I haven't played on RIO yet, mainly because of the current cost of depositing from the UK.

I read the RIO thread and it seems that one of the major reasons others aren't playing there as much as we probably all expected is because of players being anonymous.

I'm curious if permanent or semi-permanent SNs for players were enabled, (not that they might ever be), would that be the one big thing that would tempt you to play there regularly?

I've added a simple, non-scientific poll. If there's any interest in this thread and you would like me to try to add other questions, please let me know.

(If you already play on RIO, please select best option that suits. Add a post, accordingly, if you wish.)

Thank you.

*

(Edit: This is a post made in a personal capacity. I have no connection whatsoever with RIO and all views and comments stated are my own.)

Voted --> I don't play, for other reasons.

The main reason I'm not playing full-time at Run It Once is the software, it is still not stable for long sessions play, it crashes very often wich is unacceptable for my standard. I do still support the site from time to time but the bugs stop me from playing there regularly.

Wouldn't play, NLHE is boring

Voted cannot play because I'm in the Land of the Free. I'm not a fan of anonymous poker in general though.

I thought the plo runs more often than nl?

And voted would play there if the sns were similar to mpn and ub.

I'd play but I downloaded the software once and zero tables running nl or plo.

Tried it out for a few days but don't like anon, don't like the cost of depositing from the UK and don't play cash. I'll probably give them another try when SNGs are finally released AND if they're not anon SNGs.

Don't mind anonymous, but can't play from US. If it was open to US, there would be more players, I presume. Their offerings would increase with volume. But ole Phil wants to keep it on the up and up, so missing huge market in US. There is so much competition outside the US, which is why the model might be failing.

I think I have a better question to pose but I don't know where it would be appropriate and its very relevant to your poll. I think the community should debate all of the qualities between coinpoker and rio poker.

I think it would change the industry (immediately) to open up that debate. I also think it would open Phils eyes to his mistakes in choosing the legacy model rather than the updated one I designed and coinpoker implemented (I'm not claiming im responsible for coinpoker here)

Coinpoker scammed their initial investors out of 99% of their investments by intentionally devaluing the tokens. That's not a business model I'd like RIO to take.

A lot of that investment you refer to as "scam" was cashed out out by the player pool and the players were very happy about that and happy to help test and bootstrap. It was free money didn't you participate? You prob didn't understand the business model. Also a lot of that investment came from the private owners that funded the site and they were very happy to "lose" it.

A case in point for why I think the discussion/debate should be opened.

Btw: I don't play rio because of signup/deposit friction. Its the payment processor method that I don't want to deal with.

Please feel free to start a new thread in the most appropriate forum.

However, I'd appreciate it if you don't use this thread as the place for debate about another topic, thanks.

Iirc the initial tokens were 25c, those were quickly devalued to well under 1c by coinpoker deciding to deliberately devalue their tokens. That's the reason they didn't succeed (other than collecting those initial deposits for themselves). There's a reason no-one has heard of coinpoker after their initial advertising session on 2+2.

Number 1 - will only play again if they have an option of SN plus dialogue box.
Excellent poll, hope they take note of the results.

I am not a serious player and the anon tables have never bothered me when I have played. The reason I did not join, even though I intended to deposit when I downloaded the client, was that there was like 4 people playing. I dont want to have to deposit and not be able to play at all at the stakes I want to play.

Anyone else surprised the site still exists?

I'm not going to vote, since I'm in a restricted market and I try to play anything that moves or exists in any way at low stakes...

But I'll leave my thoughts. I would play either way, but I also prefer to play poker with unique usernames for players.

I think the biggest issue is really bringing more liquidity to the site. It needs more marketing in youtube and other social media.

Some ideas. Happy hours with reduced rake outside of primetime hours; leaderboards of winrates (not of volume), and biggest winner of the week plays a HU freeroll against a known pro (Phil, JNandez etc) and you post a clip of it on youtube. Promotions like that. Maybe a match of the biggest winner of the month in NL with biggest winner in PLO (in similar stakes) with added prize.

Sadly they don't seem to care very much about the public's opinions. And you see they're paying dearly for that attitude.

I also am guessing they never established much of a marketing budget, believing that their StreamR program would be virtually free marketing for them, and would get the job done well enough.

Unfortunately, they learned the hard way that nobody wants to stream your site if it isn't active! So if you need streamers to get you activity, and if you need activity in order to get streamers, it's the classic chicken-and-egg problem. Oops!

The whole project was a mess from early on. It was well intentioned, but the decisions have been mind-bogglingly bad, and the response to their struggles have been remarkably tone-deaf.

Basically what that guy is saying:
https://www.runitonce.com/chatter/we...s-zynga-poker/

I have never played and, at this point, I am unlikely to ever play.

Initially, considering their training site, I was hoping it would be a low rake reg-fest, like PokerStars but better: a site where I would be happy to battle regs because I wouldn't have to worry (too much) about the rake.

Instead, they chose to go "rec friendly" like almost everyone else: no HUD, low table cap, anonymous, splash the pot "fun" (do regs care about that nonsense?).

This is a very strange decision because most of their market comes from their training site, that is, poker players, professional or not, who take poker very seriously. Instead, they have built a poker software to attract recs, i.e. people who will go on a poker site because they see an ad on TV or at the local bookie. Ironically, these are the people who are the most unlikely to have heard of RIO.

I think they have too many negatives (imo).
Anonymous
No hud
Partial note taking (only for the session)
Players can double up and go south
Splash the pot

I voted for screen names. That is probably still not enough for me to play on the site again. I would need 50% rake back as well, not in the form of stp but just plain old regular rake back.

I played when it first launched and did not like it.

Every site has been built up by professionals and regulars. Early days it's always regs and pros that provide liquidity, you have to cater to them if you want your site to get off the ground. Not sure what Phil is thinking but he's def not thinking about them.

Once the site has a few hundred players, you can start to think about change but right now his priority needs to be getting liquidity from regs and pros. He can easily get reg battles going on and a few hundred players should be easy, especially at micro/lower stakes. Those players don't mind playing with regs.

I'm a tournament player, that's why I don't play there.
I'm also not overly excited about anonymous poker, I don't care about hud, but I like to see my stats and who am I playing against.

And of course, if there is no traffic, no one wants to play.....

I don't play for 2 reasons:
1. Anonymous. Tried it (played several thousand hands on RIO) and it's even worse when their client crashes and you rejoin lobby and have no idea if the players at your table are the same ones from 1 min ago.
2. deposit/withdraw options. When I tried I had to use astropay and their customer service is terrible. Looks like they do credit cards now (would reconsider if they removed anon screen names).

how will he verify hu that the other person isn't cheating? its (near) impossible.

Land of the free, but Anonymous would keep me away. Too easy for collusion/bots.