Thoughts on the decreasing promotions in poker across the board?

[grandgnu]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is the market getting worse and worse for the players?

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is oversaturation. It's kind of like all the reality tv shows that sprang up after the success of a few shows. Then EVERYONE wanted to get into the business of reality tv.

But then they started scripting the "reality" and there was just too much garbage for most people to wade through. So the majority of these shows sink and only a handful of tried n' true ones actually bring in the ratings.


Likewise with the poker market. As soon as it took off, everyone and their brother was trying to find a way to cash in. So there's too many choices out there, too much market saturation.

I love to pick on Tony G poker, simply because of the ridiculous "gallery" of hammy Tony G pictures that they offer. I mean, who came up with that garbage? What person actually thought it was a good idea?

But there's a million more of those sites out there, everyone's shouting "look at me!" but most of the products are sub-par, and that hurts the entire market across the board.

Look at poker on tv. Everyone and their brother has a show now, but the majority of the shows are poor quality featuring no-names that no one wants to see. The Boston vs. NY Poker Challenge was god-awful, with all these cringe-inducing "characters". Helmuth taking over Celebrity Poker Showdown was the final nail in that coffin. Joe Rogan ruined The Man Show, etc.

As for the decrease in promotions, well, it's market demand. The legislation issues from the U.S. have caused a great deal of upheaval in the poker market, so the sites that are still accepting U.S. players don't have the competition that they used to have, and don't feel the pressure to stand out significantly.

I live in New England, and the closest casino to me is Foxwoods. Their poker room is awful. Poorly managed, icky rake, so-so dealers, etc. This is because they have no incentive to take care of poker players. They have zero competition and would rather you're dumping money into their slot machines anyway.

So yes, the online poker industry, heck, poker in general is on a bit of a downswing from the boom years. But, I think in time things will work out with the legislation issues in the U.S. and you'll see another good upswing.

But it's also tied into the televised poker industry as well. If there's a lack of quality shows and tons of garbage instead, then viewers are going to be turned off and less likely to want to play.

High Stakes Poker on GSN is great, but it's not on a network that has the exposure you'd find with a major network.

The WPT and WSOP shows have had issues with less "name" players at final tables (although that may change with decreased signups at this years WSOP, so pro's have a better shot of rising to the top and final tabling, which could make the final tables more watchable)

And I've always had an issue with the WPT broadcasts because they can be hard to distinguish what year the event took place, and if you've already seen that one or not some of the times.

[dostofan]

The Avg MGR for a Poker player = $100/month
The Avg MGR for a Rakeback player = $400/month
We know that there are some players with significantly higher MGRs, so the mean must be lower on both.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, excellent post (didnt want to quote it all here) and thanks for the info.


Second, wouldn't the MGR figures you listed argue for sites taking better care of current players, rather than lowering their effective rakeback and perhaps losing them. (OK, I will name names, AP for one, has lost me).


So, Joe Poker Player generates $100/mo in MGR. He lasts maybe 9 months creating a total of $900 for the site. Mr. Rakeback Player generates $400/mo in MGR. He gets 30% of this back($120) so he generates $280/mo for the site. Over 9 months he gives the site %2520. That's $1620 more than the average player. PLUS, he will probably play for much longer than 9 months.


This is why I don't understand AP's decision to screw their rakeback players, many of whom are now leaving. Yes, a poker site must have a steady stream of new players to grow larger and larger. But, can't they keep their rakeback players happy and thus not lose them while adding new players. I KNOW about supply and demand. But, with the legislation, loss of Neteller for US, and related deposit and withdrawal issues, is a site like AP really seeing that many new players? I don't see how they're pulling it unless (1) I'm wrong and there are tons of new US players signing up all the time or (2) the non US player base is growing so quickly it just doesn't matter to them to make a minority of rakeback players unhappy (3) everyone affected by the AP rakeback/bonus reduction just shrugged and they continue to play there anyway.


Thoughts?

[Stake Monster]

I agree, it does seem weird no one has offered incredible deals yet. The best is WPEX but I didn't like the software and the player base is so small that it's kinda depressing.

If I had a load of money I'd develop a kickass software, and try to start my own poker room and really come over the top of the other rooms by offering more rakeback (and openly advertise it) and more bonuses. It's really the only way to attract a lot of new players. People dig free stuff.

[Auren]

I think WPEX tells why they are decreasing. They got best offer and still very hard time getting players. Why? Because good rakeback/bonuses mostly lures in good players. And people want bad players.

