Will Hill Banner

Saturday, January 26, 2013

So many things to write about where to start...

Let me start by talking about the state of US poker.  I'm really starting to get concerned.  I was never happy about Lock breaking off from Merge.  It was so nice having at least one site where midstakes games could be played on a somewhat regular basis for say 12 hours a day.  Splitting up the player pool made none of the sites US-facing sites a viable option for me.  I guess I could try playing on Lock...  they appear to have 19 tables of games going at nl200+ at 6PM on a Saturday night.  That's not terrible.  Obivously this will be close to the peak playing time, and it will probably be less at other times.  The bigger problem is...

They are now taking over 4 MONTHS to process a check.  You request a check and a few months later you would still be waiting to get your money.  I don't understand how they can operate like this.  What's more disturbing is how non-US withdrawals (through Skrill) are taking over 7 weeks.  There can be reasons why US withdrawals can take a while (setting up processors, etc).  But there really should be no bona-fide reason why non-US withdrawals should be taking this long.  Which means that they have a liquidity problem.  I'm hoping that that liquidity problems are coming from having to invest in a more permanent cashout solution, or is a one-time occurrence from having a processor go bad.  Because otherwise, the #1 US option is very worrisome.  Merge's cashouts are taking the usual 4-6 weeks that they always have, and there are Revolution skins where you can get a payment in under a month.  Perhaps if they didn't have a stable cashout mechanism in place, they shouldn't have split off?

And perhaps if they were going to be strapped for cash, they shouldn't have offered 100+% rakeback the first few months.  It seems to me that the current financial system is not really workable for US-facing sites.  Paying 40-50% in rakeback/rewards to players and another 10-25% to affiliates doesn't leave a lot of room for an operating budget where the biggest cost is going to be getting the players paid.  Because getting money back into the player's hands needs to be a #1 priority.  LDO. 

But maybe not so obvious to poker site operators.

6 comments:

  1. what about ACR? Bodog and them are not bad at all on payouts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. thoughts about carbon dropping rakeback? i know i wont b playing there anymore

    ReplyDelete
  3. They are not bad sites, but IMO, only Revolution has reasonable volume for a mass multitabler. And whenever the #1 in a field is struggling like this, that isn't a great sign for the industry.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I alluded to it in the last paragraph, but I think it makes a lot of sense for the US sites to stop giving huge rakeback/bonuses to the players. They really need all the money they can get just to keep things running.

    ReplyDelete
  5. playing every table of 1/2 and 2/4 on ACR is a good amount, plus you can add in other tables from other sites if needed. Don't know why you feel the need to mass multi table though instead of playing at all on other sites where payouts are timely? I guess it just doesn't make sense to me why you say none of the us facing sites are a viable option for you. Seems kinda silly.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If I had to play on a US site, them I do think I would probably multi-site, as you suggested. But multisiting isn't without its risks - for example, if I play on 3 sites, I have to keep almost 3x as much bankroll on US facing sites. Not sure if that's that smart... especially since the DOJ can shut down multiple sites at a time. And while I "can" multisite, having to navigate through multiple sites with multiple hotkey programs is not without its pitfalls. Otherwise, I suffer through fewer hands per hour, which at the end of the day means a much lower hourly.

    ReplyDelete