S & Poker Index

by , Mar 5, 2009 | 11:51 am

I’m not sure if the technical definition of decimation is to reduce something by 10 percent, or to 10 percent of what it once was. Regardless … I was just checkin’ out some poker-site traffic graphs the other day (what, you don’t check out poker-site traffic graphs?) and found a rather interesting unscientific visual representation of the industry, and the scale by which it’s been reduced since late 2006:

First, we see American traffic to FullTiltPoker.com. Interesting … they apparently did a good job of growing in the aftermath of the UIGEA — or at least regaining what they lost — and have stayed relatively steady, with hints of slight growth, in the past two years.

Now we see how Full Tilt compares to PokerStars.com. Again, this is not scientific, and it only represents a sampling of web traffic, not on-the-table real-money action … though we can only presume the two correlate.

Now add PartyPoker to the mix, which, as we all know, pulled out of the US, and … wow … 75.6 million vs. 1.4 million … I think we get a clearer picture of just how much was lost, and perhaps, how much stands to be gained.


11 Comments to “S & Poker Index”


  1. Poker Shrink
    says:

    Here is an ancillary little poker measuremnet for you Dan.

    The height of poker book sales was the fourth quarter of 2005. The fourth quarter of 2008 saw almost exactly 95% fewer poker books being bought.

    Either we have all learned all there is to know about the game or perhaps there really are no new players coming into pokrt. Or everyone is borrowing Super System II from their buddy who is always online playing Badugi.


  2. BJ Nemeth
    says:

    Decimate traditionally means destroying all but one-tenth; killing 90% of your enemy, for example.

    I call bullshit on the PartyPoker numbers at the peak. 75.6 million people in the United States were on PartyPoker? That’s around the time that the U.S. population reached 300 million — meaning 1 in 4 people were signed up on PartyPoker.

    I call bullshit.

    I think the data got mixed up somewhere along the line. Also, shouldn’t the post-UIGEA number of U.S. players on PartyPoker be zero?


  3. Mean Gene
    says:

    Yeah, I can’t believe that Party Poker had nearly 76 million folks signed up when Full Tilt and Stars had a million, give or take. That seems unpossible.

    The Romans used to decimate their troops. If a legion fought badly or showed cowardice they’d break the men into groups of ten and have them draw lots. The short straw would be the one to die, and the lucky nine would have to kill their unlucky buddy. Rather an effective motivational technique, one I’d like to see tried out among senior management in our financial services industry.


  4. DanM
    says:

    ***Yeah, I can’t believe that Party Poker had nearly 76 million folks signed up when Full Tilt and Stars had a million, give or take. That seems unpossible.***

    These numbers don’t represent players … they represent website traffic. And even if inaccurate, the same inaccuracies apply to all, so relatively, I’d say it’s at least as accurate as a Pokerati poll.

    Here’s the same graph, btw, with Party removed and UB included:


  5. Brendan
    says:

    BJ is incorrect, and clearly never had to learn Latin. To decimate is to remove 1/10, such as by killing them. Mean Gene knows what’s up.


  6. BJ Nemeth
    says:

    I divert to Mean Gene; apparently I was wrong with decimate, and it means killing one-tenth (10%).


  7. Steve L
    says:

    What is the definition of “website traffic”? I currently play on Full Tilt and PokerStars and never go to their websites… I just use their software… so I may not even show up in the stats, right?


  8. DanM
    says:

    Dude, honestly, I don’t know. As anyone who has ever monitored “traffic” on any website can tell you, there’s no such thing as numbers that actually agree. There’s log-based vs. browser-based … but that’s a whole different animal anyway.

    The actual numbers in this data (provided by Quantcast) don’t really matter as much as the comparative relationships do. FWIW, I broke it down by monthly visitors simply because it was easier to see than weekly or daily. But you’ll want to divide some of those numbers by 30 if you are looking for daily averages during peak months.

    Here’s Full Tilt compared to Pokerati.com, broken down by day (as opposed to month), and I can attest: total bullshit! We had way more than 1.3k on July 14, 2008!


  9. tbonezz111
    says:

    ***The height of poker book sales was the fourth quarter of 2005. The fourth quarter of 2008 saw almost exactly 95% fewer poker books being bought.

    Either we have all learned all there is to know about the game or perhaps there really are no new players coming into pokr***

    Or, the more likely scenerio is that most new players or ones that already have a few books continue to learn from the internet. With all that is out there for free, plus what you can buy/join, who needs to run to the store and buy a book? Why not just sit home and learn at your own pace with just a click of the mouse. Another probability is that instead of buying 10 poker books you can take that money along w/a couple solid buy-ins and go to a boot camp for some live training. Not so long ago you couldn’t get a pro to even show you the closest bathroom let alone the way they played hands.


  10. BJ Nemeth
    says:

    Okay, so those numbers don’t represent actual players, they represent hits to the website. I’m shocked that PartyPoker was so astronomically high compared to the other major poker sites. Something still doesn’t smell right.

    But it makes a lot more sense than when I thought those were players. 🙂

    Oh, and I seriously regret all those times when I was in the military and I decimated the enemy forces about 80% more than what my commanders apparently had in mind. Oops!


  11. DanM
    says:

    grr, the graphs suddenly disappeared!