Why TAGs are undesirable

[MaxPower]

You are wrong in so many ways.

More games=More rake
Multitabling=More games

If Party paid me $10,000 a year to play there it would be a bargain for them. I have paid $33,000 in rake this year and they have raked $465,000 off all the tables I've played.

How much in Marketing costs would it take to replace a customer like me. A hell of a lot more than $10,000.

Party is right that the skin and affiliate system sucks for them, but they need to comp the multitabling high volume players.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
You are wrong in so many ways.

More games=More rake
Multitabling=More games

If Party paid me $10,000 a year to play there it would be a bargain for them. I have paid $33,000 in rake this year and they have raked $465,000 off all the tables I've played.

How much in Marketing costs would it take to replace a customer like me. A hell of a lot more than $10,000.

Party is right that the skin and affiliate system sucks for them, but they need to comp the multitabling high volume players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen, brotha.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lets ask a newer/smaller sight, say like a Games Grid, who they would rather have.They have a choice of 10,000 TAGS or 10,000 fish walking through there front door as new customers.

Which would they rather have?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this isn't a good analogy if you're defending TAGs, because a new site would obviously prefer the fish.

This would make the site desireable for TAGs to play on in the future, and therefore grow.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fold. NH

[ QUOTE ]
If Party paid me $10,000 a year to play there it would be a bargain for them. I have paid $33,000 in rake this year and they have raked $465,000 off all the tables I've played.

How much in Marketing costs would it take to replace a customer like me. A hell of a lot more than $10,000.

Party is right that the skin and affiliate system sucks for them, but they need to comp the multitabling high volume players.

[/ QUOTE ]


Very well put. I think this is the most solid statement posted since the news broke.

[sqvirrel]

[ QUOTE ]
If Party paid me $10,000 a year to play there it would be a bargain for them. I have paid $33,000 in rake this year

[/ QUOTE ]

The question you aren't asking, and the point that everyone is forgetting is 'so what if you paid $33k in rake, how much of it did Party get?' If you are playing at Party with no deal then sure, they are gettting all of it. But since you've been whining so much I'm guessing you play through a skin with a nice deal. How much of the rake do you really think Party gets from the skins? 50%? 30%? 0%? I don't really know and I doubt you or anyone else that has been posting knows either.

I am guessing that Party analyzed this pretty carefully and decided that they would be more profitable collecting 100% of the rake from fewer players. I suspect well over half of the skin traffic would have to leave the network entirely before this would be a money losing proposition for Party.

Does anyone really expect that to happen?

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Party paid me $10,000 a year to play there it would be a bargain for them. I have paid $33,000 in rake this year

[/ QUOTE ]

The question you aren't asking, and the point that everyone is forgetting is 'so what if you paid $33k in rake, how much of it did Party get?' If you are playing at Party with no deal then sure, they are gettting all of it. But since you've been whining so much I'm guessing you play through a skin with a nice deal. How much of the rake do you really think Party gets from the skins? 50%? 30%? 0%? I don't really know and I doubt you or anyone else that has been posting knows either.

I am guessing that Party analyzed this pretty carefully and decided that they would be more profitable collecting 100% of the rake from fewer players. I suspect well over half of the skin traffic would have to leave the network entirely before this would be a money losing proposition for Party.

Does anyone really expect that to happen?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, short term this will let Party keep more of my rake. It is only in long term that this can hurt if other sites are successful in luring away players who were addicted to rakeback.

I don't know what the skins were getting, so I don't know how much more they will be getting.

As recently as three years ago, Paradise Poker was the dominant site by a large margin and Party was tiny. The new Party Skins on their own are gigantic compared to Party 3 years ago.

No one at that time was predicting the demise of Paradise. It can happen to Party if they are not carefull.

By the way, I am not whining. I don't really care about rakeback much. Its nice to have, but not essential. I don't think Party owes me anything, but a certain amount of comping goes a long way toward building loyalty.

I just get a little exasperated that many 2+2ers think that a poker site would be better off without multiabling TAGs.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
you forgot that in reality nothing is this black and white.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dumb response to a good post.

[Wabby]

You are calculating the situation where there are ten fish at one table.

How about the situation where there are ten fish on TEN tables each with 9 sharks.

The fish may last only 250 hands.

That gives Party the rake of 2500 hands = 7500.

The sharks share 2500.

And the key is that all this were accomplished in one day. Tomorrow the fish will come back with more money.

[HesseJam]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Party paid me $10,000 a year to play there it would be a bargain for them. I have paid $33,000 in rake this year and they have raked $465,000 off all the tables I've played.

How much in Marketing costs would it take to replace a customer like me. A hell of a lot more than $10,000.

Party is right that the skin and affiliate system sucks for them, but they need to comp the multitabling high volume players.

[/ QUOTE ]


Very well put. I think this is the most solid statement posted since the news broke.

[/ QUOTE ]

I quote another poster who, I think, was taking your side of the argument with the following: "Fish is nice. but they dont play that often and you need very many of them to keep the game constantly going. besides, it is very costly to recruit new fish." (emphasis added)

I think this very well illustrates that the logic "winning multitablers are very valuable customers" is flawed. The cost to provide them with a soothing environment might very well be higher than what they pay in rake. Add the growth dynamics to this - multitablers tend to stay, fish tend to be replaced if they stay fish, some fish survive and turn into additional multitablers - you'll see the problem once the growth of a poker room hits a wall. As long as the multitablers move up this problem is less severe. If they stay at the low levels they create a bottleneck at the lower end of the food chain. They kill too many small fish before they can grow. Party understood this, hence the beginners tables.

A poker player who improves his skills in B&M usually moves up because this is the best way to maximize his profits. Online, many of the better players simply add tables to maximize their profits. If I were Party I would just limit the number of games one can play per month at .5/1 to 2/4 to encourage moving up. For big losers rake is a non-factor, hence rake is high at the lower levels. Winners should move to levels where the rake is lower.

Thinking more about this, I could see rb at medium or high levels as a smart move. But certainly not at the micro level.

[uncleshady]

Winning multitablers on their own are not profitable. Ive witnessed this firsthand trying to clear this stupid Empire bonus. 1 and 2 dollar average 25NL and 3 dollar average .50/1. This is insane. The TAGs need fish more than party needs TAGs. With the table averages so low, there is less rake generated, it has to be connected..