What the hell is happening to the poker industry?

[rkj87]

Victor Chandler bans winning players, Ladbrokes does ring fences on its players, Bodog invents a rakeback calculation that prefers losing players (Well, I personally think they just changed their rakeback method to contributed...) and Microgaming puts fines on licensees that have to less losing players...

Doesn't anyone feel a bit taken for a ride!?

I mean, seriously, networks and operators need to ensure a stable liquidity, but without enough regular players, what the hell is going to happen? Stakes flying around from second to second because someone "hit" a draw!?

I don't really get it.
Poker operators should simply accept the fact that profit margins from 2004 can't be there for eternity - if they don't want a price war (I mean they have to overbid each other regarding the rakeback deals their affiliates may offer and the bonuses etc. they provide) they should use their brains and offer something unique. Yeah, that's what it's all about, and it has always been in every other industry: CREATING A UNIQUE SELLING PROPOSITION!

Joker-Poker, Webcam Poker, 3D-Poker... there are so many for operators to define themselves from the masses and I can't see why they all mourne around and cry like little children instead of focussing on implenting new innovations.

That's it, I'm out

[justred]

They have been giving away too much and now realise they have to pull in the reins?

Hard business to make money unelss you are really, really big.

[Casinomeister]

... they should use their brains and offer something unique. Yeah, that's what it's all about, and it has always been in every other industry: CREATING A UNIQUE SELLING PROPOSITION!...

Umm...like strip poker?

Celebrity Strip Poker - that's it!! I'm sure there is a way to work around that one - a celeb could strip nekkid live on camera or donate x amount to a charity of the winners' choice. Let the players vote.

Oops! Just let the cat outta the bag

I know Montel Williams has a great idea that hasn't gotten off the ground yet - has to do with a reality show/tournament that you qualify for online - and the final contenders have televised exposés (like some of your sports programs) and there is a team captain who boots one out each week or so (you're fired!). It should be going live soon if it's not there all ready.

[vinylweatherman]

Victor Chandler bans winning players, Ladbrokes does ring fences on its players, Bodog invents a rakeback calculation that prefers losing players (Well, I personally think they just changed their rakeback method to contributed...) and Microgaming puts fines on licensees that have to less losing players...

Doesn't anyone feel a bit taken for a ride!?

I mean, seriously, networks and operators need to ensure a stable liquidity, but without enough regular players, what the hell is going to happen? Stakes flying around from second to second because someone "hit" a draw!?

I don't really get it.
Poker operators should simply accept the fact that profit margins from 2004 can't be there for eternity - if they don't want a price war (I mean they have to overbid each other regarding the rakeback deals their affiliates may offer and the bonuses etc. they provide) they should use their brains and offer something unique. Yeah, that's what it's all about, and it has always been in every other industry: CREATING A UNIQUE SELLING PROPOSITION!

Joker-Poker, Webcam Poker, 3D-Poker... there are so many for operators to define themselves from the masses and I can't see why they all mourne around and cry like little children instead of focussing on implenting new innovations.

That's it, I'm out

This is VERY odd for POKER. It is, after all, a game of SKILL as well as luck. The best poker players WILL KEEP WINNING. They may eventually turn "pro", or already be so. Surely it does NOT make any difference to the operator's bottom line because poker players win from each other, and a contribution (rake) is taken from every chip the bet, or every tournament they buy in to.

Perhaps poker operators are behaving too much like casinos, giving deposit bonuses and the like. A SKILLED poker player WILL BEAT EVERY BONUS THEY ARE OFFERED, and so WILL win this free money along with the money from weaker players.

This strategy is effectively driving away the best players from these online operators, which in the long run will hurt their reputation, because when a player makes it big in a "real world" tournament, they will be endorsing the online operator they currently play at, but may express displeasure about being shown the door merely for being a world class poker player by these other operators.

Poker operators should realise that they CANNOT throw big deposit bonuses at players, because there IS no natural "edge" as there would be at a casino, and the best players will be making bigger deposits, and beating most of the bonuses offered.

Rakeback should NOT be a concern provided operators ensure there is never more paid out in rakeback for a particular player than is generated from them in rake, and rake from BONUS money DOES NOT COUNT towards generated rake, since it does NOT come from the player's own bankroll, so should NOT count towards payment in any rakeback deals.

[nitro]

The problem here seems to be if the shark/fish ratio becomes unhealthy the game becomes unplayable for the fishes, they'll just lose money while playing poker and therefore start to leave. With too many sharks around it is quite hard to attract and keep new customers.

[SteveCut]

As I understand it, another reason for these strange goings-on is that some networks like iPoker do not allow skin operators to pay rakeback to players. However some operators will offer rakeback under the table, often tapping-up regular players who are already customers with other iPoker skins. This is very difficult for iPoker to control so, as is usual in this industry of blanket bans, fu clauses etc., they take the brute force approach. By fining skins that have players taking more money out of the system than they are putting in (i.e. those with a good proportion of successful regs) they make the illegal offering of incentives and recruitment of these regs less desirable. As usual, it's the players that suffer.

Re. creating a unique selling proposition, well, there are quite a few out there already (PKR's 3D graphics, Merge's amusing chat cartoons, Betraiser's no-rake business model etc.), but as usual, the buying public tends to find reasons to shy away from anything new and follow the herd.

[rkj87]

The problem here seems to be if the shark/fish ratio becomes unhealthy the game becomes unplayable for the fishes, they'll just lose money while playing poker and therefore start to leave. With too many sharks around it is quite hard to attract and keep new customers.

Well, the main reason for networks to fine operators for having too much winning players is that winning players DO NOT MAKE FRESH DEPOSITS. That's what liquidity is all about, because if noone deposits, the money left in the poker system will definitely SHRINK more and more... Deposits can only be converted into winnings (and therefore RAKE) or cashouts...

[rkj87]

This is VERY odd for POKER. It is, after all, a game of SKILL as well as luck. The best poker players WILL KEEP WINNING. They may eventually turn "pro", or already be so. Surely it does NOT make any difference to the operator's bottom line because poker players win from each other, and a contribution (rake) is taken from every chip the bet, or every tournament they buy in to.

Perhaps poker operators are behaving too much like casinos, giving deposit bonuses and the like. A SKILLED poker player WILL BEAT EVERY BONUS THEY ARE OFFERED, and so WILL win this free money along with the money from weaker players.

This strategy is effectively driving away the best players from these online operators, which in the long run will hurt their reputation, because when a player makes it big in a "real world" tournament, they will be endorsing the online operator they currently play at, but may express displeasure about being shown the door merely for being a world class poker player by these other operators.

Poker operators should realise that they CANNOT throw big deposit bonuses at players, because there IS no natural "edge" as there would be at a casino, and the best players will be making bigger deposits, and beating most of the bonuses offered.

Rakeback should NOT be a concern provided operators ensure there is never more paid out in rakeback for a particular player than is generated from them in rake, and rake from BONUS money DOES NOT COUNT towards generated rake, since it does NOT come from the player's own bankroll, so should NOT count towards payment in any rakeback deals.

Every Deposit Bonus means you have to meet wagering requirements in order to cash out. There's not a single operator that grants bonuses you may cashout before generating more rake than the value of the bonus is so I cant see that problem?