partypoker removes highest level cash games
can someone explain to this idiot (me) why would they do this? does it really hurt them if there isn't a lot of traffic on the highest levels? does removing the highest levels make recreational players play more? i don't get it so can someone in the know explain how this increases rec player traffic (because that's the reason party gave for the change).
Comments
If I had to guess right now I would assume this...money funnels up in poker and Party is ranked number 2. So logically I can assume that the biggest and best players hit and run, withdraw funds so it leaves site...this means less circulating, less games available, players lose intrest quickly or quite simply everything. Whale runs up a huge streak and leaves, things get dry...
Guessing at this point still...going to have to get facts before I tap anything concrete out....
exactly not this.
Alot of the HS cash game party regs are the same HS reg's as anywhere else.. i can name a few HS party regs that are HS stars regs (pimpy limpy, 2607185, otterkopf) and the HS FL guys ( Tpirahana , zeigler) are just lookign for action period, doesnt matter who it is or even what site it is
While yes, I agree that party is trying to control their economy (its not secret HS regs have the highest BR;s) , the highest stake cash games are a great marketing tool
Theres nothing like watching HUGE pots being raked in and then firing up a cash game that you arent exactly rolled for.
there is much more to this than what is being let on imo.....
Ill get informed then try again
please update this thread jon if anyone can find out its you
i JUST started paying on party again, and even though im not a cash game player, im interested to see how this will effect the site
1) Costanza's thoughts on "killing the dream" from a marketing aspect are definetly a constant view. With that said, WPT produces some excellent TV for those wanting to be spectators. I love poker but rarely watch high stakes online and if your at that level of love for the game, chances are you don't need any marketing to bring you in, so this becomes a redundate marketing tool. New players know who the big stars are from watching TV long before they ever learn to nagivigate a lobby and find the nosebleeds.
2) a player ran numbers using large sample and rake vs winnings is way bigger at 5/10 than the nosebleeds, as stakes get higher, the sites earnings go down significantly (5-1) and while pros like to call it work when winning and mention the greed in the industry side of the game when getting raked, aside from entertainement, this is a business.
3) regs seem to agree that most high stakes players on Party were bum hunting and doing nothing productive in terms of poker ecology and that most people hating will never sit $5/10 or higher and if they do usually bust their roll...see 2)
4) to add to 3), I know the Calgary and Edmonton scene very well. I would put estimates high at 100 players out of about 2.5 million population that can sit these levels and have the proper bankroll and win rate to do so. As we discussed in another thread, you will rarely find these game spread live and online generally plays bigger than live at smaller stakes (proportiantly speaking). Looking at our own membership, how many players here are truly affected negatively by this decision?
5) With US regulation a possiblity in the future and Party often considered a favorite due to taking their lumps in 06, while Stars and Tilt countinued to defy law makers, moving towards "socially responsible" gaming seems smart in aligning themselves. The kid gloves will be on if and when this does happen and the law makers inthe USA are going to want show that they are somewhat "controlling" players habits.
6) going back to 4) when ABS group decided to try to eliminate re-entry in tournaments, the major motive was to protect their ecosystem though they knew they would lose some reg fees and decrease entry numbers from high rollers good for 3-5 buyins per event. They felt as if the bottom 95% were being negatively affected, that if they didnt feel like they could beat the LAG high rollers that could reload, or would try and lose their BR, this resulting in them not participating in the next one or leaving the game. The regs hated this move and ultimately, the move was reversed. Party can still do this too.
In many ways, we are looking at the same but different situation in that reg tournament players need big prize-pools to be attracted and don't mind rich players getting it in bad, while the regs on High Stakes are simply looking for a few a big fish, whether they have to wait days or not. They choose opponents a little more selectivly and ultimatelly, other that being "heros" to the recreational player are in reality their worst nightmare. Those familiar with the game know well enough this statement is 100% true and goes hand in hand with the poker cliche "if you can't see the sucker it's you". Absolutely they sell the dream but reality is much different.
That's it for now, back soon....
Going back to my 2) yes, this move does benefit Party in many ways rake wise and 1) the trickle up effect I originally guessed is key. The majority of a sites profits come from money that is constantly circulation at the lower leavels and bieng raked, but if moves to far up, it leaves without profit.
High stakes cash games generally cost sites money in that the rake in comparison to the security, VIP and withdrawn money processing fees...I know players love to hate on the fact that poker hosts make money, but if they don't, they won't be around and neither will be many pro players livings. My boss/owner at work expects profits as am sure all do yours.
This article was considered good reference on the rake/ecosystem topic: The Poker Economy by Brandon Adams | Bluff Magazine November-2006
It's all good to try to please everybody, but ultimately it leads to financial failure and the players losing everything...Epic pokers freeroll and rake free events, FTP loaning high stakes players YOUR money and offering the excitement of watching huge pots being dragged as a marketing ploy...we can go on.
