top 10% of the playerbase and you would still end up with a bunch of net winners and net losers. Arguing that it is somehow a problem that some win and some lose is ignorant.

In extreme cases it will be a problem of course because if you have a huge group of sharks the overall volume will go down (since the sharks would move elsewhere) and thus rake would decrease. But there isn't any poker room online with that big of imbalance that it is a problem.

[lorinda]

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 ]

To find the truth of this, would Party make less revenue and profit if the 10% who generate 70% of the income stopped playing?

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]
The would make less revenue and profit. 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.

And maybe Party is looking at the long term. I agree that in the short term, Party would make less revenue and profit.