|
|
#1
09-13-05, 06:20 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Another article on Party stock -- interesting stats, dire predictions
"But PartyGaming's own figures show how hard it is to keep the punters interested: its results show that fewer than three in every 10 of the customers it signed in January are still around in June. Analysts think the attrition rate could get worse still, as ordinary punters realise that. 'A couple of thousand expert poker players are winning loads of money from the thousands who are just not very good at it,' says Greg Feehely, leisure analyst at Altium Securities. 'They will wise up and go and put their money on the horses or play an online casino game.'" |
|
#2
09-13-05, 08:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Uhoh....
__________________
I need 'em for my footsies. |
|
#4
09-13-05, 09:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Exactly. I disagree with that guy, plain and simple.
My two cents: I think the GROWTH rate of online poker will decrease over the next fews years, but I believe it will still be a positive number. I also think the average player will get better over the next few years (for the reasons listed above), but I still think online poker will be profitable for many years to come. |
|
#5
09-14-05, 01:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I predict that like many other things, the poker industry will be cyclical. The current growth was fueled predominantly by the hole-card cams and the Moneymaker effect.
We haven't had many "unknowns" and non-pros winning major events lately, perhaps with the exception of the Stolzman WPT victory. There was an era where all the dead money dried up previously and we may eventually see that to some degree again. The slowing of the growth is predictable, but the dip in player base probably won't occur for years to come. |
|
#6
09-14-05, 03:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I disagree to the above post.
Did anyone know Raymer? What about the guy that won this year? I follow poker, but not enough to know the guy that won this year is actually a pro. 99% of "poker" players will turn on the tv, watch the WPT or European Poker Tour, and recognize a face. Mention that name to him at a bar or club, he will look at you with a blank face. I play for profit, not to know all the pros. I'm more into team games than individual ones (I hate tennis, except some women  ).Online poker growth has to slow, as numbers get higher of course it slows (percentage wise). I took a long look at the PRTY stock and was within an inch of buying it.
__________________
That's how I rolled. |
|
#7
09-15-05, 11:35 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I hear what you're saying. I guess my point is that Moneymaker was portrayed as a "regular Joe" as opposed to an unknown pro like Raymer (at the time) and Hachem. Emphasizing that anyone can win against a collection of professionals was what boosted the game towards today's heights. Again, just an opinion.
|
|
#8
09-15-05, 02:26 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
My thoughts...
I agree w/ BadBlood, but... I think now (as opposed to two years ago or even last year) there are more people who are taking poker so much more seriously. I don't think it's the "allure" that "I can beat a pro and make millions," I think it's more along the lines of, "I can BE a pro and make millions." Take a look at your local casino. As I said before, you couldn't find a cheap NL game. AC only spread pot limit games, and you WOULDN'T go near them. LOL. How about sunglasses? Years ago, I can remember playing anywhere from $2/4 - $5/10 and it'd be rare to see someone sit down w/ sunglasses. Now if you take a look at a $2/4 limit table, everyone's wearing sunglasses and listening to their iPods. WTF?
__________________
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