In the same way central banks raise and lower intrest rates, economists work numbers etc, there are people that are smart enough out there to protect the sustainability of a business/ecomony/infastructure by making moves that we may not like, but admittedly don't fully understand. I'm sure there are resident experts on this topic that could explain this better, but not me.
If rake dollars don't exist, the TV, sponsored pros, ads, affiliate, charity initiatives that please politicians, humatarians and the general public and take away some of pokers negative light, as well as all the other tools used to keep new money coming in disappear and eventually so does the game.
Bottom line is that most of this is generated at the stakes that have been kept and that means that players will countinue to have games to play.
7) it was suggested on 2+2 that even Stars has considered a similar move, but to put it another way, we know they changed their FPP system and played with rake numbers post Black Friday....in other words, they got more creative with their bottom line in a in a different yet similar approach.
What this meant to a Super Nova Elite player that I know that was beating the game and maintaining SNE for 5 years straight, was that this creative accounting has now made it near impossible to countinue to make the living that he has and will likely leave the game.
I think there are a hell of alot more rake back pros than high stakes players, so one is not better than the other by any means. What it does all point to is that the game and it's ecosystem, like everything else most evolve and react to its environment.
Out for now, but will be sorting this out in a simpler read, most likely for print.
i guess that means isildur1 is the best type of pro to have. he attracts a crowd of fans and he loses crap tons of money lol (he's down like $1.5 mil this year so far).
Jon,
Off topic - but Im interested in some more details on this.
This is one of my biggest issues when I travel west for MTT. Im not so concerned about the ability to reload vs. what Ive perceived on a few occasions to be collusion.
The nature of an MTT is you have 1 life. I really feel this rule disrespects the foundation of the game and wondering if a few regs have significant pull internally vs the general public.
Anyhow, ABS group owns 4 casinos, 2 in Edmonton, 1 in Calgary and 1 in Lethbridge. Their poker room manager wanted to take away re-entry on tourneys $300 or more, so that their popular Monthly Deepstack would also benefit from the move. Once the decision was made, she asked for the word to be spread and didn't mind explanation to the players.
We had a thread here: http://www.pokerforum.ca/f7/casino-abs-edmonton-yellowhead-new-re-entry-policy-26394/?highlight=Edmonton+abs
Of course by doing this, you are basically turning away money in some scenarios. She knew her players and most applauded the decision, though owners needed convincing. It was pretty obvious that the quality of play was declining as 5 or 10 guys would be willing to take big risks, walk back to the cage and if it was early enough, end back up in the only empty seat which was their own, making it more like a re-buy. Then they would bust some other guy with a loose play and you know most recreational players that sattied in or saved don't take we'll to these beats and you hear the grumbling, or the good competive players would say that they will just stick to the cash tables as if it wasn't a freeze-out their money was better played there.
The true problem lies in much the same area of what is addressed in the OP here; the new players get discouraged and don't come back, out of town players used to different rules don't like the experience, etc, that is all true...but more so it comes back to stakes...
Now you need 1,100 or more to play a $550 or $900 to play a $300 competivly and if we look at bankroll management basics, most players won't be able to sustain this...if they try, you won't see them at the nightly freezeouts for awhile, or the cash tables; the casinos and lose that rake and pros/high rollers lose potential sheep that they could have sheared many times but now skinned just once. I don't think I've seen re-entry used for collusion, but I can certainlly see how it presents the opportunity to chip dump and I wouldn't put it past some people.
In the end, as well as this was recieved when first announced it had to be overturned. On the opposite hand, some out of town players aren't going to travel in if the prizepools aren't huge and they only get one shot at them and the players who did play the events the most argued that they wanted the money in bad and that their bottom line was affected... without the extra 5-10 re-entries in many of the $1,100-$2,200 events in Alberta, attendance numbers looked weaker and most of this money we all know gets tacked up top, so at least some huge numbers can be reported there.
Plus, with Alberta being saturated with events and competitors allowing what they weren't it once again just ended up hurting them and had to get axed.
Getting back on track, the state of poker in Alberta is such that we have much more room in fields than players, so re-entry will always be allowed so we look competitive with the big annuals/semi annuals in BC, Fallsview, Manitoba, Regina, Montreal etc, though with a series in either Calgary or Edmonton every month, we really aren't making the players as hungry or have the population to sustain it...
Thoughts?
Yea - this was just my perception.
I watched 2 friends at an $1100 Edmonton main event go all in blind on the first hand.
Im sure they had action on eachother and based on table chatter they were well rolled. This feels a bit like collusion to me.
Just seems to ruin the game a little.
This is blatant collusion and you can guarantee they swapped. I personally hate re-entry from a player stand point but understand its need in Alberta from an industry stand point.
