Phil Galfond to Start a Poker Site (Launched) - Page 71 - Poker News

Two Plus Two Forums Poker News & Discussion News, Views, and Gossip

Phil Galfond to Start a Poker Site (Launched)

Closed Subscribe

...

Page 71 of 190

First

21 51 61 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 81 91 121 171

Last

Page 71 of 190

First

21 51 61 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 81 91 121 171

Last

03-07-2018 , 05:55 AM

#1751

ItsMattPerry

enthusiast

Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 76

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maverick93

I've been out of the game for over a year now. Can someone pls fill me in on the state of Phil galfonds Rio site?

Exactly the same as a year ago.

03-07-2018 , 06:14 AM

#1752

mrno1324

veteran

Join Date: Feb 2016 Posts: 3,055

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maverick93

I've been out of the game for over a year now. Can someone pls fill me in on the state of Phil galfonds Rio site?

It’s coming 2018

03-07-2018 , 06:16 AM

#1753

destructor

newbie

Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 43

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnibetDavid

I don't want to hijack the thread with Unibet-related issues but as a few things have been brought into question I'd like to make at least one post addressing these and then I'll let the thread get back onto the topic of RIO.

Besides that, I guess I am the only site-rep in this thread and so I can at least give some insight as to how we see it on the other side of the fence.

Not sure I agree that PP is taking the role of an 'improved' Stars, moreso that they are trying to grab the players dissatisfied with Stars and imo it's quite a short-term gamble which could backfire if ecology of the site is not taken fully into consideration.

Regardless of the strategy RIO take, the wider ecosystem of the site can't be brushed under the rug (and I doubt it will be). I get the sense that the poker 'dream' of being able to move up through the stakes in beatable games will be catered for, which is a good thing for everyone.

I don't think it's a miracle that it has worked for us, I think it'll eventually be the only way for sites to be sustainable. Most of your points seem to come from the perspective of a pro, but you have to appreciate that the vast majority of players on a healthy online poker site are not pros and they don't care about the same things. Sadly the vocal minority of pro players is shrinking by the month due to the present industry conditions - you only have to look at the volume of posts on a site like 2+2 over the last few years to notice the difference and it's a sad state of affairs. Changes like this aren't made to penalise pros, they're made to make the game sustainable.

This is still an issue but it's one which is being addressed - in the short term we take action at every opportunity and in the longer term I think it'll cease to be an issue.

I have to respond to this because you've actually got our ethos backwards. We're a team of 8 ex-poker pros who are in our jobs precisely because we want to leave a positive legacy on the game we love and have an opportunity to make a lasting impact on the game and particularly it's sustainability. I can't speak for motivations at Stars or anyone else, but I can absolutely speak for Unibet Poker (where I am Head of Poker).

Unibet Casino is more than 20 times the size of Unibet Poker, and we (the poker product) gain far more by xselling from casino than they gain by xselling from poker. We are an established casino and sportsbetting site looking to establish a sustainable online poker site, not the other way around, and that's an important difference. For every casino button we place at a poker table, thousands of casino players are sent communication reminding them about that month's poker offers. It helps us to grow the poker site and it's a benefit for all of our players. I can understand how you reached the conclusion you did but I certainly don't feel comfortable with that picture being painted of us and our staff.

Poker isn't a loss leader for Unibet and it's not there to 'tempt' players into other games. We were on the same downward trend in 2013 as everyone else and were faced with the stark choice - either take a risk and try to build a poker site which is actually sustainable or stop offering poker altogether. At no point did someone rub their hands together and say 'but how much can we make from them in casino?'. Unibet Poker exists as quite an autonomous entity and for the most part we are left to get on with building and running a site in the best way that we see fit. If RIO has the right conditions in place then I imagine they will benefit massively from having a similar team and ethos in place but they will have to think about what makes the game sustainable and not just what players on 2+2 would like to see. It's in your interests in the long-term that they do.

+1000

03-07-2018 , 06:54 AM

#1754

LektorAJ

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2014 Posts: 7,826

Quote:

Originally Posted by SageDonkey

poker players being tempted into non poker gaming products.

Then they are not strictly speaking "poker players", just gamblers. I consider myself a poker player because I'm not tempted.

As for HUDs there is the argument that "I'm worried about bots so need to datamine to protect the other players." which I summarized a few years ago as:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LektorAJ

A better analogy would be "I'm afraid of my hot neighbour being violated by a sex maniac so I've installed hidden cameras in her living room, bedroom and bathroom and am keeping regular watch with binoculars."

