PokerStars shatters own world record

[The Buzz]

PokerStars is the largest online poker room in the world. It has set numerous world records over the years, and it can add another notch to its belt. On September 6 PokerStars.com recorded 307,016 players playing online poker simultaneously, smashing the old record by over 100,000 players.

Casino City has the press release:

ISLE OF MAN -- (PRESS RELEASE) -- PokerStars.com, the world's largest poker site, has shattered its own world record for hosting 'THE MOST PLAYERS AT AN INTERNET POKER ROOM' - an achievement that's been certified by the Guinness Book of World Records.

On Sunday September 6, 2009, PokerStars.com recorded 307,016 players at 42,814 tables playing online poker simultaneously – smashing the old record by over 100,000 players.

This new record comes less than two months after PokerStars.com destroyed another of its own Guinness World Records; the 'Largest Online Poker Tournament', officially certified by the Guinness Book of World Records.

The largest online poker tournament was held on Sunday July 19, 2009, when a total of 65,000 players from 155 countries came together to play in the same tournament.

[Anthony]

I wonder how many of the 300,000 were from the U.S.?

[Doolally]

That's a helluva lot of players!

[JonOfFinsbury]

It is indeed a hell of a lot. Which brings me back to a point I was discussing earlier in the week: should we have included them in the Power 50 of the world's top operators?

This was a tricky question for us. For some people, the question is a no-brainer: PS are huge, so how could we not? But as I was explaining on EGR to one reader who quite understandably asked why we hadn't included them:

'The answer is that unlike PKR, PokerStars and Full Tilt continue to take US bets. As well as being bad for the two opeartors' long-term outlook (any legalised egaming market will look unfavourably on operators that continued to operate while egaming was still illlegal), in the short term this also gives them an unfair liquidity advantage over sites such as PKR that have heeded America's UIGEA egaming ban and never taken US bets.



'The decision to include them or not was not an easy one, but we believe that our decision to remove them has not only lead to a more balanced list, but also to a list more representative of the new, respectable egaming industry that has emerged from the 'Wild West' days earlier in the decade.'


Predictably, not everyone shares our view , as the discussion underneath the story made clear: http://www.egrmagazine.com/news/indu...-running.thtml


I'll be writing a round-up on the issue later today - feel free to contribute!

[eaton2003]

Here is some food for thought;

Lets say you referred 300,000 players on one day and they all became active. You take a modest CPA of $150, and this means you would of made $45,000,000 in commissions alone!

[JonOfFinsbury]

Hi,

For anyone who feels strongly about Full Tilt or Poker Stars: http://www.egrmagazine.com/news/indu...he-power.thtml




Jon

[Anthony]

Here is some food for thought;

Lets say you referred 300,000 players on one day and they all became active. You take a modest CPA of $150, and this means you would of made $45,000,000 in commissions alone!

That's unreal

[Betpartners]

It is indeed a hell of a lot. Which brings me back to a point I was discussing earlier in the week: should we have included them in the Power 50 of the world's top operators?

This was a tricky question for us. For some people, the question is a no-brainer: PS are huge, so how could we not? But as I was explaining on EGR to one reader who quite understandably asked why we hadn't included them:

'The answer is that unlike PKR, PokerStars and Full Tilt continue to take US bets. As well as being bad for the two opeartors' long-term outlook (any legalised egaming market will look unfavourably on operators that continued to operate while egaming was still illlegal), in the short term this also gives them an unfair liquidity advantage over sites such as PKR that have heeded America's UIGEA egaming ban and never taken US bets.



'The decision to include them or not was not an easy one, but we believe that our decision to remove them has not only lead to a more balanced list, but also to a list more representative of the new, respectable egaming industry that has emerged from the 'Wild West' days earlier in the decade.'


Predictably, not everyone shares our view , as the discussion underneath the story made clear: http://www.egrmagazine.com/news/indu...-running.thtml


I'll be writing a round-up on the issue later today - feel free to contribute!

Not to have included them simply devalues the list IMO

Your criteria while understandable is far too selective and because one company has an advantage over another is really irrelevant,

You are talking the Power 50 and to keep poker stars off that list when they are so big makes the list not representative or a true reflection of the power within the industry.

[firecasinos]

I can't even begin to imagine the type of system resources you'd need to support 300,000+ players in one day. The mind boggles!

[szury]

party was the biggest poker room before pokerstars but they had to close their doors to US players.

[republican]

This is all fine and great for Pokerstars and their players, however their affiliate department should be embarrassed. It is October 5th and poker affiliates are still waiting to be paid commissions for players sent in August.

Most poker sites are already starting to pay out September earnings this week.

[gamblingbutler]

This is all fine and great for Pokerstars and their players, however their affiliate department should be embarrassed. It is October 5th and poker affiliates are still waiting to be paid commissions for players sent in August.

Most poker sites are already starting to pay out September earnings this week.

While I agree with you that they are not up to the standard one would expect from the largest card room, I don't think it is the affiliate department's fault. They for sure have to get some kind of payment approval first from a department, that only does payments which is regulated by some other authority within Stars...

At least that is what I think. Our aff manager is eager to do EVERYTHING as fast as he can and he is also trying to work around their stiff structures whenever he can