Run It Once Poker Room Rake-Back: Opinion
Ive been distracted lately, so I havent finished the last part of my introduction. Ive been watching some PLO training videos and one of the topics is playing at sites that have a low rake and good rake-back. I play at PokerStars and intend to continue until I improve my game. I know it rake may be higher than other sites, but for the moment it meets my needs while I am focused on improving my game.
I came across a thread where they were discussing Phil Galfonds poker room Run It Once and their 51% rake-back. Their poker room is currently running in beta mode. Although their rake-back is high, I probably won't be playing there.
Disclaimer: I have not played on Run It Once, my opinion is based on the *** Official Run It Once Poker Thread *** in the Internet Poker forum and the RIO poker site content, especially the rake and rewards article. The links to the thread and article are below. I also posted this in the Run It Once thread.
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...hread-1735454/
https://www.runitonce.eu/news/7-rake-and-rewards/
Their strategy is to have a higher initial rake, but to have a rake-back for everyone of 51%, claiming a net lower rake than other sites. But its how you get that rake-back that may be the problem.
Phil Galfond states everyone gets 51% rake-back but do they really? The mechanism they use for rake-back is to use the 51% to randomly splash the pots (STP) with from 1 to 1,000bb. Problem is that this affects the play of the game, which I believe favors LAGs and maniacs.
I play microstakes PLO for a hobby and like many others I am trying to improve my game. I dont want to jeopardize my bankroll by playing in crazy games. Yet this is what seems to happens at the Run It Once poker room.
Greg20 posted on the *** Official Run It Once Poker Thread *** thread that he folded QTT4r preflop when a pot was splashed with 800bb. The reason he folded is that he and another player had built up a 300bb stack and he didnt want flip for it.
Based his hand strength against 5 random hands, one that has a 300bb stack, the others having about 100bb, and a STP of 800bb, going all-in would have a +ev of 140bb. The reality is that in this situation there is no skill required here, just a willingness to gamble and endure the wild swings.
Since he chose not to gamble his rake-back will be less than the 51% quoted on their website. The LAGs, maniacs and others loose players will achieve more than 51%.
In the thread there were comments both positive and negative regarding splashed pot. Those that were negative seemed to be about increased variance.
Lets look at when the pot is splashed with 3 big blinds
Say the UTG raises pot preflop, the button calls, the blinds fold. Otf, UTG bet 60%, button calls. On the turn, UTG bets 80%, button calls. On the river, UTG bets 50%, button calls.
With a normal hand, the pot size would be 8.5/19/49/97bb on the pre/flop/turn/river. If you splash the pot with 3bb, then the pot size is 17.5/38/100/200, so you would be all-in with 100bb stacks.
SPR on the flop for the normal hand is 11.4, and for the splashed pot it is 5.3, this is a huge difference on how the hand will be played.
Im not saying dont play there. Im just asking the question does playing there meet your goals. If your current goal is to maximize your win rate and you are a loose player, it probably does. If you are playing microstakes and trying to improve your game, it may not.
If you are going to play there, here is what I would consider proper strategy for pots splashed with 1,000bb with six players and 100bb stacks.
You need a minimum of 6.25% equity (ignoring the rake). Assuming everyone goes all-in, the final pot will be 1,600bb
With 6.25% equity you will win on average 100bb, which is 0ev (0.0625 x 1,600bb = 100bb)
Strategy: Fold all quads + a few others, play everything else
AAAA = 5.7% dont play, ev = -8.8bb
9222r = 4.1% dont play, ev = -34.4bb
9222ss = 6.59% basically flipping, excluding the rake, ev = +5.4bb
Q722r = 9.2% play, ev = +47.2bb
J742r = 9.1% play, ev = +45.6bb
Given the small number of unplayable hands, only folding quads would be okay.