Pretty interesting "interview" with Yong (well, more like a Rob rants about stuff)

https://poker.partypoker.com/en/blog...ine-poker.html

he speaks about small changes (e.g. software development), but also bigger changes like partypoker MILLIONS Main Event back to $5K as well as four times a year.

interesting is the "how he is involved in pp" answer


he also talks about partypoker MILLION (not a huge surprise, it will most likely disappear soon) and the failed GTDs.

most interesting thing is (imo) the talk about rake back and cash games in general.

tl;dr: Recs should get more RB than Regs

there's also some rant about "Getting Back to Basics" ... not sure what the plans are, but it could be getting rid of 6-max and High Stakes tables (well, of course not the 'private tables', where Yong picks his players ).

Thx for posting.

Party is constantly backtracking after throwing mud at the walls and finding most of it doesn't stick. I suppose backtracking is better then pushing forward down a bad road... but these mistakes were obvious prior to their implementation. Going back to the basics is certainly the right move until they really think out a solid game plan.

I think Yong actually has poker growth as a primary goal but surrounds himself with 'yes men' and people who seek personal gain and therefore the product offerings suffer.
Party could have already eclipsed Stars over the past 3 years if they had chosen the right course from the onset, considering their tremendous spend.

And soon we have another personalized system like stars.

thats so pokerstars bs.i hope they dont do it.

partypoker partner and Dusk Till Dawn poker room owner Rob Yong submits open letter to MTT players.



Rob Yong is set to appear on the Poker Life Podcast with Joey Ingram tomorrow, July 7th, at 2:00PM Eastern Time.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...ostcount=10552

Remind me how many re-entrys they allowed at DTD when hosting Party sponsored events? No site pushed phases as hard as Party did when Rob and Pads took over so what's the issue now?

I agree with his message but he created the problem.

Looks like the pod with Joey is running rn. Too bad I don't have the time to watch and ask what the actual **** is going on that they got rid of inter account transfers. That's so bad und so unnecessary, just wow...

Party should fix their software and attract more fish.. The games are awful.

I think out of the top sites(most popular), it has the worst games for MTTs.

Anounced today via email - starting Tuesday, July 14th partypoker is removing player transfers feature.


IAT = Inter account transfers

Here's a link to Rob Yong's July 7th Poker Life Podcast conversation with Joey Ingram.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...ostcount=10558

Very informative/insightful three hours and very much worth a watch imo.

IATs are discussed/mentioned...

EDIT: from 1:32:15-1:34:00 & 1:35:55-1:36:15 of the video contained within the linked post above.

I was always under the impression that Rob had significant influence over Party Poker. It seems that I was mistaken and he see's things much as I do but he is not the decider.
Other then the portion of the stables question where he looked visibly uncomfortable his insight into the business is good and his insight into what the casual player wants is excellent. Despite some errors in the past I give Rob much praise. Joey on the other hand looked like he was counting his sponsorship money when Rob flipped the switch on him. It's a tough spot to be in but he signed up for it.

Just an instinct but I think Rob/Dusk Till Dawn part ways with Party poker within 12 months due to them not going enough in the same direction.

Yeah, I was very impressed with Rob's insight. He's a lot further along than some people assumed imo. Unfortunately he's just not "in the streets" when it comes to non-branded, turn-based PvP regulatory theory concerning gambling-related business model "overlays" of educational games such as poker, dominoes, bridge, chess, checkers, Go, Hangman, tic-tac-toe, jacks, hop-scotch, blah blah blah.

Poker isn't like Monopoly or other IP-protected, branded turn-based PvP games that enjoy sole licensing control/authority from top to bottom. If Monopoly hosted a (purely hypothetical) tournament, it would have sole discretion over establishing rules. Meaning if someone had a pre-game gripe before (again, a purely hypothetical) Monopoly event, the license holder could exercise outright authority in saying, "The rules for Free Parking are posted and communicated before x-event, all who land on this space will receive/be penalized whatever we say, so make your own informed 'personal executive decision' on whether to GTFI/GTFO beforehand and leave us alone -- because we (the branded license 'exclusive rights' holders) know Monopoly, not you."

