Why do bonuses require a deposit?

[ImsaKidd]

Title basically says it all: why do sites require a deposit to acquire a bonus? Also, why do some (like party) give points for depositing then withdrawing after a week?

It seems like there would be so many netteller charges that the site would have to pay for all these bonuses. It would be cheaper if they gave everyone the bonus (like the bet365 no deposit bonus).

Anyone have any insight? I just can't see how this makes sense.

[tagtastic]

I think in general these bonuses spark players that don't play regularly to "reload" their account and start playing again because of this offer.

For players who would be playing anyways, this offer may 'cause them to play a) more than they usually would to clear this bonus or b) at higher stakes, since they're forced to deposit more money.

[pzhon]

Poker sites see much less money withdrawn than deposited. On average, each dollar deposited might be wagered 10 times before a lucky/frustrated/winning player withdraws it, with the rake reducing the dollar by a few percent each time. So, poker sites assume there is some value to having a dollar deposited, perhaps $0.35.

From a winner's perspective, this may seem strange. We know our deposits will not necessarily be churned 10 times before a withdrawal. However, the bonus offers also go out many losing players who make deposit after deposit, and almost never withdraw any money. It's possible that over 75% of the money these players deposit will get converted into rake, balancing out the 0% from a currently active player who will deposit for the bonus, clear the bonus through normal play, and then withdraw the excess.

Be thankful that most poker sites do not yet distinguish between the valuable losing players and the worthless winners. However, some do, and more will in the future.

[TenFiftyFour]

[ QUOTE ]
Be thankful that most poker sites do not yet distinguish between the valuable losing players and the worthless winners. However, some do, and more will in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with your notion that winning players are worthless for the site. Winning players contrubute rake too, and plenty of it. The difference between winning players and losing players is that winners can net enough money to cover the rake and then some.

I paid over $1000 in rake last year, I doubt that partypoker would consider me "worthless".

[ImsaKidd]

I guess I was looking at all bonuses through the eyes of a winning player. I never thought about fish needing more money, and the dposit gives it to them.

Thanks guys.

[midwestkc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Be thankful that most poker sites do not yet distinguish between the valuable losing players and the worthless winners. However, some do, and more will in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with your notion that winning players are worthless for the site. Winning players contrubute rake too, and plenty of it. The difference between winning players and losing players is that winners can net enough money to cover the rake and then some.

I paid over $1000 in rake last year, I doubt that partypoker would consider me "worthless".

[/ QUOTE ]

considering what some people generate in rake, they might...

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

I disagree with your notion that winning players are worthless for the site. Winning players contrubute rake too, and plenty of it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've heard that argument before. It's wrong. The amount of rake you think you generate is not the same as the increase in rake due to the addition of a winning player to a site.

[ QUOTE ]

I paid over $1000 in rake last year, I doubt that partypoker would consider me "worthless".

[/ QUOTE ]
Your value to Party Poker is not $1000. If they were desperate for more players to maintain a critical mass, it might be more than $1000, which is why some sites pay props 100% or more of the rake they nominally generate. Since Party has already reached critical mass, the value of a winning player may be negative.

[paperboyNC]

Even though I've paid over $4,000 in rake this month alone, I am still costing the sites I play at money.

For poker sites, players would be close enough in skill levels that in the long run, no one would make enough to cover rake.

[ImsaKidd]

[ QUOTE ]
Even though I've paid over $4,000 in rake this month alone, I am still costing the sites I play at money.



[/ QUOTE ]

How is this? You're taking money from fish, not the site.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
You're taking money from fish, not the site.

[/ QUOTE ]
In addition to the many bonuses I receive, I pump money out of the system. If I weren't involved, the money would be churned around more, and much more of it would be converted to rake.

Imagine you have a bank, though you offer no interest. You do sell (rake-shaped) gill massagers for $100 that cost you nothing. Mr. Fish deposits $1000, and you project that he will buy 5 gill massagers, then withdraw the remaining $500. You expect to profit $500. Then Mr. Shark deposits $100, and Mr. Fish transfers $1000 to him. Mr. Shark buys 1 gill massager, then withdraws $1000. Your profit was $100. How valuable of a customer was Mr. Shark to you? -$400, not +$100.

I may be a particularly worthless customer because I mainly play NL and tournaments. Winning low stakes limit players often convert about as much money into rake as they transfer into their own accounts, but in NL (or high stakes limit), your win rate can be several times the rake.