It should be done at the site end of course. A weak point for Unibet that they don't track if people are running above or below all-in EV - at least people (mostly riggies) requesting this information are told it isn't tracked. That was one of the ways the PLO card sharing bots on PS were caught - hopefully Galfond will be tracking that.

Last edited by LektorAJ; 03-07-2018 at 07:01 AM.

03-07-2018 , 09:19 AM

#1755

MCAChiTown

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 1970 Posts: 3,532

Quote:

Originally Posted by LektorAJ

It should be done at the site end of course.

You can't possibly trust the sites to do this effectively on their own. That would be very naive. In an ideal world we would be able to trust them to root out every cheater and not cheat the players themselves. History has shown that we shouldn't because almost every site has had cheaters discovered by the players who were able to use a database. As these sites move towards anonymous models or giving players the ability to constantly change nicknames the cheaters have become harder to discover due to small hand sample sizes being inadequate enough data to prove anything. As much as I like and respect Phil Galfond I wouldn't put blind trust in him to root out every cheater himself. There's ways to deter HUD use and bumhunting while still allowing player analysis off the tables.

03-07-2018 , 11:49 AM

#1756

Eselsbrucke

banned

Join Date: Feb 2018 Posts: 20

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpinMeRightRound

Huge projects like these are always massively delayed, literally always. The developers are always way too optimistic with time frames + badly organised in general. So if they say the site will be out in a year, add at least 2 years to that figure.

I'd be amazed if this site is launched within the next 2 years. It will take at least that long to get everything up and running. Add another 1 year for things to be completely smoothed out (there's always bugs that need to be fixed), plus another 1 year for word to get round so that traffic is at a half decent level on the site.

You're looking at at least 4 years from now before the site is even half decent.

Personally I don't think the site will ever be close to somewhere like Pokerstars - there will be too many regs and not enough fish. Like someone else said, no one outside the tight-knit poker reg community has even heard about this site. Maybe some losing players will switch to this site, but definitely not enough to sustain all the regs who will play there. They just won't have the marketing budget/brand recognition of a place like Pokerstars, PartyPoker or 888 to attract enough bad players.

Thank you for the detailed reply, very interesting. I didn't realise it would be so difficult to get at least something up and running. If what you say is correct I would think that the whole project could be a bad idea at this point since poker seems to be on the decline in general. In addition, with the increasing threat of bots, poker could start to decline even more rapidly within the next few years. Would it really be worth the risk to put in years of work to build a poker site under these circumstances? Even if it was to make profit, would it not be a better move to put all that time, money and effort into a more profitable and secure venture? At least from a financial perspective this does not seem like a good move. What odds do you give that the site happens at all?

03-07-2018 , 08:34 PM

#1757

Nooseknot

banned

Join Date: Oct 2017 Posts: 1,051

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mason Malmuth

Hi cranberry:

The Negreanu argument describes a situation that virtually can’t exist, and if it somehow did exist, it wouldn’t last long.

Best wishes,
Mason

This was overlooked at the time and is being overlooked now. Daniel sold a lie and involving a game theoretical situation between two different "casino offerings". There are many players in this thread that do not understand the point Mason has made. This is why the concept of effective rake, by the definition of "profitability from the players view", is so important to have.

The Unibet rep wonders why when he comes to the thread to profess that casino games help their poker offerings he is implied to be a liar. Regardless of the truth of unibets model, poker stars gave the players similar sentiments while fleecing the entire field-so there are justifiably cautious I think.

How is it poker stars seems to be draining poker with their casino model, but unibet is attracting poker recs from their casino games? And is that really a net benefit?

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnibetDave

Pros shouldn't be ostracized but taking fair rake and rewards as a given, policies like no HUDs and no seat selection outside of MTTs are necessary in this day and age and should become the norm on all sites. A new player jumping into games on most sites nowadays faces an incomparably more difficult (and less enjoyable) game than they did 10-15 years ago and that's what all sites need to address.

HUDs aren't really a problem if the games are profitable and so i think maybe you are jumping to a conclusion that an operator might have but a player might not perfectly agree with in regard to the solution and the problem. This is true in regard to "difficulty" comparing to 10-15 years ago also.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnibetDave

If you're a pro and plan to be for more than the next 12 months then it's also in your own long term interest that sites address this.

Is there any better way to address this than leaving otherwise raked money within the players pool? How would increasing rake help this? Or in other words, you seem to be implying re: the poker stars model, that the players should rightfully take concessions. So are you of the opinion that taking more money from the players pool can somehow help the games and that "pros" should make these increased rake/decreased skilled money concessions?

