iPoker Pushing Skins into Banning Winning Players

pokeraddict

Webmaster
Joined
Aug 3, 2002
Location
Las Vegas
While using the excuse of trying to prevent illegal rakeback iPoker is implementing a new system starting in January. First they are going to change the terms where players must contribute to the pot to earn points that go towards VIP. This is disturbing because players work monthly to gain a higher tier after many good months, now that will be made more difficult in md stride basically changing the terms in the middle of the promotion. That is far from the worst of it.

iPoker is going to fine skins that bring in winning players. If a skin pays out more than it takes in they will have to pay a fine to iPoker. A few skins, the latest being Victor Chandler, are banning many of their winning players so they will not be fined. This is repulsive. Any poker room that bans winning players should be immediately blacklisted and so should the network that condones it. There should be no thought about this. What is their goal? There are going to be winners regardless. If you remove the top 10% they either move to other skins or they leave the network and the next 10% of players become winners.

The network is so lost they assume that if they get rid of the good players nobody will ever win and they will not ever have to pay anyone. This needs to get out and players need to let iPoker and Playtech know they will not play on a network where they will get banned for winning.
 

Jasminebed

Game old gal
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Location
Ontario
I'm Lost

I thought poker rooms made their money by taking a percentage of the pot, or a flat amount per hand?

I've played very little online poker, but it is something I want to explore next year.

The only reason I could see to ban consistently winning players would be to get more local yokels who would be in a game amongst their peers.

If you mostly lose because you are a poor poker player, you may quit playing. More players equal more hands equal more rake?

Some affiliate agreements do not allow affiliates to offer rakeback deals to their signups, others do. Most poker rooms offer some sort of rakeback to players, usually in the form of free tourneys as I understand it.

Seems to me it is a little like commission salepeople being willing to take a little less commission to close the deal. Doesn't come out of the house edge.

I'll follow this thread with interest.
 

Bencuri

Experienced Member
PABnononaccred
Joined
May 13, 2009
Location
Hungary
iPoker is going to fine skins that bring in winning players. If a skin pays out more than it takes in they will have to pay a fine to iPoker. A few skins, the latest being Victor Chandler, are banning many of their winning players so they will not be fined.
Where did you find this info?
 

winbig

Keep winning this amount.
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Location
Pennsylvania
I can't play there anyways (USA), so it doesn't really matter. But, it does seem as if they're shooting themselves in the foot.

RIP iPoker - it won't be long if they keep this up.

They need to realize that regular poker players will simply move on to other rooms if they can't get any sort of rakeback deal. The iPoker network needs to also realize that there's PLENTY of other networks/poker rooms that offer rakeback and have NO intention of dropping that.

insight: A player that grinds away at small/medium stakes games 50+ hours a week simply cannot beat the rake. More times than not the rake paid in is higher than what they've won from playing. Hence, they want to play at a site that offers rakeback.

I guess one good thing could come of this. Regulars could clean up until they too are banned, once they start banning winning players...the only players that'll be left are the fish.

They'd be better off just to allow rakeback instead of penalizing players.
 

pokeraddict

Webmaster
Joined
Aug 3, 2002
Location
Las Vegas

jetset

RIP Brian
CAG
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
As pokeraddict suggests, there has been a lot of discussion over this around the industry recently, with some widely differing views. And it's not just iPoker that is considering it, I believe.

Pokerduck's recent and rather abrupt closure has been attributed to this sort of policy, although that has not been confirmed.

The way I understand it, the operators are keen to 'encourage' their skins to bring in more new player blood (hopefully with a heavy proportion of donks) and are prepared to levy fines on those that have more winners than 'losers'.

I have to confess that I don't see the merit in such a policy, which must have a substantial downside.
 

shokaku

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 22, 2007
Location
Germany
I guess Boss Media treats its skins in a similar way.

So it has to be a real problem in the poker networks. The skins start working more against each other, than against the other poker rooms, that are on the market. Just look a year back, NoiQ got kicked out by IPoker.

Of cause banning winning players will be no solution.
 

pokeraddict

Webmaster
Joined
Aug 3, 2002
Location
Las Vegas
I guess Boss Media treats its skins in a similar way.

So it has to be a real problem in the poker networks. The skins start working more against each other, than against the other poker rooms, that are on the market. Just look a year back, NoiQ got kicked out by IPoker.

Of cause banning winning players will be no solution.

The bold is likely more the problem than the solution. My guess is this is where the issues all started....
 

deucebag

Full Member
PABaccred
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Location
cyberspace
iPoker is going to fine skins that bring in winning players. If a skin pays out more than it takes in they will have to pay a fine to iPoker.
This is nothing new, it has been in place for some time. Smaller sites started banning their biggest winners many months ago, if not a year.
 

deucebag

Full Member
PABaccred
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Location
cyberspace
It seems that the change they are making in the new year is that they are classifying every player as either a "fish" or a "shark", and each site on the network has to have a minimum fish/shark ratio to avoid fines.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


Their current system is based on the deposit/withdrawal ratio of their player base. Sites with more withdrawals than deposits are fined. Obviously with this system the ratio can be dramatically influenced by just a few high rollers (whether they are winning or losing), which would be unfair if their player base is otherwise balanced.

With the old system only big winners were banned, with the new system even small players are banned, at least at Victor Chandler.

The solution for a "shark" (not that I have this problem myself), is to move to one of the sites that bring fish to the network in large numbers: William Hill, Paddy Power, Bet365.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top