Party Poker Monster Thread

[bigsea]

curently, Pokerstars more than 100k players playing, partypoker 68k. Partypoker is falling.

[Daniture]

I think theres a common misconception here about party not wanting the multi tablers. This is entirely incorrect.

As most affiliates can tell you a serious player brings in significant amounts of revenues. A couple 2+2ers easily brings in more rake then 100+ random fish accounts a month.

The fish are the ones who bring the money to PP. The multi-tablers playing 8 hours are the ones giving it to party poker.

In general the faster the fish lose their money the sooner they need to reload.

If i may formulate an example. All the good players leave PP. 10 fish play their 1 hour per night all at the same table. No one really loses anything maybe 1 or 2 of the fish have to reload.

Versus. There are now a 40 multitablers and still the 10 fish. The fish play for 1 hour and 8 or so of them go bust to the regular players. The good players then continue to play against each other for 7 more hours and drain off even more money to Party while the fish reloads.

the "good" multi tablers are very good for party. In addition to spending many more hours contributing to partys bottem line they provide many active tables for the fish to find a quick seat at.

Its not a coincidence props tend to be better players.

[Daniture]

[ QUOTE ]
curently, Pokerstars more than 100k players playing, partypoker 68k. Partypoker is falling.

[/ QUOTE ]

95% of PS numbers are not playing for money.

[goofyballer]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone know how to calculate the loss in ptbb/100 in 200nl?

[/ QUOTE ]

Open all your hands in the "game notes" tab in PT. Filter hands whose rake was $0.25 or greater. Count the number of hands you won that are still in the list. Then take that number, multiply by .5 to get how much extra you would have paid in monster rake; take that, divide by 4 to change it into big bets, divide by the number of hands you've played at $200 to get BB/hand impact, and multiply by 100 to get BB/100 impact.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
curently, Pokerstars more than 100k players playing, partypoker 68k. Partypoker is falling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, all the multitabling tags are leaving Party

7:20 PDT

Active players:
Active Players = seats filled at real money ring game tables

Party 13329

Stars 9174

You are an idiot.

And Party should double the rake again. All you multitabling fools would pay it.

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]


Tony

[JohnnyHumongous]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a micro limit player and have never played at Party, however, I'm tempted to clear a bonus there in the near future.

One thing that I'm struggling to understand is just how any poker site is currently making serious money from ring-games. Looking at pokersitescout shows that Party only has about 10,000 players (excluding multi tables this probably reduces to about say 6,000 individuals).

So, despite trully massive startup costs in infrastructure and marketing, they can only attract the population of a small town WORLDWIDE.

I suspect that under the current rake structure, there are many individual players who are physically making more profit than the site-owner. This is utterly ridiculous unsustainable long-term.

Since on-line poker is perceived as a potentially huge future business, poker internet sites will be trading at huge multiples to their real current value (just like the dotcom bubble).

The current reality is, that despite the current feeding frenzy about the explosion in online poker worldwide, only a few thousand people are actually playing, and many of them at micro-limits.

The poker sites need to desperately make more money before the venture capitalists start to ask awkward questions - substantially altering the rake structure to transfer the flow of cash away from successful players is a smart move because they just don't need that type of player to make money.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's like this post was written in 2002 or something

[heater]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a micro limit player and have never played at Party, however, I'm tempted to clear a bonus there in the near future.

One thing that I'm struggling to understand is just how any poker site is currently making serious money from ring-games. Looking at pokersitescout shows that Party only has about 10,000 players (excluding multi tables this probably reduces to about say 6,000 individuals).

So, despite trully massive startup costs in infrastructure and marketing, they can only attract the population of a small town WORLDWIDE.

I suspect that under the current rake structure, there are many individual players who are physically making more profit than the site-owner. This is utterly ridiculous unsustainable long-term.

Since on-line poker is perceived as a potentially huge future business, poker internet sites will be trading at huge multiples to their real current value (just like the dotcom bubble).

