It is obvious that Stars' owners bought Sky for SkyBet. IMHO SkyBet is better-run, and better-marketed, than BetStars. One can never be certain on takeovers, but I think I would be more nervous if I worked for BetStars than SkyBet. There are bound to be cost-savings via "synergies", but it would be wrong to assume that they will be solely focused on the newest purchase, rather than the second newest.
Sky Poker is a different matter. Sky Poker is at the opposite end of the poker offering to PokerStars. However, that does not necessarily mean doom and gloom.
There are 2 main types of poker offering these days-global, and regional. Stars already dominates globally, with its rivals (888, Party and the Playtechers) far behind. There is no clear market leader for regionals-different operators seem equally matched in the legal parts of the USA, Spain and the many countries that, for tax and political reasons, are fragmenting. Stars has a poor name in some of those regions (in part due to its stance on UIGEA in c.2006), and Sky may be a better vehicle, in part due to its excellence in its restricted country offering. Let's hope so. In addition, Sky could be run in a way both different to, and complementary with, Stars.
Forums can create/enhance loyalty, which is increasingly important in today's poker (and to a lesser extent, gambling) marketplace. I completely agree with Duesenberg on this. Sky has been swimming against the tide until recently, but it is interesting that Unibet has recently copied Sky's strategy in this regard.
It is obvious that Stars' owners bought Sky for SkyBet. IMHO SkyBet is better-run, and better-marketed, than BetStars. One can never be certain on takeovers, but I think I would be more nervous if I worked for BetStars than SkyBet. There are bound to be cost-savings via "synergies", but it would be wrong to assume that they will be solely focused on the newest purchase, rather than the second newest.
Sky Poker is a different matter. Sky Poker is at the opposite end of the poker offering to PokerStars. However, that does not necessarily mean doom and gloom.
There are 2 main types of poker offering these days-global, and regional. Stars already dominates globally, with its rivals (888, Party and the Playtechers) far behind. There is no clear market leader for regionals-different operators seem equally matched in the legal parts of the USA, Spain and the many countries that, for tax and political reasons, are fragmenting. Stars has a poor name in some of those regions (in part due to its stance on UIGEA in c.2006), and Sky may be a better vehicle, in part due to its excellence in its restricted country offering. Let's hope so. In addition, Sky could be run in a way both different to, and complementary with, Stars.
Forums can create/enhance loyalty, which is increasingly important in today's poker (and to a lesser extent, gambling) marketplace. I completely agree with Duesenberg on this. Sky has been swimming against the tide until recently, but it is interesting that Unibet has recently copied Sky's strategy in this regard.
All I know is that whatever happens with Sky Poker I will continue to play. And I think if you take that attitude towards it then it doesn't really matter because you'll find an avenue one way or the other.
I really hope Sky Poker with all its features does continue. I love playing on this site. If I go a day without playing on Sky I feel like I've been in a Mars prison colony :-D
Comments
Sky Poker is a different matter. Sky Poker is at the opposite end of the poker offering to PokerStars. However, that does not necessarily mean doom and gloom.
There are 2 main types of poker offering these days-global, and regional. Stars already dominates globally, with its rivals (888, Party and the Playtechers) far behind. There is no clear market leader for regionals-different operators seem equally matched in the legal parts of the USA, Spain and the many countries that, for tax and political reasons, are fragmenting. Stars has a poor name in some of those regions (in part due to its stance on UIGEA in c.2006), and Sky may be a better vehicle, in part due to its excellence in its restricted country offering. Let's hope so. In addition, Sky could be run in a way both different to, and complementary with, Stars.
Forums can create/enhance loyalty, which is increasingly important in today's poker (and to a lesser extent, gambling) marketplace. I completely agree with Duesenberg on this. Sky has been swimming against the tide until recently, but it is interesting that Unibet has recently copied Sky's strategy in this regard.
That's a good post @Essexphil
If we really think it through, there are all sorts of ways this could develop.
Truth is, we just don't know yet how things will pan out, but I have no plans to sign up to Team Doom & Gloom yet.
Spot on @Essexphil
I really hope Sky Poker with all its features does continue. I love playing on this site. If I go a day without playing on Sky I feel like I've been in a Mars prison colony :-D