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

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you could choose who is eligible by reg date on 2+2, this may very well preclude myself however, it seems fair since O'Doyle's Army is essentially a service for 2+2. Reward seniority.
~Justin

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like this idea either since just because you've been here the longest doesn't mean you've contributed really anything to these forums.

Since this is O's baby, I really don't see how anyone could bitch (or O should care if anyone bitches) if he just takes the 20 people he feels are most rewarding. It's his name on this and his reputation with this new site that's on the line...

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a problem with that (and I'm only using myself because I can speak for myself so maybe others are in the same boat) :

If you ask me right now, am I currently a high volume player, according to your rough definition, that answer would be no. I play .25/.50 NL and put in around 6000-8000 hands a month. No way would that generate enough rake to pay for a WSOP trip in 4-6 months given 75% rakeback.

However, if something like this would fall on my lap, I would have no problems :

a)Putting in a lot more hands a month

b)Moving up limits

Putting in 25,000 hands a month of .5/1 NL would generate enough rake for me to pay for a WSOP trip in 4-6 months. That is something I understand and something that I'm willing to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Iggy,

I appreciate this and your honesty. No doubt a player has to be highly motivated to play this amount of hands in a month or more. I also can tell by the sound of your post you are very sincere in what you are saying and I believe you would no doubt accomplish it.

There are players out there who are playing this amount of hands month in and month out and therein lies the problem as I see it. We are selling ourselves to these sites as high volume players and if this pans out, we need to deliver what we promise.

This is not to say you will not get an opportunity to participate as at this point I don't even know how this issue should be settled for sure. I will definitely be discussing it with the site for a possible solution.

My hope would be that this is only the beginning of many such opportunities like this.

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
There are players out there who are playing this amount of hands month in and month out and therein lies the problem as I see it. We are selling ourselves to these sites as high volume players and if this pans out, we need to deliver what we promise.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I mean by you hit a problem when you try to define a high volume player. I'm sure I'm not the only one who given the chance, could generate the kind of rake a "high volume" player would.

Personally though, I have no incentive to play 25,000 hands a month. I work a normal 8-5 job and poker is a fun hobby. I make money and I only play when I really want to, hense usually only putting in around 8000 hands a month.

Given the added incentive that increased play would earn me a trip to the WSOP or some other large live buyin tournament, I really don't see that there would be a problem putting in 25000 hands in a month. I normally only play 2-3 tables at a time, so adding in another 3 when I normally play would double my hands right there alone. Only a little more added time playing would be needed then.

My point is, just because someone might not normally put in 25,000+ hands a month, doesn't mean they can't & won't. Would you have played 120,000 hands on True over that short of a time if there was no WSOP incentive involved? A little incentive goes a long way.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]

Given the added incentive that increased play would earn me a trip to the WSOP or some other large live buyin tournament, I really don't see that there would be a problem putting in 25000 hands in a month. I normally only play 2-3 tables at a time, so adding in another 3 when I normally play would double my hands right there alone. Only a little more added time playing would be needed then.

My point is, just because someone might not normally put in 25,000+ hands a month, doesn't mean they can't & won't. Would you have played 120,000 hands on True over that short of a time if there was no WSOP incentive involved? A little incentive goes a long way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Iggy,

I am a salesperson and you have sold me on the fact that there is no doubt you would be successful in earning a seat if you get the opportunity. I really hope you get the opportunity because I want the players who initially get involved be 100% successful as this will only help the long term cause.


Would I have played 120k hands at True without the promise of a WSOP seat?

I am crazy, but not totally insane yet. That amount of hands in about 6 weeks is something I am not planning to ever do again. (I am not sure what it would take to repeat that craziness, but hey, sites can make me an offer! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])

[O Doyle Rules]

Some of the players pm-ing me have suggested that I should better define "high volume".

Using the 75% credit of rake towards a WSOP/WPT trip and assuming the value of the package is 12k and the site only allows 4 months to qualify for it, a person would need to generate 4k a month in rake for the site. If the site allows up to 6 months, a person would need a little less than 3K a month in rake.

How many hands? That would depend upon the limit you play. A $5/$10 SH handed player would only need to play about 17k hands a month on the high end (4 months) and about 12.5k hands a month on the low end (6 months).

A full ring $3/$6 player would need approximately 34k hands a month on the high end and around 25k hands on the low end. (Disclaimer on the amount of hands, these are just rough guestimates on my part, I think they would be close, but please don't take these hand figures as absolutes, as the actual number could be higher or lower.)

