Poker Networks 2012

Much has been made of the poker industry’s new determination to attract casual players. Over the past two years, both operators and networks have started to espouse a new approach to poker, one where the recreational player is courted rather than ignored. But the new modus operandi comes after more than a decade where it could have been argued that the reverse was true. Since online poker first took off some 10 years ago, many of the software improvements have been focused on making the product more customisable and enabling high-rolling players to play more efficiently.

In recent years, PokerStars and Full Tilt have largely been leading the high-roller revolution, with some of their rivals doing little more than resting on their laurels and crying foul over the fact the pair had more money for research and development due to their continued US operations. Now, it seems many poker sites have come to the realisation that high rollers aren’t the be all and end all of the poker world, and there are signs they are starting to adapt to meet the needs and wants of recreational players.

Gareth Edwards, director of marketing and strategy at 888, says as well as targeting casual players through marketing, they’ve also set about simplifying their software to make it more user-friendly to new players. ‘The market is maturing in terms of hardcore poker players and every operator, including ourselves, needs to look into generating new players into the game, which means we have to be a lot more softcore focused and make it more user friendly and inviting to use. For 888, he says this has meant less cluttered opening screens and a simpler lobby. ‘We don’t want to scare new players away by showing them a long list of all the thousands of games available. Instead we show them nine tables that look like tables; nine buttons that show the range of limits so they can pick one and get taken straight to the table without being confused as to why there are 100 different tables with the same limit.

Fredrik Kjell, head of poker at Ongame, says a similar process is taking place on its poker network. ‘We have a very clear casual gamer focus. We are definitely not trying to be a new PokerStars when it comes to features. If anything, we are going in the opposite direction and are, to some extent, removing features. For example, we have removed the waiting list for players, because waiting lists create an environment not really for the casual player. We want to attract the casual gamers because they are to some extent the net-depositing players, they are the ones putting money into the system.

With stability having improved to a level where it has become less of an issue than it was in poker’s early days and therefore less of a selling point, many poker sites made tweaks to their software to improve the usability as a way of differentiating their offerings. But many had high rollers in mind when developing their technology, and this doesn't necessarily fit with what's wanted by the players they're now trying to entice. Casual players demand something more than always being able to play poker. For them it is not of key importance to have 1,000 features and to be able to play 20 tables in an efficient manner. They want to have a good experience and want to be entertained as they are basically investing a part of their entertainment budget on playing poker rather than watching movies,’ says Kjell. ‘For the hardcore volume players, I think poker software definitely is a differentiator. For them, it is about which operator allows integration with the third party software they use and which operator has the features that help them to be efficient in their playing experience.

Of course, operators don’t want to shun the high volume players altogether, after all the idea is to increase liquidity by bringing in new players and not to simply replace the old with the new. But there are sometimes challenges involved in developing software that suits everyone, says Lydia Melton, head of network games at Microgaming. Player and operator software requirements are usually aligned. Players want to make money with hassle-free software, and operators want the players to have a fun experience, while generating rake. These are complementary drivers. The only time we see a conflict between player and operator requests is for features that could negatively impact the ecology of the network, which players sometimes want and operators often do not. However, it is better for long-term revenue to protect the recreational players, and players are starting to realise that. Poker software in itself is not as much of a differentiator as it used to be. However, features within the software, such as Microgaming’s exclusive anonymous tables, can be a real differentiator in players' eyes,' adds Melton.

Anonymous tables have been adopted by a number of operators recently, including Ladbrokes, PartyPoker and Unibet. This is one of a number of measures operators have taken to try and stop the fish being eaten too quickly by the sharks, by using software which discourages the use of tracking software and multi-tabling. Enriching the experience Operators have also been adding other non-core features aimed squarely at the social player, such as poker cams and 3D options. But thus far, no one else has gone quite as far down the graphically-rich road as PKR. Terry Barnett, poker operation manager at B3W, says he thinks this comes down to a lack of return on investment. The kind of player that plays 3D software, doesn't play too many tables and they don't rake in that much. It is going to take a lot of money to develop something as graphically rich as that and you might not see that much return very quickly.

But while operators may not have followed PKR’s lead on the graphics side of things, they're finally starting to cotton on to the benefits of incorporating more social networking into their offerings. There's been a significant push towards convergence with social networking sites of late, and ChiliPoker, for example, recently integrated its system with Twitter and Facebook. Social media is a useful tool because you want to get your player following you on Twitter and liking you on Facebook so you can use it as a direct point of contact with the player and it is almost like free advertising in many ways,’ says Barnett. ‘But most companies have been slow to get involved. Facebook really took off a good four or five years ago and it has only been really in the last two years that is has been picked up by the gaming companies.

There's no doubt gaming was behind the curve when it comes to social networking, so much so that Edwards says: ‘Everybody is trying to come up with a strategy and a lot of our competitors have worked out that our biggest competitor in gaming is Zynga, not each other. Complementing the mix

While operators seem to be in agreement that social networking provides a good complement, they are less sure on throwing casino into the mix. Although side games have been adopted by a number of European-facing operators, there are concerns they may decrease liquidity on their poker networks. Barnett says this is exactly the reason B3W decided against side games on its recently launched Yachting Poker site. ‘Players are going to lose money fairly fast unless they are playing slots, and most of the poker players are going to be blackjack or roulette players. I’d rather see that money being spent on poker tables.

Edwards says there’s an important balancing act going on at 888. 'Side games are profitable but you are actually taking away the liquidity within the poker business which is not good. We keep limits low in the side games. It is just about giving them something to do while they are waiting for a game to start. We are not trying to create a casino product within poker because it is contradictory to the whole poker economy.' For 888, some of the other poker features they’ve recently introduced may well prove more useful in keeping players entertained while also maintaining liquidity. These include the first poker webcam, as well as a series of new team tournaments. However, not all of the changes in poker software are taking place to meet customers' needs.

As new territories look to follow the lead of Italy (a huge technical challenge given the requirement to synchronise gaming companies’ servers with those of the regulator) operators and networks are likely to invest more of their time and money into making sure they meet new regulations. With many poker operators and networks experiencing sharp falls in their poker revenues over recent years, finding the cash for research and development that goes above and beyond meeting these regulations can be a struggle, particularly if poker is competing with more successful verticals within their operations. Some have accused networks of failing to invest in poker, and recent financials suggest they might now be paying the price. Playtech, for example, reported a year-on-year drop of 32% in poker revenues for the second quarter of this year. Meanwhile, 888, which has proprietary software, reported a 58% rise in poker revenues in the same period.

Much of the development over the past four or five years has been driven by operators with proprietary software, such as PokerStars and Full Tilt, and some poker sites may start to wonder if going it alone is their best shot at survival in the coming years. But Kjell points out that networks also offer valuable development on the back end. ‘As a B2B supplier we are trying to provide technology that allows our customers to be supportive to their customers. We have this technology called Live Data Feed, which is a real-time data stream of everything that is going on at the table. It means that our operators can act on the event that the player triggers in real time, for example by offering promotions. Say a player gets a bad beat, they might then connect them to five free spins in the side game.

Melton adds that there's no point in change for change’s sake. ‘When it comes to poker, innovation is only important when it improves the player experience. Poker systems are already complex pieces of software, and increasing the complexity through innovation for innovation’s sake is going to result in confusion and disenchantment.