At Party: January 2005 sign-ups, less than 30% still play there(+more

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One idea would be creating "no-multitable" tables, like there are no-disconnect-protect tables. On these tables, the player would be assured everyone at the table is only playing that one. Ostensibly this can be advertised as "helps the game move faster," but the sub-marketing can emphasize the scuttlebut that "system players" won't be playing there.


[/ QUOTE ]

holy [censored]. this would suck balls.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would limit most of us to six tables.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One idea would be creating "no-multitable" tables, like there are no-disconnect-protect tables. On these tables, the player would be assured everyone at the table is only playing that one. Ostensibly this can be advertised as "helps the game move faster," but the sub-marketing can emphasize the scuttlebut that "system players" won't be playing there.


[/ QUOTE ]

holy [censored]. this would suck balls.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would limit most of us to six tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just like they insure that you can't play at the same table with your accounts from different skins, I'm sure they could make you play just one table total and not one table per skin if they were so inclined.

--Zetack

[grinin]

I agree with the majority of your post other than the Edit at the bottom. The popularity alone of 6 max tables is not evidence that multitablers is not a problem. People will play 6 max because it is an "action game, or they are "luckier" at 6 max, or because there "aren't as many pros" or any other of a host of reasons. The bad players don't realize that they are losing money faster just like they don't realize that the rake at party's lower limits is bleeding them faster than the rake at so and so.

The crux of the matter is the overall growth of the online poker industry. It is pretty clear that we are on the downward slope of industry growth. Although this could be Party specific, I doubt it. With a falling growth rate, games will get tougher.

For example: Assume no new players were ever allowed to join into online poker and the player base remained static. Existing players would be allowed to redeposit or withdraw. Eventually fish would bust out, maybe even multiple times, but the player base is going to steadily get tougher. At some point the pro player will find that his skills are not enough to overcome the rake and the improved player base and he will leave. There would become a point where the fish that do redeposit are simply feeding the best pros that have decided to stick it out.

My thesis:
Online poker games will get tougher as the growth of the online industry slows. Fewer pros will be profitable and will get "real jobs". As the growth rate stabilizes there will become an equilibrium of pros and new fish arriving daily to support them.

[Jeffage]

B/C, if you're horrendous at poker, a slot machine will provide you with much more bang for your gambling buck. People who play horribly at poker have a much greater disadvantage and their money disappears much quicker than it would playing blackjack, etc.

Jeff

[grinin]

Great post HesseJam.

This is the most interesting statement and probably the most controversial, especially in this forum.
[ QUOTE ]
At the moment, the biggest negative factor to their profitability are the successful low-limit multitablers

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that the proliferation of successful multitablers is a detriment to the industry as a whole. They definitely take money out of the poker economy. Money which could have been used for advertising or even when just passed among the fish, makes the fish happy, making for a different more powerful kind of advertising: word of mouth. I also agree that it is not as much of a problem at the upper limits because the complexity of the competition requires more time in decision making thus inherently limiting tables.

I am not so sure though, that it is a negative factor in Party's profitability, if even at all. Also, while the growth rate of the industry was incredibly high I think it was a perfect method of seizing market share. Although successful multitablers are a detriment to the industry as a whole, if Party or any single site was to limit the tables played to one per player, the multitablers would simply become single tablers at multiple sites. Obviously this is unacceptable as far as Party is concerned. Thus, I don't think you will ever see the end of multitabling. However, I think you will soon see the end of the generic reload bonus, in exchange for the account specific bonuses targeted at players who are not making regular withdrawals from the site. Unfortunately, if there were any other way to "charge" the profitable players I am sure that it would also be considered.

[k_squared]

[ QUOTE ]
My thesis:
Online poker games will get tougher as the growth of the online industry slows. Fewer pros will be profitable and will get "real jobs". As the growth rate stabilizes there will become an equilibrium of pros and new fish arriving daily to support them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your thesis is flawed at least in part because it does not take into account the fact that fish become better players, which shifts the equilibrium, or in fact changes what the definition of a fish/pro is. Just because someone is a 'pro' does not mean they will never fall into the 'fish' category. When fish get better they will either start to beat some of the weaker pros or your equilibrium will be thrown off. It is not simply going to equalize, in fact the relationship of fish to pros will always be in flux. The only way to guarantee that you are a skark is to keep studying and adjusting to your opponents. Eventually if the pond does dry up (something I am not sure will ever happen in the near future) many 'winning' players who are only winning because the competition is so weak will now be the fish... That a 'point' of equilibrium exists is not a great hypothesis because the system is constantly changing in such a way that what is even a fish or pro can be redefined.

[grinin]

I am using the term fish and pro in the generally accepted convention of indicating unprofitable and profitable players. And of course one could move from one category to the other.

Anyway, there is always an equilibrium between unprofitable player / profitable players / house. The fish contribute to the other two. The fish are the driving force behind it all. A steadily decreasing supply of fish will yield a steadily decreasing number of pros and smaller take for the house.

Growth rate of the online poker industry is directly proportional to the amount of fish in the system. Hi growth = good fish supply. Decreasing growth = diminishing fish supply. Stable growth = stable fish supply. Of importance here is that we have been through a prolonged period of rapid growth. There has been an escalation in the supply of fish and the the resulting supply of profitable players. Once the growth rate starts to fall (and the news from Party seems to indicate this) we will see a decrease in the fish supply and thus a decrease in profitable players.

So for all you folks who thought you might make a living multitabling the 3-6 games, you may want to reevaluate.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
I am using the term fish and pro in the generally accepted convention of indicating unprofitable and profitable players. And of course one could move from one category to the other.

Anyway, there is always an equilibrium between unprofitable player / profitable players / house. The fish contribute to the other two. The fish are the driving force behind it all. A steadily decreasing supply of fish will yield a steadily decreasing number of pros and smaller take for the house.

Growth rate of the online poker industry is directly proportional to the amount of fish in the system. Hi growth = good fish supply. Decreasing growth = diminishing fish supply. Stable growth = stable fish supply. Of importance here is that we have been through a prolonged period of rapid growth. There has been an escalation in the supply of fish and the the resulting supply of profitable players. Once the growth rate starts to fall (and the news from Party seems to indicate this) we will see a decrease in the fish supply and thus a decrease in profitable players.

So for all you folks who thought you might make a living multitabling the 3-6 games, you may want to reevaluate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your use of the word growth confuses me. For insatnce you could have high but decreasing growth, you can have stable but low growth, and you can have actual decreases (negative growth I suppose) which you don't cover at all.

--Zetack

[grinin]

Think "Growth Rate"

It is most likely that the online poker industry will continue to expand with an ever increasing amount of money being wagered. As in most new industries, rapid growth rates occur in their infancy and begin to slow as the industry matures.

In general profitable players tend to stay and fish tend to go away. Making for a higher concentration of profitable players in the existing player base than the concentration of profitable players in new recruits. During this period of rapid growth profitable players have had continuous infusions of fresh new fish $. However, some of the fish will always turn into profitable players and thus the volume of existing profitable players has also directly increased.

Once the growth rate peaks and starts to decline (the industry is expanding just at a slower rate) the amount of fish $ per profitable player will decline. Eventually some profitable players will not be making as much and will determine that their time is better spent elsewhere. Once the growth rate stabilizes, the amount of incoming fish $ will stabilize and so to will the profitable player volume.

Put another way, the insane growth of the industry has led to a greater amount of $ being available from all of the new fish who say "cool, online poker lets check it out" then blow a $1,000 their first month. Unfortunately on average these fish only come back and blow another $178.64 per month thereafter. Once the rate of new fish coming into the system begins to fall, there becomes a problem.