| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
IAmThatGuy
Straight
Joined: 25 Dec 2009
Posts: 210
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:15 pm
Post subject: Article from [edited] - Ban Phil Ivey and Pat Antonius from Online Poker |
  |
|
| Quote: | Do Phil Ivey and Patrik Antonius deserve to be banned from playing online poker?
This is the question being asked by Bill Rini of Bill's Poker Blog.
His rationale: The two poker pros are "sharks" and "net withdrawers".
Rini writes:
"They (Ivey and Antonius) are bad for the site and should clearly be banned if you listen to iPoker who gave Blonde Poker three months notice to find a new network because they had too many winning players."
That's right: Online poker networks are now punishing their licensees (skins) for having too many winners on board. Ivey and Antonius certainly qualify.
He points out that Phil Ivey is up $15,661,019.27 and Patrik Antonius has clocked a cool $13.7 million dollars since 2007. Few of the so-called online poker "skins" (those that operate rooms on bigger networks such as iPoker and Cake Poker) can sustain these type of losses to players the likes of Ivey and Antonius.
But is it really fair to discriminate against poker players for winning?
"If you're going to start banning players for being too good or lowering the payouts to the skins to the point that they can't offer better players any retention incentives, they'll go elsewhere. I know that may seem like what some poker network operators want but like all ecosystems there are always unintended consequences." |
What do you think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
paddymick
Straight Flush
Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 3237
Location: Leicester
|
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:28 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| Huh? Why are winning players bad for a site? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fraac
Banned
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 4399
|
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:43 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| It's not about Ivey, it's the author expressing his level 1 annoyance of equilibria in economics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex B
Straight Flush
Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 2780
Location: London
|
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:07 am
Post subject: Re: Article from Gambling911.com - Ban Phil Ivey and Pat Antonius from Online Poker |
|
|
| IAmThatGuy wrote: |
What do you think? |
That Rini is not that smart.
He hasn't understood the theory or the practice of what's happening. Ipoker aren't discriminating against winning players, they are discriminating against marketing companies who do little more than grab a share of the rake by causing players that only play and rake when there are other opponents present to play and pay for their rake.
That's why they aren't adding anything to the industry. Analogy with Ivey and Antonius doesn't compute. I guess we should post some fail.jpgs really.
_________________
http://www.alexbowler.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
billrini
One Pair
Joined: 29 Dec 2009
Posts: 21
|
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:16 am
Post subject: Re: Article from Gambling911.com - Ban Phil Ivey and Pat Antonius from Online Poker |
|
|
Actually, I am that smart 
I was not defending sites that poach from each other. In this particular case, Blonde Poker which is a site that caters to experienced players was kicked off iPoker because too many of their players were winning players. So it seems that if you run a site that is aimed at more experienced players iPoker doesn't want your business.
So, in theory, if The Hendon Mob wanted to start up their own site using an iPoker skin they would get kicked off the network as one would assume that there are going to be far more winning players who frequent this site. In Blonde's case, many of their players were people who normally play on Stars and Tilt but played on the Blonde skin due to their loyalty to the Blonde Poker message boards.
Poaching players is a totally different topic. That creates zero overall value. But if you happen to have a site that is aimed at more experienced players and you get those players to quit playing on Stars or Tilt and to start playing on your iPoker skin you shouldn't be penalized for that.
This whole thing with iPoker and Bodog network trying to artificially create an all-fish environment is very shortsighted. If you read my post instead of the rather selective quoting from Gambling 911 you'll see that what I'm saying is that the entire system is somewhat flawed. Right now the acquisition cost of a new fish player is higher than the lifetime value of the player. Sites like Full Tilt and Stars can finance this loss leader in Europe via the higher player values they're getting in the US. Rooms who don't operate in the US are getting squeezed. And for someone like iPoker or Bodog to demand that you bring in the new fishy players without some sort of strategy to increase lifetime value or to lower acquisition costs so that the rooms can make a profit is illogical.
And my other point which Gambling 911 omitted in their take on my post was that the skins have created their own problems. They have taken on skins who don't have the financial resources or even a business plan to compete with the likes of Stars and Tilt. By Blonde Poker's own admission the most they were making was a few thousand dollars a month. How are they supposed to fund an effective marketing campaign to bring in fish with such a paltry budget?
At one time the networks were so hungry to have liquidity that they took on any skin who had enough cash to pay the up-front fee. Now they're seeing the problems this shortsighted approach causes and they're responding with another shortsighted solution.
| Alex B wrote: | | IAmThatGuy wrote: |
What do you think? |
That Rini is not that smart.
He hasn't understood the theory or the practice of what's happening. Ipoker aren't discriminating against winning players, they are discriminating against marketing companies who do little more than grab a share of the rake by causing players that only play and rake when there are other opponents present to play and pay for their rake.