I hope this is helpful. And this doesn't mean that a .50/1.00 player could not, but I think it would be a rare animal that is playing 40k+ hands a month of .50/1.00.

I also will have more discussion with the site in regards to this, and perhaps there can be a discussion for a longer time period for the lower limit players to make this a more reasonable number per month. On the other hand, this could also give the higher limit player maybe a chance to earn more than one spot per year as we were talking.

[benza13]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of the players pm-ing me have suggested that I should better define "high volume".

Using the 75% credit of rake towards a WSOP/WPT trip and assuming the value of the package is 12k and the site only allows 4 months to qualify for it, a person would need to generate 4k a month in rake for the site. If the site allows up to 6 months, a person would need a little less than 3K a month in rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

O Doyle, to bring up the STT and MTT issue again, based on these numbers it would be fairly easy for a player at the $55 level or higher to qualify in the allotted time, at least for STT play. To generate $4k in rake at the $50+5 tourneys, one would need to play 800 tournaments. This is not that large of a number if players can multitable. Of course, this also assumes a big enough player base that the $55s would run regularly enough to multitable. Playing $100+9s would make this an even easier number to achieve. Dropping below the $55s, however, might make it difficult as one would need to play over 1300/month at the $30+3 level. This is still attainable, assuming 8-tabling which you said earlier would be possible, but would be a much more difficult number to achieve on a regular basis. If we drop the requirement to $3K/month then this drops down to 1000 $33s, a more attainable number. This would allow even middle limit STT players to qualify for a high-volume of play.

I believe that the site would enjoy a variety of players that would include STT and MTT specialists, and certainly many of these players are going to be interested in major tournament seats. This all depends on whether the site will include tournament fees as rake in this program, but I don't see why they wouldn't. MTT players would probably need to play other games as well, as MTTs alone would not generate a high level of rake, but combining STT and MTT play makes this a very attainable goal.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Some of the players pm-ing me have suggested that I should better define "high volume".

Using the 75% credit of rake towards a WSOP/WPT trip and assuming the value of the package is 12k and the site only allows 4 months to qualify for it, a person would need to generate 4k a month in rake for the site. If the site allows up to 6 months, a person would need a little less than 3K a month in rake.

[/ QUOTE ]



O Doyle, to bring up the STT and MTT issue again, based on these numbers it would be fairly easy for a player at the $55 level or higher to qualify in the allotted time, at least for STT play. To generate $4k in rake at the $50+5 tourneys, one would need to play 800 tournaments. This is not that large of a number if players can multitable. Of course, this also assumes a big enough player base that the $55s would run regularly enough to multitable. Playing $100+9s would make this an even easier number to achieve. Dropping below the $55s, however, might make it difficult as one would need to play over 1300/month at the $30+3 level. This is still attainable, assuming 8-tabling which you said earlier would be possible, but would be a much more difficult number to achieve on a regular basis. If we drop the requirement to $3K/month then this drops down to 1000 $33s, a more attainable number. This would allow even middle limit STT players to qualify for a high-volume of play.

I believe that the site would enjoy a variety of players that would include STT and MTT specialists, and certainly many of these players are going to be interested in major tournament seats. This all depends on whether the site will include tournament fees as rake in this program, but I don't see why they wouldn't. MTT players would probably need to play other games as well, as MTTs alone would not generate a high level of rake, but combining STT and MTT play makes this a very attainable goal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey benza,

This makes sense to me. I will discuss it with them.

[Reckless_Abandon]

As for an idea about who gets selected, since it's essential to have high volume, why not let the players compete for it. Have everyone that wants to be included sign up, then play for 2 weeks. The top 20 players in terms of rake generated are in. The rest could get something like 50% rakeback.

Of course I'm biased about post count and date registered, so I'd like to see a competition. I could qualify several times over in a six month period.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
As for an idea about who gets selected, since it's essential to have high volume, why not let the players compete for it. Have everyone that wants to be included sign up, then play for 2 weeks. The top 20 players in terms of rake generated are in. The rest could get something like 50% rakeback.

Of course I'm biased about post count and date registered, so I'd like to see a competition. I could qualify several times over in a six month period.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would definitely be good for the site, not so sure for the poor guys who finished number(s) 21, 22, 23 etc.

I am already nearing 40 players who are very interested and this is probably with only 20% of my PMs answered.

[ddollevoet]

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.