Version 2 includes numerous core component revisions, that seems fairly clear to me just from reading this thread without the need to verify with NGCB. You are partially correct about further vetting, GLI must approve any code changes after each release even if there are non-core components that have been changed but there is no need to get NGCB approval unless core-components have been revised. GLI will be there every step of the way each time new code is released, thats an important step in the red tape process that cannot be avoided.

They UP staff said that these issues are being addressed in the next version, from a development standpoint it would be a nightmare to fork the code just to put out a temporary fix for these minor issues when they have a brand new code base that is being reviewed by GLI. Considering the information available to us, I can say that I am confident that UP chose the right path.

I whole heartedly disagree. You would be right a perfect world where developers could go back to their old work from prior years without the risk of adding problems when altering code, but your assumption is unrealistic. Its not feasible to fork the code base just to put out a patch that would only be good for 3 weeks, they would have to revert to a version of their code that is already antiquated. Developers move forward, not backward, that is the nature of all software development.

The UP staff have been fairly honest at all times, they have always said they don't know what the release date was, and that they are awaiting third party approval.


Search is your friend, GLI has been mentioned 17 times in this thread so far, 18 times with this post

cliffs: UP is not the evil empire, the staff are not lying to it's customers. Everything they have said appears to check out. Cut them some slack, version 2 will be launched when Nevada's red tape is done, that is a process that cannot be rushed.

thanks guys!!

I was beginning to think you didn't love us!

Just to add to the conspiracy theory game:

My , non-poker playing, wife speculated that the reason Caesar's has not launched WSOP.com is because UP has defined the size of the Nevada only market, and the market is not big enough. Any launch of a competitive site would only be mutually assured destruction. Caesar's will wait until compact agreements allow for a large enough market before launch.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/busines...growth-profits

Or until their online tournament series starts in late October. lol

Yeah, cause UP doesn't have tournaments and has never run an online series...

Caesar's plan was to start off with 888 software and then at a later date Caesar's planned to switch to their own proprietary software. My conspiracy theory is that Caesars bailed on starting with 888 software and are working on their software roll out. Longer process but no middle man.

I'm pretty sure UP is making money hand over fist as the only operator right now. Caesars definitely wants a piece of those profits. However, once 2 or 3 companies are up and running, it may no longer be profitable for new companies to enter the market (until a larger player base is established). Additionally, the high cost of even trying to enter the market, due to government licensing and regulations, will keep most companies from ever trying.

There is no conceivable way UP is operating profitably yet IMO.

Count the number of VIP SNGs that run each Sunday. Each one represents $1900 in rake ($2400 to earn the tokens minus the $500 prize). What are there? 25 or 30 each week? How big a chunk of the total income does that represent? A third maybe? So, my guesstimate says somewhere in the 200k per week range. That might just cover day to day but there is no way it covers development, training and advertising.

That's a promotion based on points, please run satellites it will draw a bigger field and also encourage people from other parts of NV to come to Las Vegas.

So far, despite my numerous gripes, this is my main concern going forward: the paltry playing field.

It's decent, but not survivable.

Very difficult to find more than 3 cash tables at a level you're comfortable with - and up to half of the players are sitting at all 3 tables.

No doubt, the "currently in Nevada" pool is extremely limited.

It can only get better.

Surely, the powers that be are busy behind the scenes doing everything possible to secure larger playing fields.

Kudos

In regards to the Nevada player pool, I keep going back to all the times I've overheard people at the B&M low stakes live tables say they're waiting for _______ (software, Mac compatible, rakeback, rewards, WSOP, more tournaments, etc, etc) to either deposit, or put their money back on the site. The # of people in that boat is not a small number, and they also happen to be mostly losing players who just want to lose their money without having the software to blame, and get a UP hat in the mail or whatever. UP has done a lot of good by pushing harder than any other company to deliver a product to us, for which I am very thankful, however, they certainly do not own any sort of competitive advantage when it comes to software or player experience. (yet) In other words, the door is wide open for WSOP or South Point to step in and deliver a better product. All it takes is a place where the fish are comfortable playing and that site will have the lion's share of the market. In six month's time, anyone who fires up their computer and has a choice of clicking on UP, SP, or WSOP, it's going to be a clear choice who is offering the better product, and that's where everyone is going to be. (aside from things like deposit promotions obv) As a customer, it's a great time to be an online poker player in the coming months.

I'm sure they haven't covered their start-up costs yet, but if they aren't bringing in enough revenue to crush their day-to-day then there's some horrible mismanagement going on.

TT u r the best. The trolls on 2+2 will continue to blast UP and its staff no matter what. No legal poker sites in the USA and UP launches with a crap bare bones 2001 software version which was BRILLIANT on their part to get out of the gate first. WSOP was suppose to launch by no later than 7/7 and still hasnt been able to launch! Speaks volumes who is on top of their game.

Best 2nd Quarter in 5 years. Could be coincidence i suppose...or not.

http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2013/au...posts-best-2n/

http://www.reviewjournal.com/busines...growth-profits

Hey guys,

just found out i have all of next week to myself and I decided to head down to Vegas on sunday or mondya. will it take long to open an account or is it all pretty streamlined and smooth already? Should i begin the process now or wait till i hit vegas??

Also, are any huds compatible?

Setup and fund your account now so you're able to play as soon as you're in NV. No HUDs currently.

HUDs?
I'd be happy with hand histories.

+1

I'd go so far as to say that they won't turn a profit until they can expand into other States. I don't think they will be disappointed by this as UP obviously is in this for the long haul. After the States start coming on board the profits will start coming in. UP's expansion issues are very similar to the UFC's so they have lots of experience to draw from.

Completely agree.

I also think that trust of online poker has much more to do with casual players reluctance to sign up than the absence of re-sizeable tables.

Longevity and more providers entering the market will address the trust issue over time and I think that instead of there being any dramatic explosive spikes to the player pool, we're going to see slow and steady growth for a long, long time.

I think if you're supportive of the growth of online poker, this can be best served by addressing the strengths of UP when playing live with folks who haven't signed up yet as opposed to complaining about the sure-to-be-temporary shortfalls of the software or the promotions.

NEW GAME IDEAS

1. $5 Double-stacks (otherwise identical to the very popular $10 double stacks).

2. $2 MTT Turbos (otherwise identical to the popular $1 2xhour $1 MTT Turbos)

I think both of those options would be very popular.

There are just way too many tourney options that attract zilcho players.

Many times, I'd like to play for more than $1 in a turbo and yet less than $10 in a double-stack.

I will jump out on a limb here and guesstimate that the $5 double stacks would quickly become your number one option - you may even have to limit the playing field (seriously).

+1

I am waiting until V2 to offer extensive UI feedback, but the current issues are not minor. Pop up and shuffling animations stopping everything is annoying, when there is also lag and you're trying to play more than 2 tables, it approaches the point of unusable.