So much for Party's demise - Page 3

pzhon · #21 10-12-2005, 11:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't say a 13% drop in customers is exactly something they'll be drinking champagne over.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't be surprised. From Party's perspective, there was a huge difference between playing on Party's network and playing on Party.

According to Party's data (see page 6), the skins accounted for 3.6% of Party's poker revenue in the first 6 months of 2005. 3.6%. All of the puffed-up, rakeback-demanding multitablers accounted for much less than 3.6% of Party's poker revenue. That's why Party doesn't care if they jump ship. I think if 1 in 5 players on the skins moves to Party, and the others move to other networks, Party gains.

It looks like Party gave the skins too much of the rake their players generate. Party's move may be a way to renegotiate. Party used to consider the skins allies. It now views the skins as competitors. Party cares about as much when a player leaves Empire as when a player leaves PokerStars.

#22 10-12-2005, 11:15 AM

Whatever happened to Matt Mondrary's tracking of player volume at Party? It was the best out there, but his website stopped working a while ago.

Vee Quiva · #23 10-12-2005, 11:15 AM

I emailed PP and it is the number of tables open multiplied by the number of players at each table. So if I am logged on and playing 3 tables at once, I am counted 3 times.

The important thing to remember is this is the same way they have been counting since the beginning. There are the same number of games and players as there was 2 weeks ago. Therefore, Party Poker is making just as much money if not more.
Now if I can just get their stock back above $3 a share American.

stoxtrader · #24 10-12-2005, 11:23 AM

your 3.6% number is correct, but i think your interpretation is wrong. its 3.6% of party revenue that is key here. remember to factor for what you assume the arrangement to be between party and it's skins.

MaxPower · #25 10-12-2005, 11:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
your 3.6% number is correct, but i think your interpretation is wrong. its 3.6% of party revenue that is key here. remember to factor for what you assume the arrangement to be between party and it's skins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop being so smart stox.

pzhon · #26 10-12-2005, 12:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
your 3.6% number is correct, but i think your interpretation is wrong. its 3.6% of party revenue that is key here. remember to factor for what you assume the arrangement to be between party and it's skins.

[/ QUOTE ]
What?

The percentage of the rake on the Party network attributable to the skins is much greater than 3.6%. Maybe it's 20%. However, Party gets very little of that 20%. Party gets 3.6%. That's why Party doesn't care much about people who are paying a lot of money in rake on the skins. Something that causes the Party network to lose does not necessarily cause Party to lose. Most of the people posting about how this was a stupid move by Party seem to have missed this point.

If you disagree with this, please say what you think is wrong.

stoxtrader · #27 10-12-2005, 12:54 PM

I disagree with your interpretation. here is why.

3.6% of the rake is a small subset, as is 3.6% of party poker's income. if that were the entire picture, your interpretation that party doesn not/should not really care is correct.

however! your point that 3.6% in revenue represents 20% of total rake (slightly high i think, but a decent estimate), on the old combined network is the key point. what would the effect be for party to move any/all/some of that rake to its in house tables?

pzhon · #28 10-12-2005, 12:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
what would the effect be for party to move any/all/some of that rake to its in house tables?

hint - look at profit margin.

[/ QUOTE ]
You'll have to try much harder than that to convince me that you have a point, as opposed to a reading comprehension problem. I see nothing that disagrees with what I said.

Tilt · #29 10-12-2005, 01:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
71,000 players online and a bad beat jackpot over 300,000 right now. I guess all the skin players have come back to the mother ship.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the night that WSOP main event first episode aired, I suspect their plans anticipated much more than this.

stoxtrader · #30 10-12-2005, 01:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't say a 13% drop in customers is exactly something they'll be drinking champagne over.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't be surprised. From Party's perspective, there was a huge difference between playing on Party's network and playing on Party.

According to Party's data (see page 6), the skins accounted for 3.6% of Party's poker revenue in the first 6 months of 2005. 3.6%. All of the puffed-up, rakeback-demanding multitablers accounted for much less than 3.6% of Party's poker revenue. That's why Party doesn't care if they jump ship. I think if 1 in 5 players on the skins moves to Party, and the others move to other networks, Party gains.

It looks like Party gave the skins too much of the rake their players generate. Party's move may be a way to renegotiate. Party used to consider the skins allies. It now views the skins as competitors. Party cares about as much when a player leaves Empire as when a player leaves PokerStars.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to be condescending. sorry if it appears that way. I have quoted your original post that I attempted to refute.

your point about party caring less if it was pokerstars or empire is not correct as party gets a share of empire, however minor (I dont know if party gets rev share or set fee, they still would prefer a player at empire vs stars or any other room, provided that player can't play party).

the swithc was/is not a negotiating tactic. in my opinion the cross selling of the casino is the main, possibly only reason.

the main part of your point that i disagree with is where I believe you undestimate the rake generated by multitablers on the skin network by failing to extrapolate that revenue into dollars of profit if those players played at party directly. i'm not going to debate it, im comfortable with a difference of opinion.