If I witnessed what you did, I certainlly wouldn't come back either if the floor can't address this. The dealer might even have an obligation to speak up here if trained properly as its not at all your responsibility. Two friends go all in blind for that kind of dough then one comes back in?
Not at all ethical, especially if that obvious.
Yea - they were also blatant that this was a last shorter bet, where the person that won the all in blind had to rebuy for the person that busted.
The author also mentioned "speaking the unspeakable". Yes. The site wants the money to circulate and stay lower, but this is an indicator of the true ecosystem and sustainability.
We also have to take into account that as regulation comes in, countries around the globe are segregating out of the main player pools into a government revenue taxation type model, with competitors being black listed/ip controlled. To keep the games going for the rest of us, adaptations need to made. One of the best suggestions made on the 2+2 thread, with some that agreed and many may call blasphemy is that sites eventually move away from raking and introduce a winners tax/fee. It goes against everything we know, but economically might be a good solution. I know paying taxes on earnings sucks right? they say there are only two things you can guarantee in life though...
I'm gonna close my thoughts on this with one last point regarding marketing and HS players true value in today's market...can I estimate that there are less than 1000 HS players playing 5/10 or greater in all of Canada regularly where as you could expect at least 100,000 accounts at the lower limits? Hendon only ranks ~ 5000 Canadian players, so this should give you an idea of the number of players here than can compete and win some money at even medium stakes...
To use other sitesas an example again, look at FTP and Stars...they quickly dropped many of their high profile pros after leaving US market as they now were definetly a loss leader.
It doesn't do them much good to pay them to attract our players, there just aren't enough left to get and it's pointless when most of FTP's market share was American. Looking at Stars, even players like Dennis Phillips were cut; he is well known and liked, highly recognized, has huge social media power and has continued to perform...so why drop him?
He spends most of his time playing in the US, a market they have 0 revenue from currently and since most deals are rake back based, there is really nothing in it for either side. (Duhamel and Negreanu would have top contracts, but looky here, they also play ROW regularly and are reconized everywhere)
Thanks for disscusion, this was also helpful research for me.
Sorry, I now have to go back to this. Based on this point and now knowing that HS pros are actually worse for sites than good, the move makes sense on another level...not only protect your own sustainability but let the other sites pick up your liabilities...the weaker competitors who gain them will have their bottom lines attacked even more and your biggest competitor will now also have to deal with catering to the 1%.
This concept is easily compared to something like the retail grocery industry and "loss leader" products...if a Chain a puts it's roasts on sale, chain b reacts by putting its hamburger on sale as this is where Chain a will be looking to make their losses back, so they now take a double hit and it limits their next move.
Pepsi, suger all those kind of things are often sold at a loss, knowing that a cheque for moving volume/meeting an agreed apon mark at the end of the year will cover those losses and customers will by other products with a profit margin while visiting to collect those items.
You will notice a limit placed on the loss leaders almost always however, this effectively weeds out the "bum hunters" or convience store owners (competion) who would otherwise buy it all.
Of all the names you listed, and even trigs mention of Isldur, what we have to remember is this...they are all well recognized in pokers sub culture, which we are a part of, but while the game itself is mainstream, these names are not to be to new money. I could mention Phil Ivey at work and maybe 2 of 80 would know who he is. I could walk into the biggest live tourney in Canada, grab the mic and say "insert your names here" are in the house and less than five percent of the field would be "nice they get their kudos", while the other 95% shook their heads saying "Wat?"
We want new money to come and fish to stay and that's what this is all about.
But a site would never alter a software program to keep the fish around. If they thought it would increase their bottom line, they surely would.
Keep that thought in mind and we will readdress soon...
Living Room Poker 2.0: WPT Is Betting On Smart TV - Forbes
http://transgaming.com/news/transgaming-deal-exclusive-world-poker-tour-entertainment-experience
Great diggin Jon.
I am wondering if you meant innovation/upgrades to software like this?
BREAKING: @PartyPoker releases "Fast Forward - their own variant of fast-fold poker
http://www.pokernews.com/news/2012/08/partypoker-exclusive-beta-testing-of-fast-forward-poker-unde-13200.htm
thinking of them having "fast forward" even for a couple seconds just gave me an aneurysm
a scene from the great David Cronenberg movie "Scanners"
LMAO, i dont know of its this statement or the fact that it came from you milo, but i just giggled like a little school girl at this post.
while not a discussion of nosebleed pokie a better perspective on the whole pro-table selection process killing the game comes from Phil Galfond,
"Game selection and seat selection are part of the soft skills that make a professional, along with tilt control, bankroll management, and all other kinds of work ethic. I thoroughly respect and endorse playing within your means and your comfort zone. I have no problem whatsoever with people who choose only to play in great games. It’s starting to go much further than that, however.
As soon as a “spot” leaves a game, zero to one hands are played. It literally instantly breaks. "
full post is worth a read,
Blog Post