New Site Poll - Would You Play There Under These Circumstances?

makeutap247 · #1 04-17-2006, 12:34 AM

Let me give you a little background info. I played in a $500 freeroll tonight at a new site. There were only 50 players. Paid to the top five with $200 for first. I came in third for $80. Here's the thing. I know that two of the operators of the site were playing in the tournament. Would you play at a new site for real money knowing this? This isn't a bounty situation. The tourney was a freeroll for players of a local poker league that is promoting this new site. These folks playing were not just the operators of the poker league they were the operators of the skin. This is a small skin of a small new network. They just recently launched for real money this past week. So far there has been almost no ring games there and only a few low buyin tourneys. In several of these low buyin tourneys one of the operators of the site has played in them. I know this is a new site and all but they are set up for real money (neteller/firepay). Knowing this would you play for real money there other than in a freeroll situation?

somapopper · #2 04-17-2006, 01:08 AM

Games grid used to have a couple employees who were proping for them in their spare time. It was clear that they didn't have an unfiar advantage, and they weren't really great players. They were basically nice guys who showed up and lost money (possibly the houses). They were honest about working for the site, outside of the propping, and there was never a problem.

AAAA · #3 04-17-2006, 01:17 AM

Since time began, Planet Poker has had staff members, even Roy Cooke play at the tables, but the money they won was used to fund promotions. I chose Yes, but feel that anyone in an ownership or management situation where they could possibly have access to the RNG should play that way only!

Some people think that props fall into that group, but I don't. Props have no connection with the site any more than a player.

AAAA · #4 04-17-2006, 01:21 AM

I saw one of the guys sit down and lose $5000 in an hour, and not just to one person...so yeah, they weren't unethical at all.

UB has annie and phil at special tables, and i know they play the big limits too, but I think disclosure does make a difference. People loved playing with Roy Cooke at the table, because he promised to play every hand!

When there are no places for a customer to play because staff is at the table, that is a different situation, and if there isn't another game at the same limit that a customer could play if they didn't want to play with staff that is another problem.

I did think of another way that it would be ok for owners to play...if they had their own table and people chose to come and play, like phil and annie at UB.

makeutap247 · #5 04-17-2006, 01:34 AM

Ok let me add a little more info. I can understand why some may say it's ok as long as they don't have an unfair advantage like seeing hole cards or something. I think perhaps I feel like even if it's not wrong it may be a little unethical. While playing in this freeroll tonight one of the players I know is one of the operators posted in the chat box that a $5+1 tourney would be starting in a few minutes. I know these people are local so I wanted to strike up a conversation with them and maybe have lunch or something one day and give them my perspective on launching a brand new site with no existing player base and see what kind of ideas they have about promoting this site. Well anyway after they made the post announcing the tourney starting I messaged him in the chat box and asked if they were affiliated with the poker league or with the site. He told me neither. That he was just a player who liked to play on new sites and wanted to see if anyone from the freeroll wanted to play for real money. I pressed a little further because I knew this wasn't true. The email I had received from the poker league announcing the launch of this site had the operators screen names in it and said to say hi to them and let them know if we saw them on the site that we were players from the poker league. So I think that was a big error on there part. It's not I necessarily think these folks have sinister intentions but why proceed with such a dumb lie? When I pressed that I was under the distinct impression they were affiliated with the site I didn't get any further response in the chat box. While at the final table though I did get the contact info for the operators. I don't necessarily think I should tell someone how to run there business but I also don't think they should be playing there. If the owners or employees of Party were playing there I wouldn't be comfortable with that. Sometimes it's not right or wrong but merely the appearance of right or wrong that matters.

naschburger2 · #6 04-17-2006, 02:42 AM

the site is spades lounge and I wouldn't play there until the software is playable. It is probably some of the ugliest software I have seen in a while. It seemed to operate extremely slowly. My opinion, at this point they have no chance of being successful whether the executives play or not.

SNOWBALL · #7 04-17-2006, 02:45 AM

sounds like the freeroll would give me a low hourly rate, so no. However, I wouldn't automatically suspect foul play of any kind just because the operators were playing. I bet that they were playing so that they could get a feel for the software/observe the chat.

makeutap247 · #8 04-17-2006, 02:56 AM

I think having reps like Roy, Annie, Phil or even props playing is different than this situation. The Pros who are reps obviously readily identify themselves. Props aren't the same as regular employees or owners of a site either. I think it's a safe assumption none of those people have access to any proprietary info. If players/owners are going to play they should be readily identifiable as such to everyone. The only reason I had that info was because of an email from the poker league the freeroll was for not because of any disclosure from the site itself. It was in the best interest of the owner of the poker league for the operators of the site to know the players were coming there because of his advertising. Thus the disclosure of the operators screen names so players would say "Hi, I play at the poker league, yada, yada, yada, and that's how I learned about this great new site." I doubt the person who lied to me even knew there screen name had been included in an email sent to alot of people. Otherwise why try to tell me they were just a player and not affiliated with the site. It's crap like this that continues to give poker a shady perception in some folks eyes. Not 2+2ers of course for the most part but there are enough things going on in the minds of newbies already without having to worry if they are getting a square deal from the site itself.

makeutap247 · #9 04-17-2006, 02:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
the site is spades lounge and I wouldn't play there until the software is playable. It is probably some of the ugliest software I have seen in a while. It seemed to operate extremely slowly. My opinion, at this point they have no chance of being successful whether the executives play or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not the site I am referring to.

makeutap247 · #10 04-17-2006, 03:14 AM

I've never played at Spades Lounge but the software of the site I'm referring to may be even worse and it's a complete resource monster. I haven't played on Absolute for awhile but I know it used to have a bad rap as being resource intensive. It may have gotten better but at Absolute's worst this site would probably have made Absolute look like PokerStars. It was taking 155mb of RAM to run it. Checked Party and Pokerroom out of curiousity and they were soemthing like 15mb and 17mb respectively.