Pull the bridge up (pt 3)

[peterbirks]

Well, I've got my Empire Online position in with Finspreads. You should be able to work out what it was.

Here's the latest news. Empire has issued an upbeat trading statement (the PR guys have obviously been hard at work over the weekend). Throwing aside the fluff, the implication is clearly that Empire is emphasizing its non-Party relationship. The plan is also to move the Party skin players over to the Noble Poker platform (this isn't explicitly stated, but that's obviously the idea).

The highlights of the statement are the low cost of customer acquisition ($236 a person) and the growth in the last quarter. What isn't stated is how many of these people just came over for the rakeback.

Situation of 10-handed limit games. $15-$30 was dead at 6am my time, but $20-$40 was going. $5-$10 had about eight tables, but $3-$6 only had three. A bit more action at $2-$4 down.

The real implications for Empire will come out in about three to six months time.


Party Gaming have also issued a press release, emphasizing that it would maintain its relationship with Intertops, Eurobet and Empire, but that Party players would now be on "private tables". Yes, well, some relationship, some maintenance. Its shares were down marginally, probably meaning that the market takes my view that the move will be revenue neutral.


Bluff This makes some interesting points in the thread below.

Let's see what the rest of the day brings.

It's a nice feeling on Monday morning to slaughter the market makers.....


An interesting aside. The "real market" pre-opening quote has Empire off a penny, whereas the Finspreads futures price is off by 19.2p. But my real-price quote is delayed 20 minutes.

Quote from Justin Zee on 2+2:

"This is really really really bad. I'm seriously freaking out. This will cost me so much money if this is how it's supposed to be."

Well, that we be some kind of schadenfreude for a few people (although not me .. good luck to the kid, I say).

Comments

Party Spokesman's Posts

[(Anonymous)]

Peter,

I imagine that you have found it already since your question, but if not, go to the Internet Gambling forum on 2+2 and look at top for a temporary sticky with all the thread links including the one from him.

BluffTHIS!

[(Anonymous)]

It's a pity party didn't go for the rake-war option instead of going for the gamble - let's see if they all migrate back. If punters do that then things will take a big step back - years - with all the control back to a couple of sites, who've shown no willing to reduce rake. If not and the customer base is split then things may become very rosy with sites who have shown willing to offer rakeback hopefully, being prepared to become more competitive, since they will not have to give party their share.

Skins were designed to be the scourge of poker players, but ultimately, they may have proven to be the watershed. Let's hope the poker community engage in some collective decision-making rather than a mad fish-dash.


chaos

More than one way to skin a cat

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Well, I can stay on at Empire for the moment. Weak-tight players are no problem at $3-$6, although the $5-$10 multitablers might prove a tougher proposition. My problem is that these guys will not hang around once they realize that the people off whom they had been winning money have vanished.

So, I guess the big poser is, can the (ex)-skins attract the new blood? If the answer is, no, then I fear you may be right. People will be forced to the sites with liquidity or, to put it another way, the ones with the biggest marketing budget.

So, we are stuffed with higher rake.

Eventually the supply of fish will dry up and the poker world will contract exponentially (by that I mean, the people who were marginally profitable will become losers, and so they will quit, and so on, until eventually some kind of balance is reached). At this point (three years down the line from here? Less?), the rake wars will begin and the consolidation will start.

The thing is, we HAVE sites that charge a reasonable rake. But because they attract no fish (because they do little marketing), they fail to gain traction.

I'll hold out as long as I can, but I shifted from Paradise to Party in the first place because the latter was more profitable. What you really need is a company with a marketing budget to match Party's, and the patience. But if they spend that on marketing, by implication, they need to charge a higher rake.

The skins solution was a best-of-breed for the punter, but as soon as Party spotted what was happening, one can't be surprised that they stopped it. What was so disgraceful was the way that they went about it.

PJ

Re: Close Out

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

I have a dental appointment this afternoon, so I closed out the Empire position at 136.5p for a £236 profit -- far more than I expected to make. I think we might see some profit-taking this afternoon

Yowza.

PJ

Re: More than one way to skin a cat

[(Anonymous)]

Looks like party are going the affiliate route now.

http://mis.iglobalmedia.com/affiliates/index.html