03-08-2018 , 02:11 AM

#1758

cramble

journeyman

Join Date: Jan 2017 Posts: 260

Quote:

Originally Posted by SageDonkey

Apologies everyone reading this thread, but this is a very long reply, but it does IMO explain the smoke and mirrors behind why poker sites aggressively offer other gaming products on their web sites and why most of them don't care about cash games being as beatable as they once were and there not being the volume or stakes of cash games that once existed.

Yes I agree, but only in the sense that if I were a cold blooded investor in a new on line poker platform, I'd be insisting on luring the players into as many forms of gaming as possible to maximise my return and to bust them, get them into debt, and put them on life tilt etc in the most clinical, calculating and as efficient way as possible.

However, this is IMO against the ethos of poker, it being a game where you are not playing against the house but merely paying the house a service charge for the opportunity to play against and potentially out skill your opponents.

Not only does luring poker players into other gaming products damage the large micro and small stakes base of the poker eco system pyramid, but it causes damage throughout the tiers of the pyramid going higher up. Other gaming products all take money out of the pyramid ultimately resulting in the destruction of games at all buy ins.

I believe this effect is much more a certainty and a reality in cash games, because cash games are effectively a much higher turnover of funds for a player due to a buy in being at risk frequently in a hand, whereas players playing tournaments risk losing a buy in over a bigger group of hands and a longer period of time in a tournament. Plus someone trying to make $500 in a $1/$2 cash game might risk a short term bank roll of $1500 to do so whereas to make $500 in a tournament many players will play 5 x $50 buy ins or 50 x $10 buy in comps.

This is why tournaments are the saviour for on line poker sites because they can get away in the short run with damaging or destroying the poker eco system cash game pyramid knowing that players will always continue to play tournaments due to their favourable risk/reward profile in comparison to cash games.

In short, most (nearly all) on line poker sites would much rather players to lose their money direct to the house on non poker gaming products than to another cash game player, and a constant floating bait on the water to procure new players and to retain existing players is on line tournament poker, and usually a live poker tour to make the bait even more attractive.

You used Unibet as an example. Well they have been praised for running one of the best and most friendly live poker tours and for eradicating bots and unfair software aids in on line poker on their site. However, they introduced poker after their other gaming products existed, and if you play any stakes of poker, small or large, on Unibet you can easily click on live casino and bet up to €5K per hand on Blackjack etc.

So it is no wonder from a business perspective that Unibet are pulling out all the stops with their poker products. They can run them as a loss leader and still profit out of them due to the potential and the reality of the above that many players will be tempted into other gaming products.

Yes all of the above about being crazy from a business point of view not to offer other gaming products is true, however, Pokerstars proved initially that you can build a pure volume based poker only web site and make it profitable. Yes it was during and included a period of general poker growth in the world and before Black Friday etc, but none the less the business model was and is still there that on line poker is a very scalable business with huge economy of scale operational cost benefits as volumes grow.

I can't be bothered to go through all the old figures but I believe Amaya paid something like $4 Billion to take over Pokerstars, at a high PE ratio, with a big chunk of this money borrowed to finance the deal, so immediately they were under pressure not only to satisfy the expectations of a good ROI for investors and share holders but were also under pressure to increase revenues to service the payments and interest on the debt.

This changes the whole profile of how they operated. Under private ownership if someone owns a company that's say worth $2 Billion on paper and is making and paying themselves a dividend of $100 Million per year then obviously they can incorporate a fairer ethos into how they run their business.

But clearly someone who comes in and takes over that same company and pays what some people thing was an inflated price for it, borrowing money to do so, then they very likely cannot retain a fair ethos.

So IMO to a large extent what Pokerstars (Stars Group) are doing now and what others do such as Unibet are red herrings as to how an on line poker site business should be run and the ethos that it should have.

Run with the correct ethos of giving players the opportunity by using skill and improving their game to move up the buy in pyramid will create a sustainable poker only business, because it is not greedily destroying the money supply of losing players by quickly busting them / swallowing up their available poker playing money on non poker gaming products. A more patient approach will earn just as much money, or more, in the long run from those very same players, because people have jobs and earn money each month so will come back time and again and spend their poker budget at your web site. You don't need to take 6 months of this budget in a week or a day from them, it is better in the long run to have them as long term loyal players.

As I mentioned in my previous post, a poker operator needs to be brave enough, well financed enough and have the support of their investors to adopt a poker only web site, but I do believe that if someone is brave enough to do so and runs it very well that ultimately they will gain most of the poker players from other sites which at the same time would cut off the blood supply of competitor sites who basically are trying to lure poker players into the Venus flytrap of non poker gaming products.

