O Doyle's Army - Offer from a start up site

[Altaslim]

[ QUOTE ]
So let me get this straight...

You make a post about how "we" should all join together so that we could use "our" leverage (or strength in numbers) to get better benefits at online poker rooms.

You are approached by a new site, who arguably could use all the business that "we" could provide them. However, they do not want to support "everyone" in our group.

So now you are trying to determine some arbitrary set of rules to reduce the size of "the group" to conform to the new site's requirements? How is this plan of action fulfilling the mantra in your original post? Sounds to me like you are using "the masses" in this forum to work out special deals for you and who ever you choose to be included in the new subset.

It seems to me that there are only 2 courses of action that will continue the spirit of your original thread.

1. Tell the site to go back their spreadsheets and find a plan that will work for EVERYONE in the group. Special plans for individuals within the group removes all credibility from what this group was designed to do.

2. If #1 is unattainable. Walk away. Strength in numbers. If a site does not want to work with "our group" as a whole, then perhaps we don't want to work with them. I think that this option has been overlooked.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I am very interested, and was one who initially expressed interest. I would have no problem generating enough rake to qualify for 4-6 events per year. However, I don't know anyone on 2+2, I wasn't picked for HULA...I'm not in the cool club.

I don't have any ideas for the perfect solution yet, but I'd at least like to know that you/we didn't give up too easily on a solution that allows everyone to participate.

That said....PICK ME!!!! PICK ME!!!!

[titans01]

I'm alright with the 20 players even if I'm not selected. I sure don't want to play at another GamesGrid type site where there is a full table of 2+2ers.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
So let me get this straight...

You make a post about how "we" should all join together so that we could use "our" leverage (or strength in numbers) to get better benefits at online poker rooms.

You are approached by a new site, who arguably could use all the business that "we" could provide them. However, they do not want to support "everyone" in our group.

So now you are trying to determine some arbitrary set of rules to reduce the size of "the group" to conform to the new site's requirements? How is this plan of action fulfilling the mantra in your original post? Sounds to me like you are using "the masses" in this forum to work out special deals for you and who ever you choose to be included in the new subset.

It seems to me that there are only 2 courses of action that will continue the spirit of your original thread.

1. Tell the site to go back their spreadsheets and find a plan that will work for EVERYONE in the group. Special plans for individuals within the group removes all credibility from what this group was designed to do.

2. If #1 is unattainable. Walk away. Strength in numbers. If a site does not want to work with "our group" as a whole, then perhaps we don't want to work with them. I think that this option has been overlooked.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, I cannot argue with anything that you have stated.

The site discussed limiting the players initially just to make sure there was the traffic to justify our play.

If I was one of the 20 which was not selected, I would not be happy either.

I hate to say we just walk away, given this is the most serious talks I have had with any site. There is a promise of adding more players as soon as their traffic dictates.

There would be value to the whole group if a "test group" did prove their worth to the site. I never played at games grid, but from what I hear it was just 2er vs. 2er for that 1000% bonus or whatever it was.

Ideally, if this site could support all of our play from day one would be great, but I don't know if that could be the case, given their original position.

And how to decide what 20 is a real problem at this point...

[ddollevoet]

[ QUOTE ]
Ideally, if this site could support all of our play from day one would be great, but I don't know if that could be the case, given their original position.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just think that you are being put into a spot that you do not need to be in (i.e. stuck picking 20 people). Everyone can win (including the site owners) from a properly structured agreement.

Anything of value (rakeback, WPT/WSOP trips, merchandise, freerolls into cash tournaments, etc.) that will be awarded to members of "the Group" will be paid for by US, the individual player, through a percentage of the rake we pay as individuals.

The owner of any poker site that considers "our" offer needs to determine what percent of the rake they need to survive (to cover costs and profit) and what percent of the rake they would be willing to give up (to fund perks) to members of "the group." Realize, of course, that if "the group" is given credit for 50% of rake paid, not everyone who plays on the site will have the same perks. The full rake will be collected for other players (unless they are working off some bonus).

"The group" would actually comprise a small percentage of total players over the long run, but may provide a significant number of players during the site's infantcy, allowing for growth by keeping games going.

Cash flow is the lifeblood of any business. I can understand the reluctantcy of a site owner to commit large sums of cash for WSOP entries a year from now when they don't even know if their site will last that long.

I still think that a middle ground can be reached that will be beneficial to all parties.

These numbers are for illustration only, but you'll get the point:

Example: WSOP buy in and trip package. Value = $13,000

Assumptions: Average rake is $1 per pot in a 10 full ring game (depends on the limit played).

