Party CFO conversation: Trip report

[phillydilly]

[ QUOTE ]
it's not about fresh money coming in

they make their money on rake, so all that matters is the number of games/hands being played at a time for what average stakes...

the more games/hands/higher stakes, the more rake they collect

if u sit 10 people at a table with $100 each, eventually pp would have all 1k of the money if u all sat there and played long enough...

[/ QUOTE ]

ok... if you sit 10 people with $100 and eventually party gets it all, wouldn't the single most important thing be getting fresh money in?

[imported_anacardo]

[ QUOTE ]
it's not about fresh money coming in

they make their money on rake, so all that matters is the number of games/hands being played at a time for what average stakes...

the more games/hands/higher stakes, the more rake they collect

if u sit 10 people at a table with $100 each, eventually pp would have all 1k of the money if u all sat there and played long enough...

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. We, not they, need the fresh money coming in.

I don't really see why they give a damn.

[johnnymac]

[ QUOTE ]
"My impression, along with the impressions of a lot of other people, I guess, was that Party regards us primarily as a hassle, and that they see their business model as catering to an ever-rotating group of recreational gamblers. "

Makes perfect sense to me. 8-tablers are not good customers. As time goes by Party, and others, will realize that pros are sucking a lot of earn away from the sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

But they obviously still want our rake, else why the change to allow 10 tables?

Joe

[lacky]

[ QUOTE ]
Preferring to focus on the dwindling stream of new gamboolers that will dump in a casino rather than on a poker table?


[/ QUOTE ]

sounds the same as all other casinos. the poker room is there to bring in costumers and is a minor money maker in most casinos, sounds like party is trying to transform itself from a poker room to a casino. I don't like that choice, and think it's short sighted, but it's clearly what they are trying for.

[ QUOTE ]
So basically they are deciding that their highest volume customers are behind the low volume ones?


[/ QUOTE ]

All party has to do to keep high volume players is provide soft games. I would love the bonuses and rakeback and TV's shipped to my house to go on forever, but even with all that gone I woke up the next morning and went to work playing poker, just did it on party instead of Euro. If the fish go away and the games get bad we will all leave. If they stay good we will all stay. Clearly they know that too.

Steve

[scotty34]

[ QUOTE ]
"My impression, along with the impressions of a lot of other people, I guess, was that Party regards us primarily as a hassle, and that they see their business model as catering to an ever-rotating group of recreational gamblers. "

Makes perfect sense to me. 8-tablers are not good customers. As time goes by Party, and others, will realize that pros are sucking a lot of earn away from the sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't imagine that Party would prefer to have 60,000 "fish" online at once over having 60,000 "fish" AND 10,000 "pros".

[phillydilly]

[ QUOTE ]
But they obviously still want our rake, else why the change to allow 10 tables?

Joe

[/ QUOTE ]

yes they want our rake, and yes they let us 10 table
but this is far different than actually catering to us.

bottom line, customer service, rakeback, bonuses, none of this matters if party gets the fish

party could eliminate all the perks and could be as bad as pacific, but if we can multitable against bad players, the 8 tablers will play there

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't imagine that Party would prefer to have 60,000 "fish" online at once over having 60,000 "fish" AND 10,000 "pros".

[/ QUOTE ]

Like any other casino, they'd rather have the fish lose the money back and forth to each other before eventually losing it to the casino at craps than losing it to pros who don't leak it back.

[scotty34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't imagine that Party would prefer to have 60,000 "fish" online at once over having 60,000 "fish" AND 10,000 "pros".

[/ QUOTE ]

Like any other casino, they'd rather have the fish lose the money back and forth to each other before eventually losing it to the casino at craps than losing it to pros who don't leak it back.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said in another one of the posts in this thread though, poker is a game with skill ranges. There really isn't cut 'n dry sharks and fish. The top 10% of the "fish" with take money away from the poorer players. They won't actually just trade the money back and forth.

If they could attract a player base of 60000 players with identical skills, then that would be incredible for them. That's just not possible however.

[Benholio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"My impression, along with the impressions of a lot of other people, I guess, was that Party regards us primarily as a hassle, and that they see their business model as catering to an ever-rotating group of recreational gamblers. "

Makes perfect sense to me. 8-tablers are not good customers. As time goes by Party, and others, will realize that pros are sucking a lot of earn away from the sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't imagine that Party would prefer to have 60,000 "fish" online at once over having 60,000 "fish" AND 10,000 "pros".

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, they said that the "pros" were acceptable, just sub-optimal. Think about it this way, say they already have 60,000 "fish" and 10,000 "pros", and they can choose between adding 10,000 more of either. Which would they choose? Which would YOU choose? Pretty obviously you'd rather 10,000 more fish.

[kylma]

[ QUOTE ]

maybe thats why they dont care about the "pros", because they will always be there. If all of twoplustwo leaves, then a new bunch will spring up with "should i go pro questions".
I guess this makes sense, If one group of pros is always going to be replaced by the next, why cater to it?
what you really need is fresh money coming in

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you hit the nail on the head.. This pretty much sums up it all from our point of view, and Party's, as far as "pros" are concerned