Downhill

[peterbirks]

Ken Livingstone is coming up with ever-more original ways to block my normal route from Charing Cross to Oxford Circus. This morning my way was obstructed by five tons or thereabouts of artificially created snow, scattered on what looked like a child's mountain, which I thought was bit excessive, even for Ken. Apparently there was a snowboarding event at the weekend. Not wishing to be too left-field here, but, well, wouldn't it be a better idea (and cheaper) to hold snowboarding events in places which are (a) on a slope (a point where Trafalgar Square fails abysmally, I fear) and (b) where you are likely to get snow?

The irony of that is -- Trafalgar Square (and, by definition, adjacent London landmarks) might well get some natural snow by next weekend -- the first in quite a while.

++++

The shareprice of Empire Online this morning resembled Big Dave's bankroll when he is on winner's tilt -- down 20%, up 10%, and by lunchtime, roughly level but up a bit.

First it transpired that Party had repitched its offer, if an offer of less than half the initial figure can be called a "repitch". Empire certainly didn't think so. They called it an insult. They have terminated talks and said that they will now be instituting legal action against Party for the way in which it took away the rakebackers' toys (i.e., the fish). This was obviously the cause of this morning's yo-yo. First the focus was on Party's bid (at 60p a share) disappearing, but then some bright spark said "hold on, Empire might actually have a case here". And, even if they don't have a case, they might be able to make themselves enough of a nuisance for Party to buy them out. Since this was obviously the point of the bid in the first place (to head off legal action), you have to feel that Party have misjudged their bid level. 90p, they would probably have got away with it.

The implications for players' money at Empire is unknown. At the moment, the processors are the same as those at Party, and that is where the money is held (in other words, Empire don't have any of my cash). Empire's statement basically said that everything was now up in the air. My guess is that they will attempt to move Empire players over to Noble.

Simon G is one of those who has suffered from this, having made most of his dosh via Eurobet. I don't know what percentage of this was rakeback. My own performance is currently 88% profit at Empire and 12% rakeback ($720 gain and $99 rakeback) but the database sample is probably a bit small to draw any definitive conclusions from that.

++++

I really must quote BLUFF from his most recent post on Big Dave's blog. It's tucked away at the end of a long meandering thread, whichmeans that people might miss it. I therefore give his statement the prominence that it deserves:

personally detest hi/lo and don't play it because I don't like bad players with worse draws making me have to fold, and because it is a magnet for weak-tights seeking lower variance and thus makes for bad games.

My god, there's my attitude to high-low in a nutshell.

Both BLUFF and Dave also make the very important point that plays in high-low are normally mathematical rather than people-dependent. I spend most of my time playing limit hold'em at higher levels looks at who is sitting where. If anything, this is one of my strengths -- guessing what other players will do in given situations. If the nature of your opponent is basically irrelevant, I don't really want to play.

Comments

Hi/Lo & Empire

[(Anonymous)]

Peter,

First off, glad you liked my opinion on hi/lo. Hi/lo sucks and sucks hard. And what is really comical on the 2+2 forums and in his own blog, is how Ribbo is constantly beating the drum of how good they are. He seems desparately to be trying to convince mediocre players of this in order to keep his gravy train going. Not that he would be smart enough to keep that under his hat if that really were the case since his ego is so enormous. He is merely trying to lure more flies into his sticky weak-tight web.

Regarding Empire, since you are in the financial biz, perhaps you can shed some light on something I have been wondering about. Namely, that if Empire's other online casino ops are so strong, then why do they seem almost desparate regarding their poker biz and the situation with party? And surely the costs of any litigation even assuming they have a case and venue in which to pursue it, would be astronomical. So I don't see how their casino ops can really be that strong financially. Maybe you can give me a better understanding of this.

BluffTHIS!

