You are viewing extempore

Dec. 28th, 2007 @ 10:28 am cheaters never prosper, ha ha ha
Recall back in mid-October during the absolute poker cheating scandal I said in the comments that absolute wouldn't be hurt at all by the cheating news. For whatever reason I had random internet stranger offering 5-1 to the contrary (albeit for a less-than-decisive sum.) This is the best I could find in terms of assessing the impact, and unfortunately it only goes back to october 28th - but I'm pretty sure going back further doesn't alter the statistics.

Peak Traffic History for Absolute Poker

October 28 6:40 PM 2361
October 29 7:39 PM 2500
October 30 7:44 PM 2556
[...]
December 25 7:47 PM 1955
December 26 5:56 PM 2287
December 27 7:27 PM 2332

Given that we're in the middle of the holidays, it looks to me like traffic has if anything gone up. If anyone knows a better way to compare before/after, please say the word.
About this Entry
[User Picture Icon]
From:essay02
Date:December 28th, 2007 06:40 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
i think you'll have to find yourself some "before" first.
From:billybizzle
Date:December 28th, 2007 06:56 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Given that we're in the middle of the holidays, it looks to me like traffic has if anything gone up.
Unfortunately, this statement isn't exactly accurate. Holidays tend to have poker site playing rise, not fall-since Tuesday around 3pm or so, the number of players in pretty much every single Stars and FTP tourney I regularly play (the sample size is between 15 and 20 mid-to-high level dailys) has been 10-15% higher, basically across the board. I'd be very confident wagering that as a whole, times when people don't have work results in a higher amount of site traffic than any other time throughout the year, regardless of other obligations.
[User Picture Icon]
From:extempore
Date:December 28th, 2007 07:07 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I'll take your word for it. I know for sure that the number of people reading/posting in blogs goes way down during holidays, so I figured the traffic pattern for online poker would be about the same. Either way, wait a couple weeks and the point will be the same: the cheating scandal did not hurt absolute poker.
From:jaxxvain
Date:January 2nd, 2008 06:02 pm (UTC)

surprised

(Permanent Link)
I am quite surprised that you would think people posting/reading in your journal would parallel people playing online poker. But not having a real job may excuse you from such experience.

For some reason we (cubicle dwellers) feel less guilty (and I guess look less guilty) when we are reading/posting in a blog as opposed to, god forbid, playing online poker or playing WoW.

I almost exclusively read, post and research on the internet at work, and play at home.
[User Picture Icon]
From:extempore
Date:January 2nd, 2008 08:16 pm (UTC)

Re: surprised

(Permanent Link)
I didn't mean my blog necessarily, I meant all of them see a measurable drop during the holidays. Your reasoning as to why poker would go up instead of down seems sound, and you're also right that the eight years I've spent outside of the office makes that a little less obvious to me.
[User Picture Icon]
From:funkiii
Date:December 28th, 2007 09:37 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
the stars afternoon 100r the day before christmas was very small (72 people) compared to usual. I didn't look at anything else.
From:billybizzle
Date:December 28th, 2007 10:59 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
The afternoon 55s since Christmas have all been ~1500 people when in a normal week they have 1300. The nightly 109fo has been ~450-480 when during normal weeks it struggles to crack 400. The best example has probably been the noon 22-1600 the last 3 days, it has been 1500-1600 people, in a normal week it gets 1050-1200.
[User Picture Icon]
From:walterzuey
Date:December 29th, 2007 12:49 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I didn't play for a week, but last night the $100 SNGs were dead, but the $300s and $500s were hopping. Go figure. Of the dozen "main" evening pros who are usually on that shift, I was one of only two to play much.
[User Picture Icon]
From:badblood44
Date:December 28th, 2007 07:41 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
You may also want to compare trends with other online sites to get an industry average and compare Absolute to that. Yes, they've declined in the periods you've quoted, but if Stars and/or Full Tilt have shown similar declines then this data by itself isn't meaningful.

I happen to be in the middle of the road about this. They were "dinged" but not measurably hurt to the degree that would force them out of business.
[User Picture Icon]
From:ribmeister
Date:December 28th, 2007 09:10 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Of course the figures need to be looked at relatively speaking. If Absolute were gaining on average 500 players a month then these stats would show Absolute's player base being hurt by not having similar growth levels.
[User Picture Icon]
From:d14n
Date:December 28th, 2007 09:06 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Has anyone found any recent information on the scandal?

I just did a quick search on Google and the 2+2 forums and came up with very little.

The main 2+2 thread is long dead. I don't see any follow-up news stories from the ones in October.

I'd love to know more, so if you have a link, please share.
From:samholden
Date:December 29th, 2007 01:54 am (UTC)

Starts after the fact...

(Permanent Link)
That data starts after the fact, which makes it next to useless - the numbers might have dropped by 50% the day after it became a well known event...

But some quick screen scraping of that web site gives: http://random-junk.s3.amazonaws.com/out.csv

Charting the absolute numbers along with the average of the rest of the sites (and the total - scaled by /20 so it doesn't squish the other two at the bottom):
http://random-junk.s3.amazonaws.com/absolute-poker-numbers.png

(ignore the screen shot fragments of the plot area being selected at the time :)
[User Picture Icon]
From:extempore
Date:December 29th, 2007 02:43 am (UTC)

Re: Starts after the fact...

(Permanent Link)
That data starts after the fact, which makes it next to useless - the numbers might have dropped by 50% the day after it became a well known event...

It would, except (and I should have mentioned this) we know that didn't happen because we were there and we remember what people were saying when this was a subject of greater interest. And also because huge jumps like that never happen in a context such as this - which is part of why I said they wouldn't be hurt. Inertia trumps all.
From:samholden
Date:December 29th, 2007 04:11 am (UTC)

Re: Starts after the fact...

(Permanent Link)
Fair enough, the numbers are trending down for absolute, but they are for the "average of all sites except absolute" and at about the same rate (eyeballing linear best fit trend lines anyway)
From:reubenf
Date:December 29th, 2007 05:21 pm (UTC)

Re: Starts after the fact...

(Permanent Link)
And also because huge jumps like that never happen in a context such as this - which is part of why I said they wouldn't be hurt. Inertia trumps all.

I agree with you overall, but this part is begging the question.
[User Picture Icon]
From:extempore
Date:December 30th, 2007 04:25 pm (UTC)

Re: Starts after the fact...

(Permanent Link)
Yes. As you may realize I wasn't trying to build an evidentiary chain from the ground up, but to fast-forward to the issue offering some uncertainty.
From:tuco99
Date:December 31st, 2007 05:02 am (UTC)

wager

(Permanent Link)
Ok, who looks dumber. Me for offering you the bet or you for not taking it?

:)
[User Picture Icon]
From:extempore
Date:December 31st, 2007 10:29 pm (UTC)

Re: wager

(Permanent Link)
Historically, overconfident internet strangers who offer to bet a whole dollar haven't been the gold mine you might imagine. If you ever want to bet actual money giving 5-1 on something I think is more like 1-50, I'm sure you can find me - but I know that like all the other internet strangers, you lay odds as a vague rhetorical device, not because you are genuinely in action.
From:inet_stranger
Date:January 3rd, 2008 10:19 am (UTC)

Re: wager

(Permanent Link)
We all do? And you the grammatical pedant.