Regulators can do whatever they want to, so long as they comply with the prevailing winds in their jurisdiction.

Stars is not the only current NJ licensee to dabble in grey or black gambling markets.

Hi sir,
With all due respect, could you not derail this thread with Stars-related stuff please ?
I'm sure RIO team know what they're doing in regards of US legislation and other ones, so I'm not sure how these info would be relevant in this thread.

Sorry to sound a bit vindictive, but I hate what Stars became and I applaud Phil Galfond's effort to bring back some trust in a corrupted online poker landscape, so let this thread talking about RIO.

What about you joining the beta-testing if not yet ? I reckon you worked in the software industry if I'm not wrong, you could maybe give some interesting feedback and ideas ?

fair enough. I understand. Sry for derail. I have a passing interest in the global regulatory tree a new site would follow, Stars is sort of intertwined in that. No more Stars talk from me. Eff the pros

Regarding input. would love to but I'm in murica so we cant play.

General input for any large software project. Take your original $$ budget estimate and double it. Take your original timeline and triple it.

You can have new software this is either good, fast or cheap. Pick any two. Cant have all three.

After participating in beta last two days I have to gladly say that RIO picked good and fast.

Sure there still were couple bugs(although the 2nd day went really smooth for me on MAC client), functionality needs to be expanded in terms of bet slider customisation etc. and for me personally it's a bit on a cartoonish(but tasteful) side.

But I was impressed by the overall quality of the software in terms of graphics, sounds, animation, etc. where it definitely didn't feel cheap at all. It creates a really good experience for the player IMO.

Well done RIO

Yesterday was my second beta session. Overall i think the RIO team have created a really nice site. Without being too negative there seems to be ongoing issues with the application crashing during hands. I had it happen to me 3 times over a 4-5 hour period. (support refunded the money in a hand where I flopped a boat)

On a positive note, the software (look) is amazing, avatars are cool, emotes are EPIC and cashouts are really quick. (money was in bank account within 72 hours)

I can't imagine the RIO launch is too far away now

I am personally less excited about RIO poker after beta testing then before.
Software is good but there was decent number of bugs. I am not expecting launch to happen coming months.

There is some super strange readable files in their install folder referring to skethy domains ect. and other information potentially leaking what going on/coming up.

Sounds like they are off to great start

normal to have bugs in beta testing. thats the purpose.

Point taken though on your estimate of impact that could have on launch date.

They would be the only ones to have any info on that.


Also, the two RIO threads are getting intermingled (I made that mistake). Hard to follow beta feedback in both threads.

prob best to make all beta comments in other thread

i could barely play, was super laggy for me.

Thanks so much! I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Obviously, I completely agree on your critiques. We've got a long queue of improvements that we'd like to make.

Do you feel like, based on your experience the 2nd day, that you'd play on it regularly if it were open to the public, or would you wait until more things were fixed?

We certainly aren't planning to launch without making ANY improvements, but we are constantly wrestling with where the line is, and players like you are in the best position to give us insight. From my perspective, having designed the product from the ground up, I probably see 10 times the flaws (and missing features) as you do, so I'm not a good judge of "good enough."

Did you test on Tuesday or Wednesday or both? What time(s)?

You should've only been experiencing lag during about 1.5hrs of Tuesday's test, I believe.

I can confirm the accuracy of this.

Based on my 2nd day experience I would play regularly on it as is.

The 2nd day was smooth sailing for me and I didn't experience any problems that others have mentioned. Maybe because I'm playing on a MAC not Windows.

FWIW, I'm completely behind your project from the ideological perspective so I might be more willing to look past the lack of certain features etc. and be easier to please than a neutral customer perhaps would be.

Regardless, I enjoyed playing on your client more than on most clients that are currently out there. As long as you feel it would be stable as the number of players increases I'd say don't be too much of a perfectionist nit

Best of luck!

hey, how high will the rake be at the micros? like also 9bb/100 for 5nl eg?

also how high will rakeback be?

enjoying your micro vids on rio atm and started opening pot instead of 3x to take more pots down w/o paying rake, seems to work so far

I've been playing online for last 10 years, tried about every site, and i gotta make the emphasis : seating scripts are killing the game. Fish feels like being hunted, legit regs needs them otherwise they dont get action, overall it gives a very predatory feeling to the game. From what i've seen, no site had any way to deny them.

Please make it 4 tables max if you dont find any way to counter seating scripts, otherwise it's very bad for the ecosystem

EDIT : just realized it's a pool of tables and you dont get to choose seat right ? I'd still make it 4 tables max if it was me,especially at opening since games will be tougher, gets every reg the chance to get good action

^ in fairness RIO is tackling all those problems you listed.

You don’t get to choose a seat, you click on a stake and then select how many tables you want to play. There are no HUDs allowed and they would be almost useless even if someone was to somehow track the hands illegally, given the fact the all players are given a psyeduonim name while playing at the table.

I believe notes on players only last 4 hours too

RIO seems like its gonna be great, please 4 tables cap though

Why?

results in less tanking, better for the ecosystem

I think 6 tables are reasonable.

You have to let the site have a chance to generate enough games to collect enough rake. This in turn will give them more flexibility on charging the least amount of rake possible.

why would a site want to do this? I would think they would do the exact opposite.

Because of their stated intent. And I'm talking specifically about RIO, not any site.

RIO's mission was always to facilitate a more profitable game for the players, which equals lower rake(with some other factors of course). This was in response to the changing landscape of ever increasing rake.

To achieve their objectives they need an opportunity to generate enough rake so that they would have flexibility in how much they charge. That's why I'm not against 6 table cap, although in a vacuum I would probably prefer 4.

maybe yes maybe no on lower rake, there are other ways to create better games which that might or might not be a part of.

And yes, they have communicated a mission to have a new and better model, but I'm not sure any company's goal is to minimize revenue.

Their goal isn't to minimise revenue.

Their goal is to provide a more profitable game for the players compared to what's currently available.

Which translates into how deposits are distributed between players and a provider. Most direct way to increase players share is through lower rake.

Of course their revenue will be lower as a result unless their model attracts more players than the site would otherwise.

IIRC Phil was in favor of a 4 table cap but that was met with so much resistance they settled on 6.

Mostly correct. Phil in favor of 4, rest of team 6. It was settled by a vote on the forum.