ITH Poker Forum

[Misunderstud]

Maybe that 'Ban Eurolinx' poster had a case after all.
<br />

<br />
Big discussion at the Zoo for anyone interested.
<br />

<br />
Does this dent your confidence in MG?

[philhux]

I played on Eurolinx not too long ago - Thankfully no money there now - but this kind of thing makes you think.
<br />

<br />
I currently have some money on Purple Lounge, another MG skin - I'm torn whether to withdraw it from there or not.
<br />

<br />
I'm not sure I like the way Microgaming has so many small skins and simply washes its hands of them when they go bust (RE: Tusk), so that's one reason why I'm not sure I want to play there.
<br />

<br />
Another is the security of my own money.
<br />

<br />
However the games on that network are pretty good.
<br />

<br />
I guess the solution would be to move to Ladbrokes or Unibet as both of these sites are stable

[Piscivorous]

</span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>philhux wrote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">I guess the solution would be to move to Ladbrokes or Unibet as both of these sites are stable</td> </tr></table>
<br />

<br />
Ladbrokes uses the MicroGaming software but is not part of the network. They seem to be very stable.

[philhux]

Pisc - yeah Ladbrokes are totally stable but the thing that I don't like is that every time I played a pot, some of the money would be going to Microgaming - a company that seems to have very little diligence in deciding who should have skins on its network and who wash their hands very quickly of everything when a skin goes belly up. I just don't like the way these guys operate so I don't think I want to play there any more.

[Scully]

Would 30% rakeback if you make VIP alter your views Phil????
<br />

<br />
Personally I play 75% of my hands on Ladbrokes due to a combination of the 30% and the poor players (so much worse that comparable stakes on ipoker for example).
<br />

<br />
Then again I have the morals of an alleycat when it comes to these things

[Piemaster]

Personally I don't think a MG <span style="font-style: italic">should</span> be accountable when a skin goes bust. I mean at te end of the day all they are doing is providing software and a platform for sites to share players (and in return take a portion of the rake). The deal you make with a player is with the individual site. Why should MG take responsibility when one of it's customers (at the end of the day) goes busto?

[Misunderstud]

This is one of the problems of an unregulated industry. I don't know how much money is sloshing around in online gambling sites, but it's probably more than the GDP of several countries and all held on trust. A guarantee scheme to which all sites and network operators had to contribute to gain a licence, such as is in place in the (UK, anyway) insurance, banking, travel etc. industries, would inspire confidence and attract more players to smaller sites. It's certainly one reason I'm reluctant to play at them. I've only ever deposited at two sites other than Stars. Ironically, one of them was Eurolinx. (I thought as I was cashing out that they were being far too generous with their FD, reload and bottomless bonuses.)
<br />

<br />
I don't quite understand how just one skin on a network manages to go bust - I mean all the tournies and races and jackpots and whatnot must be shared among the network in proportion to their membership, mustn't they? Is it reasonable that just one skin will underperform, or is it likely that the rest are facing similar difficulties?

[the_hawk]

</span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>Misunderstud wrote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">This is one of the problems of an unregulated industry.</td> </tr></table>
<br />

<br />
Slight meh. I doubt that (more) "regulation" is the panacea that many perceive it to be. I'm very much a fan of the free market as its own regulator.
<br />

<br />
</span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>Quote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote"> I don't know how much money is sloshing around in online gambling sites, but it's probably more than the GDP of several countries and all held on trust.</td> </tr></table>
<br />

<br />
Events of the past couple of years have taught me that money sloshes around in all sorts of heavily regulated industries and it is all basically on trust. And if you want to get more philosophical about things, money <span style="font-weight: bold">is </span>little more than trust. British banknotes are (as written) a "promise (from the Bank of England) to pay the bearer on demand the sum of...". Its value depends on your trust in the bank. Boiled down to essentials, (virtually) all "money" is essentially like that. Even if you buy gold, you're trusting in the fact that people will continue to value it in the future roughly as they have up to now.
<br />

<br />
</span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>Quote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">A guarantee scheme to which all sites and network operators had to contribute to gain a licence, such as is in place in the (UK, anyway) insurance, banking, travel etc. industries, would inspire confidence and attract more players to smaller sites. </td> </tr></table>
<br />

