A message to winning poker players from a winning poker player

Jonas Odman
January 18, 2010
18 Comments

jonasodmanThere has been an interesting debate over the last months about rake distribution, rakeback, and how different poker networks are treating winning poker players. I would like to take this opportunity to clear some misconceptions about Bodog Network’s unique rake distribution formula, and why it is actually good for winning players.

In the B2B relationship between poker networks and poker operators, winning players have historically been overvalued. As all winning players know, the more casual players there is on a poker network, the more attractive the network will be. However, the way the revenue (rake) has been split between operators has not reflected the true value of the players the operators have brought to the network. Operators with a high proportion winning players have gained from this, while operators with more casual players have lost. Because of this, the operators have competed aggressively for the winning players, often with rakeback. When more money is spent on retaining winning players, less money is spent on attracting casual players.

Poker networks have tried to solve this in different ways. Some have banned rakeback and tried to police it, some have tried to cap rakeback, and some have even allowed their biggest operators to ring-fence their players to stop intra-network competition. None of this has worked out very well.
Most poker networks are now addressing this problem in a new way, but there are different schools: the two most extreme examples are the “Bodog Network school” and the “Playtech/Boss Media school”. (Microgaming has taking a cautious approach by making only a marginal change, and I think their rakeback problems will persist.)

Bodog Network is going to solve the root of the problem by changing the way the revenue is split between players at each table, to better reflect the true value of the players. Playtech and Boss Media have chosen another strategy. They will keep the skewed way of splitting the rake, and then fine operators who gain too much from it. It is obviously an inferior model but it was probably easier to implement. The problem for the operators with this model is that winning players might actually cost money. Some operators have already reacted by shutting some of their winning players out – it is an understandable reaction, but at the same time it is hurting these networks’ credibility. I am a winning poker player myself, and I would not want to be treated like this.

Bodog Network’s model is different. Operators on Bodog Network can never lose money because they bring a winning player to the network—the value of a player cannot be less than zero. A winning player will be worth very little, but at least something. To run a profitable business, operators will have to invest in marketing and try to attract casual players to the network. If they succeed, they will be making more money than they would on any other network.
It will be interesting to see if other poker networks are going to join the “Bodog Network school” or the “Playtech/Boss Media school”.

Enough said about B2B. How will this affect the winning players? There are two clear advantages for you:
• There will be a big pool of casual players for you to play against.
• No operator on Bodog Network will stop you from playing.

You will have to win the money at the tables yourself though, and not rely on rakeback or other awards. I think the big pool of casual players will increase your ROI to fully compensate for that, but time will tell.

Fair enough? Well, it’s poker.

Jonas Ödman is Vice President of the Bodog Network.

If you have any further information related to this story that you would like to share with us privately please click here.

Can't get enough CalvinAyre.com? Follow us on Twitter and Facebook, then you'll never miss out on the latest gaming industry news.

Share
Views and opinions expressed are those of the Author and do not necessarily reflect those of CalvinAyre.com
  • Chris D

    After reading this blog one would get the impression that Bodog invented the new way of splitting the rake. Thats not true. Ongame came up with the idea way before Bodog. Bodog is the 15th biggest poker room/network according to Pokerscout – I doubt that the new split will mean much or anything at all to their players. The network is simply too small – and the way the poker rooms operate in the daily business will hardly change. They will be just as desperate as now.

    • More Fish :-)

      This sounds like “sour grapes”. There is a difference between thinking and doing. Is there an article publicized that can prove how was first? Or maybe this “new” rake structure already is implemented by Bwin Games AB? Anyway god luck to both networks. I love anything that will bring more fish to the poker tables.

  • Pingback: Poker Mobile Apps » The Mobile Apps Site

  • Pingback: A message to winning poker players from a winning poker player

  • Pingback: poker ‘blog » Blog Archive » A message to winning poker players from a winning poker player

  • Mr Mercury

    This article doesn’t actually contain an explanation of how Bodog will calculate rake !

    The nearest it gets to an explanation is : “Bodog Network is going to solve the root of the problem by changing the way the revenue is split between players at each table, to better reflect the true value of the players”

    Is anyone any teh wiser for reading this article?

  • Pingback: A message to winning poker players from a winning poker player | 888 FLIK Online Gambling, poker and casino

  • http://CalvinAyre.com Calvin Ayre

    Hey Chris. Yes I believe OnGame might have been involved…or at least the guys who made OnGame. I did a deal to license the bodog brand and poker software from my Antiguan IP company BodogBrand.com to a new poker network (read more about this at bodognetwork.com) lead by former OnGame CEO Patrik Selin. Jonas also used to be with OnGame. They plan on starting a new Poker Network from scratch late 2010 using the traffic from the existing bodog branded sites but also opening it up to others. So in a way OnGame was involved, or specifically the guys who made OnGame for sure and they are the same guys who are going to be starting the new Bodog branded poker network and they are announcing in advance how they intend to do the rack back. I hope this clears things up.

  • http://CalvinAyre.com Calvin Ayre

    Hey Chris…I was just talking to Patrik Selin about your post and he said he thinks you might work for OnGame now. If so you would know that Patrik Selin and Jonas Odman published their origional ideas on Rake back initially back in Sept of 2009 and this article is just Jonas clarifying it as he has seen some discussion that makes him thing not everyone was clear. I offered to publish it for him on my new media site here and once the current management of OnGame is firm on your new solution to the Rake back issue I am extending the same offer to you. Just click on the ask Calvin button and I will hook you up with the editor.

    Cheers and good luck.

    • Chris D

      Hi Calvin! Thanks for the clarification. I didn't mean to create a discussion about who was first or not. Its not really that important – what is important is who will implement it successfully. I just thought the article was bragging a bit too much about this “new” idea. If Bodog plans to implement it late 2010 I am sure we in a years time will see that several networks have implemented a new distribution formula.

      Keep up the good work with the blog – its very useful!

      PS: I dont work for Ongame – and I never did. :-)

  • Pingback: Atlanta Falcons Talk » Blog Archive » 2009 NFL Draft Retrospective … | Atlanta Falcons NFL Announcer

  • Chris D

    Hi Calvin! Thanks for the clarification. I didn't mean to create a discussion about who was first or not. Its not really that important – what is important is who will implement it successfully. I just thought the article was bragging a bit too much about this “new” idea. If Bodog plans to implement it late 2010 I am sure we in a years time will see that several networks have implemented a new distribution formula.

    Keep up the good work with the blog – its very useful!

    PS: I dont work for Ongame – and I never did. :-)

  • Pingback: Pokerstrategy.com shares Bodog Network’s affiliate view

  • Pingback: Ongame wants to make money too

  • Pingback: Patrik Selin Article- Online Poker Sites are they're own worst enemy

  • Pingback: The poker network dilemma – Jennifer Larson/Lock Poker case study

  • Pingback: Jonas Ödman: Balkanization Not Consolidation?

  • Pingback: Exclusive: Enke shares 2011 affiliate poker marketing strategies