My portion of rake = $.10. 50% of which is credited to my special "group perk" account.

10 months away from next WSOP.


$13,000/(.10 X 50%) = 260,000 hands

260,000 / 10 months = 26,000 hands per month.

Structure of the deal: Play an average 26,000 hands per month for the next 10 months and get a free trip to the WSOP.

You get a $13,000 "prize package." The site gets $13,000 in rake up and above the prize package. Win/Win. Of course, the site owners need to determine if $1,300 a month in revenue (up and above the prize packages) per person in our group is worth their while.

If my numbers are way off, they can substitute their own. Maybe the number is 50,000 hands, maybe it is 10,000 hands. The site owners can make that call.

If the number of hands are too high. No one will want to play there. It won't make sense. But I think that using a time horizon of 10 month makes this a very viable option and will result in a large number of players putting in time at the new site.

My 2 cents.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ideally, if this site could support all of our play from day one would be great, but I don't know if that could be the case, given their original position.

[/ QUOTE ]


I just think that you are being put into a spot that you do not need to be in (i.e. stuck picking 20 people). Everyone can win (including the site owners) from a properly structured agreement.

Anything of value (rakeback, WPT/WSOP trips, merchandise, freerolls into cash tournaments, etc.) that will be awarded to members of "the Group" will be paid for by US, the individual player, through a percentage of the rake we pay as individuals.

The owner of any poker site that considers "our" offer needs to determine what percent of the rake they need to survive (to cover costs and profit) and what percent of the rake they would be willing to give up (to fund perks) to members of "the group." Realize, of course, that if "the group" is given credit for 50% of rake paid, not everyone who plays on the site will have the same perks. The full rake will be collected for other players (unless they are working off some bonus).

"The group" would actually comprise a small percentage of total players over the long run, but may provide a significant number of players during the site's infantcy, allowing for growth by keeping games going.

Cash flow is the lifeblood of any business. I can understand the reluctantcy of a site owner to commit large sums of cash for WSOP entries a year from now when they don't even know if their site will last that long.

I still think that a middle ground can be reached that will be beneficial to all parties.

These numbers are for illustration only, but you'll get the point:

Example: WSOP buy in and trip package. Value = $13,000

Assumptions: Average rake is $1 per pot in a 10 full ring game (depends on the limit played).

My portion of rake = $.10. 50% of which is credited to my special "group perk" account.

10 months away from next WSOP.


$13,000/(.10 X 50%) = 260,000 hands

260,000 / 10 months = 26,000 hands per month.

Structure of the deal: Play an average 26,000 hands per month for the next 10 months and get a free trip to the WSOP.

You get a $13,000 "prize package." The site gets $13,000 in rake up and above the prize package. Win/Win. Of course, the site owners need to determine if $1,300 a month in revenue (up and above the prize packages) per person in our group is worth their while.

If my numbers are way off, they can substitute their own. Maybe the number is 50,000 hands, maybe it is 10,000 hands. The site owners can make that call.

If the number of hands are too high. No one will want to play there. It won't make sense. But I think that using a time horizon of 10 month makes this a very viable option and will result in a large number of players putting in time at the new site.

My 2 cents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey ddollevet,

If you go back and look at the details of what has already been offered, you will see that it is far more generous than your "sample proposal".

I agree for low limit players $1/$2 or below or lower limit NL players that they would probably need more time to qualify. (not unless they really burned it up) I had stated earlier I would hope that the site would perhaps offer a longer time period for lower limit players and give the higher limit/higher rake players the opportunity to win multiple entries.

Please remember this is a work in progress, hopefully this is not the end of something but merely the start. I think just all this discussion on this board is helpful in creating other promos for the high volume player. (Gaming Club's recent announcement and Poker Share's 120K share points for a WSOP trip I think.) How valuable these promos are, each individual player would have to figure out. At least it appears the sites are starting to recognize high volume players and are trying to offer incentives to get our business.

I know this deal is not perfect due to the player restriction, but otherwise I feel it is a very strong offer. I did view the player restriction as the site trying to be responsible. If they just opened up the flood gates and 100 of us jumped on the site, we would all be on here one week later probably complaining about the fact the games are horrible and this promo is not worth it and this site sucks. In that scenario, no one benefits.

Like I said I know this is not perfect, but something is better than nothing at all. I would argue that in the long run this even benefits the players who would not be in the original 20. This has to get off the ground and running for it to even have a chance of success.

[ddollevoet]

Please don't feel like I am questioning you or how you are approaching this. I think it is great that you are stepping up to the plate and I respect you for it. I was just trying to illustrate that there are many options.