If WPEX had very bad players good ones would play there reglardless what they think of software etc. But better than avarage opponents scare them away.

[grandgnu]

[ QUOTE ]
I think WPEX tells why they are decreasing. They got best offer and still very hard time getting players. Why? Because good rakeback/bonuses mostly lures in good players. And people want bad players.

If WPEX had very bad players good ones would play there reglardless what they think of software etc. But better than avarage opponents scare them away.

[/ QUOTE ]

A good point. I think you'll find that the lowest common denominator is going to be more interested in something like:

ZOMG! WIN A CHANCE TO THUMB WRESTLE ANTONIO ESFANDIARI IN OUR $1+$1 10,000 PLAYER TOURNAMENT WITH 600 STARTING CHIPS AND BLINDS STARTING AT 50/100

rather than "hey, we give you rakeback each month"

I saw the WSEX ads in poker magazines and they were pretty crummy looking. Perhaps if they utilized some of the ideas I have on how to advertise rakeback programs to the lowest common denominator (no, I'm not sharing without getting $$PAID$$) they would have some success.

[Mr. Orange]

[ QUOTE ]

A good point. I think you'll find that the lowest common denominator is going to be more interested in something like:

ZOMG! WIN A CHANCE TO THUMB WRESTLE ANTONIO ESFANDIARI IN OUR $1+$1 10,000 PLAYER TOURNAMENT WITH 600 STARTING CHIPS AND BLINDS STARTING AT 50/100

[/ QUOTE ]

This is funny because it's so true.

[scottmci]

[ QUOTE ]
If I had a load of money I'd develop a kickass software, and try to start my own poker room and really come over the top of the other rooms by offering more rakeback (and openly advertise it) and more bonuses. It's really the only way to attract a lot of new players. People dig free stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you would lose a lot of money like many who have tried before.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Second, wouldn't the MGR figures you listed argue for sites taking better care of current players, rather than lowering their effective rakeback and perhaps losing them. (OK, I will name names, AP for one, has lost me).... (3)everyone affected by the AP rakeback/bonus reduction just shrugged and they continue to play there anyway. Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have really answered you own question...

The bottom line, is really that the top players are going to play regardless of promotions.

The best promotions are geared toward keeping the other players (the majority) around... and they don't notice things like MGR calculation changes or bonus clearing rate changes.

The main reason, imo, that ABs made the recent changes is because their costs have increased and they are running tighter margins... and the Abs/UB combination is focusing more attention on the financials.

So far, imo, Abs while the smallest of the "major" US sites, has held up the most consistantly throughout the UIGEA and Neteller issues... we'll see if that continues... but so far, they are doing something right.

[Viscount]

[ QUOTE ]

Second, wouldn't the MGR figures you listed argue for sites taking better care of current players, rather than lowering their effective rakeback and perhaps losing them. (OK, I will name names, AP for one, has lost me).

So, Joe Poker Player generates $100/mo in MGR. He lasts maybe 9 months creating a total of $900 for the site. Mr. Rakeback Player generates $400/mo in MGR. He gets 30% of this back($120) so he generates $280/mo for the site. Over 9 months he gives the site %2520. That's $1620 more than the average player. PLUS, he will probably play for much longer than 9 months.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the problem is this. Taking your figures above, what happens when the rakeback player sees Poker Room B offering 40% rakeback? He switches - an awful lot of rakeback players have zero room loyalty and will go where their rakeback is biggest.

What does Poker Room A do now? Either offer 50% to attract the player back (earning them $1800 over nine months) or not change their rate (earning them zero as the player has gone). What would you do? Which is the better option?

Assuming Room A is at 50%, how will Room B counter? See what happens - a rakeback arms race develops as each room cuts their own throat and margins to keep hold of players. Profits fall, without any new players coming in (as rooms are spending all their marketing money on rakeback and not advertising to bring in new players (new to poker, that is - not just new to the room)).

It doesn't take a genius to work out that it is in the rooms' best interests not to get involved in such wars - a pact of non-aggression (even if it's implicit and not an outright cartel decision) ensues.

This is what we're seeing now - 30% has seemingly been decided to be the 'right' amount. The rakeback people get something every month, (something Joe Fish isn't getting) and the rooms get to hold onto more of their money.

It's the recent bout of consolidation which has made this happen - fewer rooms/networks means cartel conditions are more likely to apply.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
an awful lot of rakeback players have zero room loyalty and will go where their rakeback is biggest.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not convinced that this is accurate, if by an "awful lot", you mean anything approaching a majority...