MICROGAMING Focus
poker and, specifically, online poker networks. As yet, no one has found a truly workable alternative.
LydiaMelton,Head of Poker,Microgaming.
“We certainly hope that regulated
markets in Europe
recognise the need to harmonise liquidity of the
networks across national borders. Online poker is entering new
territory at a time in which it's already proving harder to makemoney from poker. Everyone's viewis that poker ecology has the answers to the
problem, thoughwe have different views
on howto achieve the correct ecological balance.”
The rake model only looks at the volume of play rather than the true value of players. Losing players rake, too, but their true value is far greater than the amount of rake they generate. "Players who consistently lose contribute to the liquidity of the eco-system, which means that they are at least as valuable as those that win," describes Lydia. "The very concept of rake as the only metric of player value is, therefore, put into question and we need to look at other models to determine a player's real worth."
POKEREXISTENTIALISM Some of the poker network developers are doing this by involving players in the process, informing them that the eco- system exists and that it is valuing all players equally; those taking out and those putting in. “The problem of directly involving players in the process of true player valuation is that players really only see their value from one perspective - their own - whereas networks need to look at the bigger picture,” explains Lydia. “There is no need to change the player perspective, and when networks directly involve players in their new valuation models, it could be that they are potentially driving away players because they are telling them that their value yesterday will not be the same as their value tomorrow. That can be very
G3i I ISSUE 2 I PAGE 29
The eco-system concept illustrates those elements which show how payers circulate money throughout the system - at it's most basic level splitting players into two camps, those described as removers and those labelled as contributors - ie. those that play and win (remover) as compared to those that play and lose (contributor).
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68