<br />
Instinct tells me that this would be insanely expensive, and of course it's the punters who end up paying for it. All for the sake of more attractive smaller sites and hence a broader market? Basically, meh. Let sites develop their own credibility / trustworthiness / player base themselves.
<br />

<br />
</span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>Quote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">It's certainly one reason I'm reluctant to play at them. I've only ever deposited at two sites other than Stars. Ironically, one of them was Eurolinx. (I thought as I was cashing out that they were being far too generous with their FD, reload and bottomless bonuses.)</td> </tr></table>
<br />

<br />
I spent a couple of the "glory years" hitting the Primas and a whole host of other sites for all they were worth, when it was possible to get a nice bonus for playing about 50 hands of LHE. I was never under any illusion that my money was more safe in there than in PartyGaming (say) but it was a calculated risk. I never tied-up my entire BR or anything near it in any of these places. I was fortunate to avoid any major problems, especially when casino chasing, but had I hit trouble on the odd occasion I probably would have shrugged my shoulders (after spitting fire and brimstone on ITH, obv.)
<br />

<br />
</span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>Quote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">I don't quite understand how just one skin on a network manages to go bust - I mean all the tournies and races and jackpots and whatnot must be shared among the network in proportion to their membership, mustn't they? Is it reasonable that just one skin will underperform, or is it likely that the rest are facing similar difficulties?</td> </tr></table>
<br />

<br />
Skins on a network can obviously vary greatly in size and nature. Some could be offshoots of a major bookmaker / sportsbook, others might be 3 men and a dog in a warehouse in Costa Rica. Obviously some of their costs are variable but a substantial proportion must be essentially fixed costs. It is easy to see in my view how the profitability and financial security of different skins in the same network could vary widely.

[Misunderstud]

</span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>the_hawk wrote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote"></span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>Misunderstud wrote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">This is one of the problems of an unregulated industry.</td> </tr></table>
<br />

<br />
Slight meh. I doubt that (more) "regulation" is the panacea that many perceive it to be. I'm very much a fan of the free market as its own regulator.</td> </tr></table>
<br />

<br />
So are hoodies. But if, a la US, you try to pretend that something which exists doesn't exist, you leave the door wide open for any old shyster.
<br />

<br />
</span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>Quote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote"></span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>Quote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote"> I don't know how much money is sloshing around in online gambling sites, but it's probably more than the GDP of several countries and all held on trust.</td> </tr></table>
<br />

<br />
Events of the past couple of years have taught me that money sloshes around in all sorts of heavily regulated industries and it is all basically on trust. And if you want to get more philosophical about things, money <span style="font-weight: bold">is </span>little more than trust. British banknotes are (as written) a "promise (from the Bank of England) to pay the bearer on demand the sum of...". Its value depends on your trust in the bank. Boiled down to essentials, (virtually) all "money" is essentially like that. Even if you buy gold, you're trusting in the fact that people will continue to value it in the future roughly as they have up to now.</td> </tr></table>
<br />

<br />
I don't trusts banks either - that's why I'm glad we've got the guarantee scheme.
<br />

<br />
</span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>Quote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote"></span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>Quote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">A guarantee scheme to which all sites and network operators had to contribute to gain a licence, such as is in place in the (UK, anyway) insurance, banking, travel etc. industries, would inspire confidence and attract more players to smaller sites. </td> </tr></table>
<br />

<br />
Instinct tells me that this would be insanely expensive, and of course it's the punters who end up paying for it. All for the sake of more attractive smaller sites and hence a broader market? Basically, meh. Let sites develop their own credibility / trustworthiness / player base themselves.</td> </tr></table>
<br />

<br />
Apart from the admin costs, it needn't cost the sites anything. They can still get the interest from the money and it would only be used in the event of a failure. A well-run site should have sufficient liquidity for such a set-aside and a non-well-run one shouldn't be trading. 'The punters' pay anyway, as anyone who had money in Eurolinx will tell you.
<br />

<br />
I don't fundamentally disagree with you about the free market, but Stars are now the Tesco of online poker (so far as LHE's concerned, anyway). I'd sooner there were a few more places I felt comfortable to shop around in.