That's why they aren't adding anything to the industry. Analogy with Ivey and Antonius doesn't compute. I guess we should post some fail.jpgs really. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leus
Rigged
Joined: 09 Aug 2007
Posts: 1289
|
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Article from Gambling911.com - Ban Phil Ivey and Pat Antonius from Online Poker |
|
|
| billrini wrote: | Actually, I am that smart
...
This whole thing with iPoker and Bodog network trying to artificially create an all-fish environment is very shortsighted. If you read my post instead of the rather selective quoting from Gambling 911 you'll see that what I'm saying is that the entire system is somewhat flawed.
... |
Happy to give you the benefit of the doubt re smartness. As smart as Alex? Anything's possible, I suppose.
Might be good if you can post or link your original thesis, if you want to be taken in context.
I tend to agree that there's a fundamental systemic flaw. It originates, in my view, from the bottom of the food chain, hence desperate attempts to attract new blood. Nobody has yet addressed what I think the problem is - new players aren't getting good value for their recreational dollar, subjectively.
They're being raped, not necessarily by rake, but by data-mining multi-tabling combine harvesters, players who incidentally generate a load of rake.
Noob recreational players just want a game of poker, and some will accept a mildly negative ROI to begin with for learning purposes. But if they're just served up to the borg they're probably less likely to re-deposit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
billrini
One Pair
Joined: 29 Dec 2009
Posts: 21
|
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:40 pm
Post subject: Re: Article from Gambling911.com - Ban Phil Ivey and Pat Antonius from Online Poker |
|
|
| Leus wrote: |
Happy to give you the benefit of the doubt re smartness. As smart as Alex? Anything's possible, I suppose.
Might be good if you can post or link your original thesis, if you want to be taken in context.
|
Well, I didn't want to appear as if I was pimping my own site on here on my first post
But if it does make it more clear, here was the original article.
http://www.billrini.com/2009/12/16/ph...ned-online-poker/
I think it's funny that so many people have focused on what I intended to be a satirical argument showing how absurd some of these networks are being.
| Leus wrote: |
I tend to agree that there's a fundamental systemic flaw. It originates, in my view, at the bottom of the food chain, hence desperate attempts to attract new blood. Nobody has yet addressed what I think the problem is - new players aren't getting good value for their recreational dollar, subjectively.
They're being raped, not necessarily by rake, but by data-mining multi-tabling combine harvesters, players who incidentally generate a load of rake.
Noob recreational players just want a game of poker, and some will accept a mildly negative ROI to begin with for learning purposes. But if they're just served up to the borg they're probably less likely to re-deposit. |
I like that you called it a recreational dollar because that is how many losing players view playing poker. It's entertainment. Some have a set budget they deposit each month and that's their play money. If they happen to go deep in a tournament and win some real money it's like hitting the lottery.
I think many poker sites would benefit if they started treating it like entertainment. They spend far too much time listening to the 2+2 types who will play wherever there is value regardless of the software or anything else that they normally complain about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CarpeAnnum
Flush
Joined: 09 Oct 2005
Posts: 617
|
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:05 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
This whole iPoker business is bad business.
Consider that you are a poker business, like Blondepoker, The Hendon Mob website, Cardplayer or Pokernews. You have a large loyal userbase and perhaps significant traffic. You are considering opening up an online card room on a network for your thousands of possible online players. Would anyone now seriously consider iPoker as an option?
Now consider that you are a shareholder in iPoker. Would you be happy with this situation above.
Reading the Blondepokers thread it is worse than that. iPoker have made them, YES MADE BLONDE, 100% liable for any chargebacks. iPoker used to be responsible for them but changed the contract to suit themselves. Chargebacks went up tenfold or more overnight. One month they were $17,000. iPoker now claim that Blonde owe them money because chargebacks are more than Blondes share of revenue. iPoker don't contribute to chargebacks from their share of the rake they charge 100% to Blonde. That is the way I read the thread on Blonde anyway.
If you were a possible business partner of iPoker considering joining their network how would you feel about this? How would you feel if you were a shareholder?
It is obvious to me, and to many on 2+2, that iPoker are serioulsy hurting their own business. As a result they have lost me as a player too. At one point they were telling Blonde that they may withold player money on accounts for Blondes chargeback debt!
The whole beaty of poker is that anyone can be a winner. People aspire to be Phil Ivey or Patrick Antonius. It is obvious that these accounts would be closed should they be playing on an iPoker skin. It's bad enough when sportsbooks close winning accounts, when poker sites do it it's a very sad day. Plus take away the biggest winners and someone else just moves up to take there place anyway.