Due to how the game of poker and its players have been marketed over the past two decades (particularly as "online" communications became more accessible/widespread), it will (imo) become more and more difficult for these sites to execute on/negotiate event "deliverables" because of how much strife/anxiety there is over how the poker profit *pie* (derived 100% from "antelopes") should be divvied-up between sites and informed, liquidity-providing players.

The regulated online poker industry is in imminent danger of purposeful "over-regulation" imo. To crudely paraphrase HOF professional wrestling legend Jim Cornette, I believe we're quickly approaching a point in which regulators are going to begin to override previous self-regulatory initiatives with an attitude of, "Step aside, we'll f*** this dog, you just hold its ears." This could result in a legitimate "regulatory race to the bottom" (especially U.S. statewide licensing) to see who can shove their proverbial gilded **** down the golden goose's throat and choke it into submission quicker.
---

Watch this old-school video blog by former Ultimate Poker executive Tom Breitling from way back in 2014 (when UP was all the rage for legalized U.S. online poker).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynLMZQhu_iA


At [0:55], Breitling explained how governments placing a regulatory "sleeve" over real money online poker via "extra clicks" had a negative "friction" impact on "market size." That's just one of many "FU" measures that regulators/lawmakers/larger gambling stakeholders can use to piss on regulated internet poker if they so choose.

I'd say a couple of the commercial interests that could temporarily delay some of these U.S. regulatory measures for online PvP gambling would be Google/NBC Comcast, who have "upstream investment" interest in some of the movers & shakers of U.S. iGaming/iCasino/iSportsBetting/iPoker companies.

But that's only if they feel like screwing with online poker. I'm sure those companies have superior information/analytics than any of us, plus they recently received Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board approval for iGaming licensing waivers -- giving those companies quite a bit of regulatory oversight reign over iGaming.

Who knows if these mega-billionaire corporations will decide they want to be assed with the liability associated with such online PvP gambling oversight in the end though. As Rob explained in his conversation with Joey, online poker is such a small fraction of the whole online gambling revenue pie [1:38:00].
---

Regarding the Daniel Negreanu reference, Rob mentioned on the today's show [48:15-50:35] that he believes DNegs likewise is passionate about protecting the integrity of offering a "level playing field" for all participants, and that DNegs' relationship with GGPoker would likely "come to a head" for the same reasons you cite for Rob potentially parting ways with partypoker in the next 12 months (personally I don't have a read on this either way).

-David

no doubt he won't be forever at pp (they said a while ago, gvc said the poker vertical won't be longer pushed) and he and his team failed to catch up to PS anyway.

so it seems to me, the ship is sinking, he is aware that most don't know this, so he tries to spin it ... "oh i had to go, b/c i tried to the right thing, but the evil corporate guys ..."

and this really annoys me ... rob isn't a hero. he paid so many players to play (live and online), so that events hit the GTD. how is that protecting the rec?

or when he abused his power to get a player, who was critical on social media get banned, or when he checks internal data, just to find out, who are his opponents ... this is all scummy af. i don't say he is a bad person, just b/c i don't know him, but he definitely isn't the white knight.

and yes, ppl can change ... but telling in an interview that he was always critical of some element, he clearly used to make money, is more than a stretch and seems selfserving ... just my 2cts

D :

+1 Only Cornette can talk like that with an exasperated straight face.

You always hear boo hoo the losers get the rakeback. I'm guessing only the winning players are bitching about it constantly. So a bias appears, everyone hates it, when this is certainly not the case. Keep bitching winners, I'm sure they will listen to you eventually.

The nutjob who gave Rob Yong this gig and wants Party to be like The Vic (WTF?) has just said he's stepping down.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g...source=twitter

A lot to break down from Rob's 3-hour conversation with Joey from earlier this week.

Here are some more timestamps for segments in which Rob talks about an imminent online poker "war" between PokerStars/GGPoker, and why he believes the "regulated," "white market" online poker market faces serious regulatory challenges going forward.

