Official Poker Site/Network Tracking thread

[cap108]

Keep in mind that Party introduced micro limits at the same time they booted US players. If you subtract the new .02/.04 and .05/.10 NL and .05/.10, .10/.20, and .15/.30 limit players, I wonder what kind of numbers you get for them.

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
the numbers show peak times only. party's peakhours are now 5-6 hours earlier, and start to drop after their daily peak. previously, their numbers kept going up for 5-6 more hours.

it's not just the 40% decline, but also completely missing out on the busiest time of the day, which can't be shown in the numbers that are available.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Daily data represents the 24 hour peak"

24 hour peak is still the peak, it isn't like it's a capture at a certain moment in time at all sites

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind that Party introduced micro limits at the same time they booted US players. If you subtract the new .02/.04 and .05/.10 NL and .05/.10, .10/.20, and .15/.30 limit players, I wonder what kind of numbers you get for them.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol @ party

[Drac]

[ QUOTE ]

pokerstars + 1434
party -3941
<u>FTP + 1728</u>
<font color="red">-779 </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Bodog picked up 357 players. I point that out not to nitpick with your numbers but because it's a pretty decent percentage increase on their business and as a regular there I've noticed the difference in traffic.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting data. PokerSiteScout, Sniper, et. al. thanks for posting this stuff.

[ QUOTE ]

pokerstars + 1434
party -3941
<u>FTP + 1728</u>
<font color="red">-779 </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

What point you are trying to make with these numbers? The obvious "first-glance" conclusion is the online poker community lost 779 players from Party's US closure. But this is of course not accurate since this data represents seats and not individual players (right?), some Party refugees may play at other sites, etc.

Also, it seems from this two-week snapshot that Party lost about 40% of its seats so far. But I thought U.S. accounted for like 80% of its revenue. What is the explanation for this? Is it that US players play at higher stakes?

[/ QUOTE ]

I simply wanted to see what the change was amongst the top 3 sites

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, it seems from this two-week snapshot that Party lost about 40% of its seats so far. But I thought U.S. accounted for like 80% of its revenue. What is the explanation for this? Is it that US players play at higher stakes?

[/ QUOTE ]

ok... let take a closer look at what we know...

First, In the 3rd Qtr, Party's revenue from poker was 2.7mil/day, including 0.8mil/day from non-US... so from a revenue perspective, Party on the poker side lost 1.9mil/day or roughly 70%. (as a side note, on the Casino side, 3rd QTr Rev was 0.9mil/day, with only 0.1mil/day non-US, or a roughly 89% loss)

Second, lets remember that peak seats is not players... that the pokersitescout data is only ring games...and also that Peak hides some things.

Let's look at an extreme example... Just for the purpose of understanding...
Let's just say that on some random day in Sept, at 2pm ET Party had 6K non-US seats and 0 US seats; and at 7pm ET Party had 15K US seats and 0 non-US. So peak would show as 15K.
Fast forward to now... Party still has 6K non-US seats at 2pm ET, but there are no US seats... so peak now is 6K... but those 15K US seats are gone.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Fast forward to now... Party still has 6K non-US seats at 2pm ET, but there are no US seats... so peak now is 6K... but those 15K US seats are gone.

[/ QUOTE ]

This just highlights what was already surmised, i.e. that party lost at least 60% of their player base. And in fact with the relevant observation above that they simultaneously introduced micro-stakes, that 60% figure is likely an understatement when based on their previous base.

The important question for us is of course how many of those lost US players who are of the casual/recreational variety are lost for good, and that's hard to know.

[Gregg777]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is Full Tilt the apparent beneficiary?

[/ QUOTE ]

FT is the "fishiest" (or most appealing to fish), in terms of TV coverage, being able to watch the pros on the site, etc.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
The important question for us is of course how many of those lost US players who are of the casual/recreational variety are lost for good, and that's hard to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff, while its hard to know at the moment, whether those players are lost for good... it is not hard to see that the majority of those players did not immediately switch to another site.

If 15K US seats swictched sites already, you would see much higher peaks at other sites.

This is even more pronounced when looking at the MTT entrants graph...

I expect we will continue to see movement as the days/weeks roll on... but it is clear that the majority of players did not make an immediate shift.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The important question for us is of course how many of those lost US players who are of the casual/recreational variety are lost for good, and that's hard to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff, while its hard to know at the moment, whether those players are lost for good... it is not hard to see that the majority of those players did not immediately switch to another site.

If 15K US seats swictched sites already, you would see much higher peaks at other sites.

This is even more pronounced when looking at the MTT entrants graph...

I expect we will continue to see movement as the days/weeks roll on... but it is clear that the majority of players did not make an immediate shift.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this true? It seems from the "Overall" chart in another thread Recent site numbers that the number of overall players has decreased only slightly.