Patrik Selin Article- Online Poker Sites are they're own worst enemy

Do you guys agree or disagree with Patrik's theory? I'm curious and would like to hear your thoughts!

Online poker sites are they’re own worst enemy, says Bodog Europe chief

What theory? I don't see anything any arguments in that article to back up any theory. In fact, all I see is a poorly veiled plug for some future rakeback plan at Bodog - one that will supposedly fix the problem his "theory" alludes to - and one for which absolutely no details are given.

This thread doesn't appear to be anything more, either.

Seems like the author is trying to rationalize Bodog using some other sort of rakeback system to me. Honestly the whole article told me nothing but fish lose and sharks win.

Theory?

I don't see any theory here, I don't see anything but a plug that Bodog has something new coming and we all should drink the kool-aid.

I'll stay at FTP thank you, and continue to cash out, collect my rakeback and take money from the many, many new poker players signing up.....here fishy fishy!

Sorry, I don't see much of a theory there either. Actually, I don't see anything much sensible - maybe it's an editing problem and the rest of the content, along with his "theory", is contained in the full article?

The discussion about the skill level of players doesn't have any merit in my eyes. Just like death and taxes, rake is the great leveller in poker. Everybody pays it so the sites don't care if it's sharks or donkeys that are playing, as long as they're paying rake. The suggestion that multi-tabling is a bad thing in this context makes even less sense: surely the only thing better than a player paying rake to you is having them pay rake to you on six tables all at once.

If the suggestion is that the winning sharks are the ones most likely to have rakeback, and therefore the sites make less money off them than they do off the donkeys who don't have it then maybe we've got something to talk about.

A few thoughts though. First, do the figures actually support that? Rakeback is available to anyone who thinks to look for it before the sign up to a site, not just to sharks, and if anything it can encourage otherwise losing players (aka the "rakeback pros") to continue playing.

Second, how much money do you get per annum out of a shark with rakeback vs a donkey without? Obviously it'd vary from person to person, but I'd expect that the shark with rakeback is putting in a lot more time at the tables and over a given period of time you'd still be making more money out of the shark than they donkey thanks to the volume they play - which is assisted by multi-tabling. The shark would only have to put in, what, x% more hands (where x is the rakeback percentage they're getting) than the rakebackless donkey in order to deliver the same amount of income to the site?

There's no actual detail in the article to talk about but I'm having trouble even accepting the general concepts at this stage.

I will check out the article after I get out of work, but I do know bodog has a lower rake compared to the other sites.
Thanks to your contributions to this forum Becky and I am embarresed at how rude some responses are from our members.

I'm a speed reader so I may have missed the point,

but my read was that the sites are allowing the dedicated players to make too much, via HH/HUDs/mulit-tabling/encouraged learning.


Since this thread was started by BodogBecky, I'm theorizing Bodog is looking at what IPoker did by banning winning players from the cash games and then marketing themselves as intended for the "casual player"?


Though I though that the IPoker banning of winning players was co-incidental. That what IPoker was really trying to do was control the rakeback wars that had ensued through their skins.

Hey guys-

Yes, "BodogBecky" did start the article, but I was posting this as "Rebecca Liggero, the Head On-Site Reporter for the CalvinAyre.com tablog" which is a pro-industry news, information and entertainment site, not a bodog site. (I have two roles under Calvin Ayre...check out my signature below...sorry if this confused you). As the head reporter, I'm genuinely interested to hear what you think of Patrik Selin's opinion on rakeback and that heavily rewarding the pros will kill the liquidity at an online poker site/network.

Here's another article written by the Bodog Network VP who obviously shares the same opinion as Patrik...their theory is that by building a network that attracts a lot of fish there will be a big pool of casual players for the pros/sharks to play against.

A message to a winning player from a winning player

Becky

Well Becky I dont want to sound nasty but that last article just looked like an advert telling us why Bodog is better than the other sites. There is a reason that the Bodog VP shares the same opinion as Patrik and I am sure we can work that out.

Poker has alot of outside legal situations that have affected it yet some sites can still put on great promos year after year and rewards and such the pool may get smaller but there is a reason people go back to these sites and that is things like rakeback and promos and many innovative games like fts rush poker and cash out tourneys in short these sites may hold the monopoly and have many players that use hud or make a living from rakeback but thats for a reason they usally are just great sites.

Okay, I wasted my time reading both pieces, neither of which explained just what the hell they're doing/going to do, other than some vague message about how it'll be better for winning players because there will be more casual players.

Ummmkay. If you're entire point is that winning players do better when there are more casual players then, yes, you've made your point.

Other than that, nothing was really said and it took a damned lot of space to say it.

Brann

Having a quick look at all major online traffic sites for the the last 6 months, I also see the traffic has diminshed in the last 2 months for almost every site.

Whats the answer to this terrrible downswing in online traffic reporting the last 2 months


My guess is its called...................... SUMMERTIME

I think we can all agree these two articles = massive epic gigantic fail

Agreed even more so that some one came in esp to post them.

LOL: a vague promise that there will be more fish on the site is supposed to be better than rakeback or a proper loyalty program?

The questions I asked above weren't just rhetorical, BTW. If anyone's got answers to them I'd be fascinated to hear them. To recap:

- Is the problem really "winning players", or that winning players are more likely to have rakeback?
- If so, do the figures actually support that? In theory anyone (winner, loser or otherwise) can get rakeback.
- Isn't there a point beyond which a rakeback player who plays loads of hands generates more gross rake for the site than a rakebackless player who plays less?
- Isn't it true that there's a whole class of players (the "rakeback pros") who would lose money if it weren't for rakeback, and therefore probably just stop playing if they couldn't get it?