Talk:Bwin.Party Digital Entertainment

Opening comment

Hope this doesn't look like an advert for PartyPoker. Although I do in fact have an account there, it's not my favourite Poker site - I just created this page on the news that PartyGaming is going to float some shares... Evercat 13:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Skin split, software update, affiliate issues

There have been some major changes at PartyGaming over the past few weeks, including the Empire settlement, the new software platform, and an apparent controversy over the old Empire affiliates.

On 20 February 2006, <spam link removed> revoked its certification of PartyGaming due to the company's policy not to pay existing affiliates of Empire Online. These affiliates had contractual agreements with Empire online to be paid a % of player revenues for the life of the player. Upon purchasing Empire's "skin" operations PartyGaming announced they will not honor the affiliate contracts made with Empire Online.

Do we really need to include such issues at this time? The dust hasn't even settled from the skin split and software upgrade yet. This decision may not remain permanent. SmartGuy 19:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Such an entry is both off topic and nonsensical, and should not be included. This article isn't about Empire Online's contractual responsibilities. It is about Party Gaming, and even in that it isn't about trivia of any kind or the interpretive POV of anyone, especially since this POV entry is false on its face. The affiliate contracts say they can be terminated at any time for ANY reason. Obviously we should not include clearly false entries in the article. I reverted back to before the anon POV addition. 2005 19:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems our spam vandal is back at it again. These people seriously are irritating. SmartGuy 13:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

3rd Party programs

Does the Partypoker program come attached with 3rd party progs like spyware?

No. 2005 00:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, have had no problems... But ZoneAlarm Security Suite is telling me it is adware. Are they simply misinformed? 198.54.202.242 (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice, free advert for party poker

Nothing about bots, etc... this is basically an ad for them. This should be edited for a NPOV or pulled. Firstly Party Poker is not poker. Poker is considered a game of skill and not chance because the game involves personal contact where one is confronted with an opponents mannerisms,voice characteristics,facial expressions etc.,called "tells" in actual poker. In this online "poker" none of this exists and thus it is not poker. Secondly,since there is no personal contact,there is a great risk of the opponents using multiple handles to manipulate the outcome of each hand.There are other means used to create unfair advantage for players and there have been cases recently of employees of online poker actually viewing each players hands during play and raking up millions in profit. This entire article is a huge puff piece for a very risky site which isn't even real poker.BrianAlex (talk)

I will edit out some of the advertising. It remains an important article because this company is listed on the London Stock Exchange and readers need to know the facts - from a neutral point of view of course Dormskirk (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

US players

Doesn't the source article just say that they're going to ban US players IF the legislation is signed in 2 weeks? The wikipedia entry makes it sound like Party is banning US players no matter what, with no indication of when.

It's pretty much a foregone conclusion that Bush is going to sign the Safe Ports Act, the bill which Bill Frist used to shovel the I-gaming legislation through Congress as a rider. There's no "IF" about it. Barring major legal action by the big online cardrooms, it's going to get signed into law. Given that the industry in general has been very non-responsive in regards to the threat of a U.S. ban, that is probably not going to happen. SmartGuy 14:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I could have added "if" for a few days, but it is 100% likely to be signed. 2005 19:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately 2005 you are right. Sigh. It's been a hell of a ride, though. SmartGuy 19:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigh indeed ... But the safe port act, or at least the affect on online poker, really needs an article of its own. This is huge news to millions of US poker players, and it deserves more content on wikipedia. -1123

I agree. Both the Safe Port Act and the internet gambling rider merit articles. SmartGuy 15:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There is an article Safe Port Act. 2005 21:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

PartyPoker money cheat

People on PartyPoker would just login and gain money every second. Something should be included on this. --70.111.218.254 03:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats only with play money. A minor exploit since play money tables are a garunteed gong show anyway.

Fair use rationale for Image:PartyPokerLogo.png

Image:PartyPokerLogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed this. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

100,000 players at a time?

The article claims that at peak times, 100,000 players are playing at a time on partypoker. This was true, back before partypoker was forced to pull out of the US market. Does anyone have any sources showing their current peak number of players? I highly doubt it's back up to 100,000, but I could be wrong. --Xyzzyplugh 07:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Party Poker issues

This section seem the be opinion / original research then anything else, I've tagged but it may need to be removed without sources to the claim. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 06:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed it as it was opinion rather than original research. Use of the word "plagued" is inappropriate, as is even the opinion that playing shortstacked is bad. 2005 07:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct I should had removed it there and then, the part that saw as OR was "software is also considered to be inefficient by some" if this opinion was written by an authority in the poker world (ie cardplayer, bluff etc) it could be quoted as such but other then that has no bases in being in the article, with the "plagued" comment about short stack poker you are quite right on that point too, I don't know what I was thinking.(slap head)▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 07:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bill Frist legislation

If you visit PartyGaming or Party Poker today, from the United States, you can in fact play for money on your credit card.

I think something has changed which is not reflected in your article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.5.138 (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

PartyBets.com

I believe PartyBets.com is another of their interests. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

New name or parent company

This now appears to have either been renamed WPC Productions Limited, or WPC owns PartyGaming PLC, or vice versa. Article needs to be updated, and possibly moved, depending upon what the situation is. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It still is traded as PartyGaming. WPC looks like a copyright subsidiary, so that could be mentioned here, but WPC seems to get little press. 2005 (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Operating / net income

I'm not really a financial expert, but it struck me odd that the info box says operating income is US$5.3 million and net income is US$41.6 million. Isn't operating income supposed to be less than net income by definition? Murgorgum (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Net income is higher in this case because it is stated after including income from discontinued operations Dormskirk (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Popups

I dont care bout poker, or how much this company makes, when i hear 'partypoker' i automatically get reminded of their almost legendary spyware popups. Should be mentioned within the main article , since im fairly sure that the number of times the name 'partypoker' is mentioned on adware forums will be very close to their anual capital income.

I think the 3rd party programs they are paying to advertise the partypoker website are a big problem. Partypoker popups appear after installation of spyware or adware. This suggests partypoker funds spyware/adware producers in exchange for directing poeple to their website. Another questionable method used to advertise the partypoker website is to have 3rd parties create shockwave flash objects (usually video) that produce unblockable popup windows when users play them.195.241.123.113 (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that InterTrader be merged into Bwin.Party Digital Entertainment. InterTrader does not appear to be notable in its own right. I think that the content in the InterTrader article can easily be explained in the context of Bwin.Party Digital Entertainment, and the Bwin.Party Digital Entertainment article is of a reasonable size that the merging of InterTrader will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not really have strong views on this but would prefer if the articles were not merged as we would lose the history of InterTrader. Dormskirk (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)