You need Strunk and White. It will change your life. Look it up.

You will thank me someday.

03-08-2018 , 02:33 AM

#1759

cramble

journeyman

Join Date: Jan 2017 Posts: 260

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnibetDavid

You're effectively just calling me a liar now because it fits with your narrative that all gambling sites are evil. Players can (and often do) self-exclude from casino while still playing poker.

Also, you still have our ethos backwards.

'but they will have to think about what makes the game sustainable and not just what players on 2+2 would like to see'

does not =

'This is him basically saying that one should accept that to sustain on line poker you have to be a cold, clinical and ruthless gaming operator offering other gaming products.'

Wrong. It is me alluding to the two major hurdles I mentioned in my first post:

1. attracting masses of casual players
2. having games attractive enough to retain those players

Please don't take it personally when I say 'not just what players on 2+2 would like to see', with the emphasis on the 'just'.

Thank you for coming here and contributing your unique insight to this thread.

Please don't feel the need to continue debating each point ad infinitum; some posters here will tie you up in endless spaghetti if given the opportunity. The community understands this, and knows to look past it. It's safe to move on.

03-08-2018 , 02:49 AM

#1760

Sect7G

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,234

Quote:

Originally Posted by cramble

Well said.

Just like to add that there's a huge difference between Unibets argument and Pokerstars' in regards to moving players from Poker to Casino and vice versa.

Pokerstars started with a huge POKER base.
Unibet started with a huge CASINO base.

So it's only natural that more current players on Pokerstars would try out Casino games as a new product... and only natural that on Unibet a huge Casino base would try out a new product in poker.

As for anyone criticizing Unibet Pokers unique method of business (well not really unique as others have started copying them) the numbers speak for themselves. The site has grown over the past few years where as nearly all other sites have contracted. They must be doing something right.

03-08-2018 , 02:51 AM

#1761

illdonk

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,997

People who think poker players need to be aggressively lured and tempted into other kinds of gambling must be playing with a different crowd than I'm used to.

03-08-2018 , 02:58 AM

#1762

Nooseknot

banned

Join Date: Oct 2017 Posts: 1,051

Quote:

Originally Posted by cramble

What are you speaking to here? There are intelligent players here that are quite worth engaging with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sect7G

Pokerstars is moving to games with higher effective rake, Unibet is moving players over to their poker products. These are contrasting views I think.

03-08-2018 , 08:00 AM

#1763

LektorAJ

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2014 Posts: 7,826

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sect7G

To add to this for people who doubt it. If 5 percent of previous poker players become mainly casino players, and 5 percent of previous casino players become mainly poker players, on pokerstars that represents a net loss for poker while on Unibet that represents a net gain for poker. (this doesn't even count those who just play both and more in total).

03-08-2018 , 08:15 AM

#1764

MATT111

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,008

Quote:

Originally Posted by LektorAJ

Can you link me to a source for that?
I am not sure if you are referring to the MSPLO bot ring. If so, to my knowledge, card sharing has never been proven. They were caught based on playing stats afaik. Or are you talking about sth else?

03-08-2018 , 10:52 AM

#1765

Nooseknot

banned

Join Date: Oct 2017 Posts: 1,051

Quote:

Originally Posted by LektorAJ

What about the net effects for each site?

03-08-2018 , 12:04 PM

#1766

illdonk

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,997

It seems like people are overestimating the difference between one site offering multiple gambling options and these same players depositing on multiple sites.

Are players really being tempted into sports/casino gambling that they never otherwise would have considered? Or are they now able to consolidate the gambling they were already doing?

The conversation treats a player's $500 in casino/sports bets on a primarily poker site (or vice versa) as massively different than if that same player deposited $500 less to begin with and did their sports betting on a dedicated casino/sports site.

03-08-2018 , 12:13 PM

#1767

SageDonkey

banned

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 2,743

Quote:

Originally Posted by illdonk

Clearly not all new poker player sign ups will deposit for poker and then click on casino, nor will all players who play poker on multiple poker sites click on casino.

However, there is a reason why the chocolate bars and sweets (candies) are placed in an easily accessible place next to where you queue and pay at the checkout in a supermarket.

Also, when someone is stuck money playing poker on a site that also offers casino, casino is just another option of tilt for them.

Tilt is a part of the game but it's obviously way better for the poker eco-system that a player tilts to other poker players rather than pours their tilt money into the black hole that is casino games.

03-08-2018 , 12:25 PM

#1768

David Lyons

old hand

Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 1,459

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnibetDavid

Great post, David.