I don't buy the canibilisation argument. If they have banned RB then they should police it better instead of creating these frankly stupid and naive rules.
rip iPoker |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CarpeAnnum
Flush
Joined: 09 Oct 2005
Posts: 617
|
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:07 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| Also can you imagine if the WSOP or any live poker event started doing this? Would they make more money or less do you think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex B
Straight Flush
Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 2780
Location: London
|
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:37 am
Post subject: Re: Article from Gambling911.com - Ban Phil Ivey and Pat Antonius from Online Poker |
|
|
| billrini wrote: |
This whole thing with iPoker and Bodog network trying to artificially create an all-fish environment is very shortsighted. If you read my post instead of the rather selective quoting from Gambling 911 you'll see that what I'm saying is that the entire system is somewhat flawed. Right now the acquisition cost of a new fish player is higher than the lifetime value of the player. Sites like Full Tilt and Stars can finance this loss leader in Europe via the higher player values they're getting in the US. Rooms who don't operate in the US are getting squeezed. And for someone like iPoker or Bodog to demand that you bring in the new fishy players without some sort of strategy to increase lifetime value or to lower acquisition costs so that the rooms can make a profit is illogical.
|
Still misses the point because of the presupposition that the correct way to measure player value is as a share of the rake taken in pots played. This is one management accounting metric, and there are others, and theoretical and practical pros and cons to each.
But for some reason poker players think this one is sacred. Probably not too much of a mystery though- it rates the pedantic rake-back-nits value the most highly.
If that were true, then cost of fish-acquisition is much higher than value. But what if, the 'correct' value of a player is net deposits (in almost every industry the customer's value is a function of how much of the customer's money is transferred to the business, obviously) . Then the cost of acquiring sharks is much higher than their value (zero).
Rini needs to read the previous discussion on this subject, because the article by the Bodog guy, and the discussion here and on 2+2, predicted his criticisms and answer them last month.
I can imagine a long post that could explain the intricacies of player value in more detail, but I haven't got time now so hopefully its either evident just from this above, or will develop in the thread, but I'll try to come back later and add more if needed....
_________________
http://www.alexbowler.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex B
Straight Flush
Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 2780
Location: London
|
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:48 am
Post subject: |
|
|
A short example - I move $5k to a new site next month.
You say I'm worth say ~20k hands = ~$2k to the site.
BUT
I only play 20k hands if there are losing players at the tables, so the number of hands I play is set by the amount of depositing fish, so the correct metric to work out how that 2k was earned is a function of (net) deposits, not the number of hands I played, which was also a function of deposits, so it would be a circular function or a tautology or something I forget in a rush...
If more fish deposit I play 40k hands and you say my skin deserves 2k more, but they did absolutely nothing to improve the value of the poker industry, it was the skin attracting losing players that caused more games to run and earned an extra 2k (~8 for the table) to be shared among the network.
_________________
http://www.alexbowler.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
evelyn
Quads
Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 2094
|
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 4:12 am
Post subject: Re: Article from Gambling911.com - Ban Phil Ivey and Pat Antonius from Online Poker |
|
|
| Alex B wrote: | | But what if, the 'correct' value of a player is net deposits (in almost every industry the customer's value is a function of how much of the customer's money is transferred to the business, obviously) . Then the cost of acquiring sharks is much higher than their value (zero). |
In theory the net value of either sharks or fish can be positive or negative.If a shark generates more rake than he loses for the site by driving away fish then he's making money for the site.Likewise with a fish except that the fish isn't driving away other fish (for simplicity's sake I'm treating all fish as equal) so he only has to generate the cost of acquisition to be a break-even customer.The rake metric is the correct one to use but with the qualification that you need to deduct rake lost by causing other players to play less or to stop playing altogether. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Davy G
Straight
Joined: 30 Aug 2008
Posts: 416
|
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 4:29 am
Post subject: |
|
|
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28/...e-players-661606/
| VC Poker Manager wrote: | | The truth of the matter is that we have restricted the cash game stakes at which a number of players can play and which effectively means we will lose these players. The reason why we have done this is because iPoker will be implementing a new policy in the New Year which will class every player on a monthly basis as a fish or a shark and which will penalise card rooms that have too many sharks in relation to fish. As it stands, we are top heavy with sharks and, despite the fact that our win/loss ratio is fine, we stand to be fined heavily by iPoker under this new scoring system and so we have had to reduce the number of sharks that we have in order to comply and avoid penalisation . It really galls us to have to do this not only because of the negative feedback and the inconvenience to the players but because the fish to shark scoring system is a farce in as much as even losing players can be classed as a sharks. Ridiculous isn’t it – when did you ever hear of a losing player being called a shark? What’s more, if the categorisation of the players was such that only winning players were classed as sharks we wouldn’t have had to make these account restrictions in the first place and so this whole topic has been created by the absurd scoring system about to be introduced by iPoker. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RobGibraltar
Out to Lunch
Joined: 03 Aug 2006
Posts: 7839
Location: York
|
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:34 am
Post subject: |
|
|
Edited post topic to remove thinly disguised shameless promotion....
_________________
Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
evelyn
Quads
Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 2094
|
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:55 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| This could be the future of online poker.The sites obviously want to maximise the action and if this means adopting a 'casino' model where consistent winners are banned then they'll do it.Pros might have to take to the road again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