The current reality is, that despite the current feeding frenzy about the explosion in online poker worldwide, only a few thousand people are actually playing, and many of them at micro-limits.

The poker sites need to desperately make more money before the venture capitalists start to ask awkward questions - substantially altering the rake structure to transfer the flow of cash away from successful players is a smart move because they just don't need that type of player to make money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just when I think I've seen it all...

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
I think theres a common misconception here about party not wanting the multi tablers. This is entirely incorrect.




I think Party thinks, correctly, that you guys will pay and pay and pay.





As most affiliates can tell you a serious player brings in significant amounts of revenues.




The operative word here is BRING IN. According to all you guys, you are all TAKING OUT enormous sums each month. Party probably has determined that it doesn't have to share "fish" money with you.






A couple 2+2ers easily brings in more rake then 100+ random fish accounts a month.




If the fish bring the rake in, how do 2+2er's bring more fish? Oh I know, they filet them as quickly as possible thus making the fish anxious to return with more money.




The fish are the ones who bring the money to PP. The multi-tablers playing 8 hours are the ones giving it to party poker.





You sir, are a complete idiot.





In general the faster the fish lose their money the sooner they need to reload.




See my previous statement





If i may formulate an example. All the good players leave PP. 10 fish play their 1 hour per night all at the same table. No one really loses anything maybe 1 or 2 of the fish have to reload.





Ugh... Party still rakes EVERY pot,.. AND, the fish don't ever take money FROM Party Poker. At least, according to you guys.





Versus. There are now a 40 multitablers and still the 10 fish. The fish play for 1 hour and 8 or so of them go bust to the regular players.





This, of course, just thrills the fish no end.





The good players then continue to play against each other for 7 more hours and drain off even more money to Party while the fish reloads.





Sure they do.... idiot, the table breaks up while the tags go looking for more fish. Meanwhile, the fish is out selling his car so he can get back and quickly lose more money to the regulars.





the "good" multi tablers are very good for party.





I am sure Party is delighted that these guys drain millions from the fish bankrolls.




In addition to spending many more hours contributing to partys bottem line they provide many active tables for the fish to find a quick seat at.





Tell me again how the tags are contributing to Party's bottom line by siphoning off money that would otherwise ultimately end up in Party's coffers.




Its not a coincidence props tend to be better players.




It is not a coincidence that Party is finaly making it a little tougher on you guys while attracting me, Tuff_Fish, to the pretty blue tables.

PAY UP.... PAY.. PAY.. PAY. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]




Gotta run, I am late for getting to the monster tables, now gloriously free of multitabling tags. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


RIGHT..!!!!! [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]




[/ QUOTE ]

[RunDownHouse]

Tony,

You've shown a serious misunderstanding of online poker economics in the past, so its unsurprising you don't grasp the issues at hand here.

TAGs "siphoning off" money is irrelevant. All that matters is the number of raked hands and the amount of rake taken (to a lesser extent). This is driven by the number of tables open, and it doesn't matter if those players are 2+2 or guys like you. Given that there is no population of players that will all play perfectly all the time, there will always be winners and losers in the game. Over the long run, the winners will accumulate their winnings and the losers will go bust or reload. The money the winners accumulate will either be used to move up in stakes or it will not be wagered. It doesn't matter which it is. In either case, the winners are playing pots, keeping tables open, and driving the economy of the room. At lower limits there may be a small effect of pots being raked less if winners withdraw as opposed to move up, but I don't think that's very significant given that players almost always want to move up to where pots are typically max raked.

So it doesn't matter which subset of players is winning and which is losing. It doesn't really matter if winners withdraw or move up or just let all the money sit there. The only things that matter are the number of raked hands and, to a lesser extent, the amount the hands are raked.

[hoosiertim]

I decided to give WPEX a try. It is a rock garden at 2/4 and 3/6 but with 100% rakeback I hope I will be ok