03-08-2018 , 12:36 PM

#1769

illdonk

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,997

It’s the internet. Everything is an impulse buy a click away, including sports/casino betting sites.

Again, you’re arguing that if the poker site doesn’t offer casino/sports betting then the players won’t know about them, won’t ever play them, etc. That hasn’t been my experience or those of my gambling friends, who have had accounts on multiple sites. Instead of reloading for the poker game they place some sports bets.

There’s some effects for ease/convenience, but it’s misleading to assume that if a poker site stays “pure” it means its clientele will as well.

03-08-2018 , 12:38 PM

#1770

David Lyons

old hand

Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 1,459

Quote:

Originally Posted by SageDonkey

Somebody playing a 10c/25C NLHE cash game or a €5 MTT can within a few seconds gamble 100s or even 1000s of Euros on a casino game.

One of the fallacies of the poker vs casino discussion is that chance of a player winning at poker is ALWAYS greater than the chance of a player winning at casino.

Ask yourself this next time you set foot in a casino; do you think a new / casual player with $100 will see that money last longer at the roulette table or at the poker table?

Many answer this by saying "well you CAN have a positive expectation at poker and you CAN'T at roulette", therefore poker is better for all players ... this is of course 100% correct in theory, but for the new player or recreational player the reality is frequently very different.

I work in poker, love poker, play poker, and read and write about poker constantly; but if I took a friend to my local casino who had never gambled before, I'd tell them they'd have a much better time at the roulette table with $100 than sitting at a $1/2 game with $100*.

The above is the freaking reason that limit poker was invented; as the game became more popular in casinos they needed a way to stop the local regs fleecing the casuals in a couple of hands, and get more hours per dollar gambled. Whoever came up with that idea, I salute their forward thinking back in the day.

(*Of course I'd tell them to get a poker book or two, watch some online games, play some friendly home games, and get a bit familiar with poker, and THEN sit at $1/$2 and gamble it up.)

03-08-2018 , 02:30 PM

#1771

Nooseknot

banned

Join Date: Oct 2017 Posts: 1,051

Quote:

Originally Posted by SageDonkey

it's obviously way better for the poker eco-system that a player tilts to other poker players rather than pours their tilt money into the black hole that is casino games.

There are multiple new accounts and some regulars here pervading the narrative of this thread that are suggesting what is contrary to what you think is obvious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Lyons

You have perfectly misapplied the logic of expected value. It makes no sense to direct a friend to a game in which they have a lesser ev (considering the stakes etc.). You have made the exact mistake that Negreanu has lead others and you to perpetuate.

It is simply not true, by any means, that net depositors gain by having the profitability lessened.

03-08-2018 , 03:35 PM

#1772

David Lyons

old hand

Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 1,459

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nooseknot

You have perfectly misapplied the logic of expected value. It makes no sense to direct a friend to a game in which they have a lesser ev (considering the stakes etc.).

Why do you assume that the EV in poker of my friend is higher? If he’s worse than the opponents his long term EV is zero. The only difference between this and a table game is how fast he will lose.

03-08-2018 , 03:54 PM

#1773

Nooseknot

banned

Join Date: Oct 2017 Posts: 1,051

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Lyons

Why do you assume that the EV in poker of my friend is higher? If he’s worse than the opponents his long term EV is zero. The only difference between this and a table game is how fast he will lose.

Your ev is going to be related to the bets you make and how fast you lose is going to be related to how many bets you make per period. You aren't implying this. You are implying because of the all in factor in poker someone will lose their money faster and therefore given equal ev situations they should play blackjack. You are also implying that the ev of a rec gambler playing blackjack is higher than their ev playing poker.

I forgot to mention that you also implied no limit was created before limit, I was under the impression this isn't how it evolved.

Nonetheless you either direct your friend towards a game in which the house always has a +ev and you can never have one, or a game in which you can have a positive expectation. You have twisted logic to come to a conclusion that they are better off playing jackpot games.

03-08-2018 , 04:16 PM

#1774

vesku

centurion

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 176

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nooseknot

You are clueless about the real world.

03-08-2018 , 04:37 PM

#1775

Nooseknot

banned

Join Date: Oct 2017 Posts: 1,051

Quote:

Originally Posted by vesku

You are clueless about the real world.

You have ample opportunity to point out what I am clueless about rather than just throwing out a character attack without contributing to the discussion.

Page 71 of 190

First

21 51 61 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 81 91 121 171

Last

Closed Thread Subscribe

...

Page 71 of 190

First

21 51 61 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 81 91 121 171

Last