Re: Hi/Lo & Empire

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Yes, why would Empire be risking legal action if everything else was rosy? CEOs will never, ever, say "oh well, that's it then. We're fucked". They will paint optimistic pictures up until the famous phrase "seeking strategic alternatives" appears. In the UK, an insurer/reinsurer called Goshawk is an excellent example of this. It basically went belly-up last week, although its shares are still quoted because some value can be extracted from it as it is slowly run down into extinction. And yet, only a few months ago the (very) well-paid boss was optimistic that the turner had been corned.

Empire was badly, badly hurt by the Party move. I reckon we might be looking at a legal claim in the hundreds of millions. If Party was willing to buy the guys off with an over-the-top bid, then silence might have reigned.

I know too little of Empire's casino ops to comment on their viability or not, but I think that the company must expect profits to be slashed by 80% or so without poker income. Everything else from Empire is bluster.

The market (and a few of the people at the poker companies) still has a wrong-headed view of the online poker playing customer. They think in terms of "brands", "loyalty" and all the old paradigms from consumer goods and services (seeing a poker web site as something like a hotel chain, or an airline).

Now, WE all know why a large number of heavy players shifted to Empire, but, at least initially, the market did not. In no other business is the question "how many stupid people are also using this service?" an important one.

Party obviously does get it now (although I think they should have kept the four-max table rule -- increasing it to 10-max was very short-termist), and will keep pushing and pushing for new players. It knows that these players will go broke, and in an attempt to stop the multi-tablers getting too much of it, they introduced the sidebet and the Blackjack.

Eventually the "new player" well will run dry, and then you get the "get old players back" marketing campaign (marketing people, remember, are stupid. It's a law. Bill Hicks had them sussed). Already we are seeing some signs of this. My guess is that we will soon have rakeback by any other name.

PJ

[andy-ward-uk.livejournal.com]

Coral/Eurobet appear to have thrown their lot in with Pokerroom & co.

100% bonus up to $500, but it looks very hard to clear at low limits :

"5. This is a release-restricted bonus - you will not receive the bonus chips until you have met the following criteria:
Bonus funds will not be credited to your Poker balance until you have generated 10 times the amount of player points for each $1 of bonus received. For example to clear a bonus of $600 will require 6000 points.

6. Player points are accumulated by playing ring games and tournaments. Points are awarded at a rate of 0.07 points for each $0.10 of rake in a ring game. For example a rake of $3 will award all players contributing to the pot 2.1 points. For tournaments points are awarded at a rate of 5 points for each dollar of tournaments entry fee paid. For example if a player enters a $10 +1 tournament, he will receive 5 points.

7. The required number of points for bonus release must be generated within 90 days of first triggering the bonus. If this has not been achieved then any bonus funds due will be withdrawn."

Andy.

Deposit bonuses

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

So, suppose you two-table 2/4 for an hour, equals 130 hands of which 70 are raked, making an average rake of 80 cents a game. You contribute to 20 pots, of which, say, 12 are raked at an average of $1.50. That gives you about 13 points an hour, making 385 hours of play required in 90 days.

Achievable, but not easy and not really worth it.


Comparisons: Party Poker 2-tabling at 2/4 gets you an average of 50 raked hands an hour, which would mean you would have to play 70 hours for the bonus.

Stars is the best of the lot. You would knock off $480 of the bonus in just, er, about 55 hours, I reckon.

Ultimate, the previous yardstick for bonus suckability, would require 130 hours two-tabling 2/4 play to get to the $500. So the Coral offer is three times worse than that.

Looks at another way, you would probably pay $1500 or more in rake to get the $500 bonus. It's a rakeback, and not even a proportional one. Avoid.

Hi Lo quote

[(Anonymous)]

Two reasons:

1 - you can multi-table very very brainlessly, prolly up to 5-10 standards
2 - if there are bad players in the game, they are in a world of hurt much more than any game alive. In dealers choice games, pre Internet, I always chose plo8b.

Liked the br comment, btw :)

dd

Re: Hi Lo quote

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

"br comment?" What was that?

PJ

Re: Hi Lo quote

[(Anonymous)]

sorry, 2+2 shorthand for bankroll

dd