FULL VIDEO: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...ostcount=10558

Rob consistently references the desire that partypoker parent company GVC Holdings has to eventually become a major force within the United States market, along with the numerous regulatory restrictions/hurdles that different jurisdictions are placing in front of "white market" online gambling companies.

At [23:10], Rob likens GGPoker to the old-school Full Tilt Poker in the way it aggressively markets itself and pursues quality software. Rob then explains his perception of partypoker's role within the industry, and whether it can legitimately compete with sites that can be more "global." Rob wants them to "sidestep" the "new fight" between PokerStars and GGPoker.

At [24:35] Rob references an imminent online poker "war" between PokerStars/GGPoker, and other potential internet poker market entrants. Rob believes partypoker will not be able to compete with PokerStars, GGPoker, and others due to the "grey market" risks that those two companies (along with their future competitors) are willing to take. Rob again says that GVC/MGM/ROAR are 100% committed to complying with regulations and simply won't take those risks.

Rob references this pending online poker "war" multiple times during the conversation, and wants partypoker to focus on its unique player ecology instead of getting tied up in legal wrangles by serving markets that "white market" regulators may frown upon when determining licensing.

Rob repeats this at [26:20].

At [27:50], Rob predicts a "big PokerStars meltdown," and goes on to explain why he believes this to be the case. In fact, Rob believes PokerStars has "their backsides in the air" right now, and that "it looks grim for PokerStars at the moment."

At [30:10], Rob says again that the "regulated" sites face massive issues going forward due to the offshore competitors that have found a way to circumvent the traditional banking/regulatory infrastructure via Bitcoin, VPN use, etc.

At [33:10], Rob contemplates his future in the industry, stating that he's unsure how much longer he will be around the business -- unless he's involved in a project that he personally enjoys.

At [33:40], Rob mentions that partypoker is 100% focused on compliance with US regulations due to its desire to enter "white market" jurisdictions. Rob states that these white market interests are denied a legitimate "level playing field" versus offshore sites that capture market share via third-party licensure to access x-market from separate jurisdictions.

At [34:20], Rob offers that partypoker is "very much liked" by the US federal government because of its decision to "act like a white market business" following the 2006 passage of the UIGEA.

At [1:35:15], Rob states that he believes that these regulations will continue to negatively impact sites such as partypoker & PokerStars, while some of the non-US regulated/offshore sites will experience gains as a consequence. He repeats this sentiment at [1:37:10].

Thoughts? Questions? Solutions? More timestamps?

He's saying they can't compete with GG or Stars and is hoping that Party's stance of being the white knight of no hud, ultra regulatory compliance will turn out well in the end.

I think Kenny's exit might have more to do with Rob's exit than he's letting on.

Also, the US federal government don't give a **** about Party Poker.

Its doubtful GVC care about party poker either. They care about the sports and casino market in the US if and when it finally opens up which will dwarf any poker sites income.

This is a shame if true because Party were by far the biggest site pre UIGEA and they completely withdrew from the US market immediately when this law was passed (while other sites ignored it) so you would've thought if the US ever does re-legalize online poker at the Federal level that party would be first in line to be allowed US customers.

lol any smart business would do this, recs >>>>>>>>>>>>>regs. Its like saying poker pros dont make as much as you can, yeah right pros try to max their profit, sites are just doing the same thing. Pros are competitions just like other pokersites.

The problem is all they can hope for, for many years yet, is at best intra state and whether each state decides if Party, who were owned by entry different people then, actually get any good actor bonuses 20 years later.

Unless Preet Bharara is the one handing out the licenses I can't see it making any difference.

Some interesting stats provided by Rob Yong today on Twitter.

PARTYPOKER $.10/$.25 NLHE Cash Games (Month of August 2020)

* 8,494 total players
* 2,349 of which were winners (excluding rakeback and promos)
* 27.33% of partypoker $.10/$.25 NLHE cash game players were net winners from Aug 1st-31st.

That only means it's infested with regs. Yong embarrassing himself once again.