[Piscivorous]

</span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>Misunderstud wrote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">So are hoodies. But if, a la US, you try to pretend that something which exists doesn't exist, you leave the door wide open for any old shyster.</td> </tr></table>
<br />

<br />
I thought this was a conversation about poker and not Al Gore and carbon credits...

[Piscivorous]

</span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>philhux wrote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">Now maybe Microgaming have just got unlucky, or maybe they should be more careful in who they allow as skins on their site.</td> </tr></table>
<br />

<br />
They've allowed a bunch of vagabonds to come in and then leave. Doyle's Room has been a skin of some 4 or 5 different platforms in the past 3-4 years. Mansion is another who went from a number of different platforms, MG included.
<br />

<br />
Then you have to look at some of the other sites on there who haven't done a lot of roaming but who have jumped ship. Poker Host being one of the biggies. Royal Vegas and The Gaming Club used to be the two biggest sites on MG and they folded both into an upstart, Poker Time.
<br />

<br />
I haven't read the Zoo either, but having a very aggressive bonus scheme like Eurolinx did, tends to attract a lot of grinders who are there for the bonuses only. Certainly you are paying out huge bonuses, but were they really covering the rake they were getting plus the commission to MG?
<br />

<br />
Here is something telling from the following news release:
<br />

<br />
</span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>Poker News Daily wrote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">Traffic on the Microgaming Network has trended downward in recent months. Dan Stewart of PokerScout.com told Poker News Daily, “Microgaming has seen its market share decline, but then again so have a lot of sites, which have been losing share to PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker. Stewart added that Microgaming Network traffic is down 25% over the last five months.
<br />

<br />
Also affected was Linx Casino, which had been open for a scant four months.</td> </tr></table>
<br />

<br />
Here's the article: <a href="http://www.pokernewsdaily.com/eurolinx-and-betonbet-liquidations-industry-reaction-4414/" target="_blank">http://www.pokernewsdaily.com/eurolinx-and-betonbet-liquidations-industry-reaction-4414/</a>
<br />

<br />
I don't know how online casinos run, nor online bookmakers. What I do know is that Eurolinx was plugging away just fine until two things happened:
<br />

<br />
1. MicroGaming changed it's software.
<br />
2. Eurolinx added the casino.
<br />

<br />
I also think the huge marketing campaigns of PokerStars, Full Tilt and Party has a lot to do with it.
<br />

<br />
If you take the nefarious potential out of the equation, Eurolinx' failure is just another in a long history online.
<br />

<br />
I left MG about a year ago when the only site I had been playing, Poker Host, migrated to Cake. Frankly, I was there to play bonuses, but I really do miss their uber-soft SnGs and the fact that they had a whole different tournament suite with a lot of nice low money buy-in Guarantees and rebuys.

[philhux]

</span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>philhux wrote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote"></span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>Quote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">Pie - I actually disagree with what you've said there. Microgaming is a brand and brands need trust from their customers.</td> </tr></table>
<br />

<br />
Who are their customers? I would say that MG's customers are its skins, not the players.</td> </tr></table>
<br />

<br />
Wow - weird - I really don't remember writing the above post??? Maybe after a few beers I like to argue with myself?

[Piemaster]

</span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>philhux wrote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote"></span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>philhux wrote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote"></span><table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" border="0" align="center"><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>Quote:</b></span></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote">Pie - I actually disagree with what you've said there. Microgaming is a brand and brands need trust from their customers.</td> </tr></table>
<br />

<br />
Who are their customers? I would say that MG's customers are its skins, not the players.</td> </tr></table>
<br />

<br />
Wow - weird - I really don't remember writing the above post??? Maybe after a few beers I like to argue with myself?</td> </tr></table>
<br />

<br />
Argh sorry, I must have accidently pressed edit rather than quote!
<br />

<br />
I am the worst mod ever.

[pusaqall]

What does busto actually mean anyway? I have learned a lot of Eurolinx problems, just wondering if it is true or not.