The argument for a HUD has won even at most sites that tried no-HUD (Cake network, the Finnish-Austrian site). The HUD makes playing easier and more enjoyable. Nick changes (more than once per year?) and no notes are a horrible idea, as one can always work the notes the hard way (or have some private software to deal with it), increasing the work, decreasing enjoyment and gaming. Playing vs. players you don't know, who could be anyone, isn't poker.

There are good and bad sides to not being able to select your tables. Isn't a major issue to me, but when I take a seat at a select table, I am fine, but when I take a seat at a random table, it will take time to see if I should be there or not. The decrease in bum hunting, at some limits (and 1 on 1) it could be implemented, although they have less action at those limits. No need to make it worse overall just because of Negreanu, and it was about seating softwares.

One solution is to have tables that one can have only two open; it doesn't limit the other tables one is free to pick also. This way we limit the downsides of mass-multitabling without business loses. The number one problem is the micro and low limit grinders who do not move up (or play there also); changing that is another way to deal with this problem (must move up).

The HUD is only an issue in a way that some players have it and some do not, but that's up to the sites to make it fair.

P.S. You are working on a site and from most part bring up some solutions (that you use) that have always failed, making it a miracle it has worked for you. That much I agree with. Not being able to select one's table is not a major issue but one can argue against it, as it looks silly and blindfolded, and actually not like in live games (often used as an argument).

As far as Unibet goes there is a hud (Holdem Indicator) and software that players use for hotkeys/table management (Stack and Tile).

It's a similar situation to Party reg tables where you either have to break the rules, play at a disadvantage or avoid playing there. The last part is key, it's a way for them to manage reg numbers while appearing fish-friendly.

Holdem Indicator won't work well on Unibet:
https://www.unibetcommunity.com/t5/G...ator/td-p/1650

SaT no longer supports Unibet:
http://www.stackandtile.com/sat/help/unibet

If you still try using the software, I hope your acc is banned and your money confiscated.

^ Pro uses illegal software and doesn’t give a **** example #64748849449399484741

There are for sure some huge challenges for RIO to run a long term financially sustainable poker site, especially if they intend not to peddle casino games to customers, which most/all of the other sites do. I really hope RIO don't offer casino games as I think having poker only would be a major differentiation between them and their competitors.

There are other "purer" forms of upselling and add on products and options that RIO could offer that would enhance their revenue, not as much as casino games in the short run but in the long run a non casino offering approach I believe is the strategy that could lead to on line poker domination.

The other main operators each have many problems and issues with them, some due to their own bad policy decision making, some due to not running their businesses efficiently or properly, and some other alleged more sinister issues.

So much like playing poker, if RIO come in with a solid strategy, restrict the number of mistakes they make to a bare minimum, and have enough cash behind them to cope with the burn rate until they fully establish themselves, then I see no reason why they can't become table captains of the on line poker industry.

I don't play on Unibet because I don't want to play against others using software. I check out the threads in the software forums on here and it's apparent there's still players using them.

Holdem Indicator has always worked on non-hud sites, it's their whole business plan. The only way to successfully beat them would be daily (or more frequent) client updates that break whatever it is they do, currently Unibet change something and they patch it within a couple of days. Make it so much hassle that they stop providing support.

Check the Stack and Tile thread on here, Andrew asked the dev to stop supporting Unibet so he put that disclaimer on his website. He's since advised people in the 2+2 thread how to get it working on Unibet.

Banning software only works if there's 100% commitment to it. Zero tolerance, seize bankrolls, make it a huge risk. Asking players to play nice and sending a strongly worded email doesn't work. See how many players use scripts on sites where it's technically against the rules.

Could you elaborate on what your "purity" test involves, and explainwhy offering gambling as an ancillary channel fails it ?

fwiw, "table captain" has always been a term of derision, although I suspect you already may have heard it a few times in your playing career.

My view is that if a new poker site offers casino games then they are essentially admitting defeat from day one that online poker alone is not a sustainable business. To offer casino games along side poker is like a Venus flytrap for poker players.

It is not pure, and according to Vicky Coren was the main reason she left Pokerstars as a pro with them
straight after they introduced casino games. https://www.pokernews.com/news/2014/...39.htm?pn=7206

My understanding of the term "table captain" is (now was) the dominant player at the table, but on Googling its definition I see that, as you say, it's a derogatory term. I've never heard the term in live poker but have seen it written in blogs etc.

Given that RIO already have launched Draftboard.com, Fantasy Sports, it would seem likely that they won't be able to resist the temptation of up-selling/cross selling that and other non poker gaming products to their poker clientele.

I hope they don't because it damages the poker eco system which depends for its success on a large base of small stakes players at the bottom of the pyramid who remain players over a decent period of time and who can afford to lose small amounts spread out over a period of time, while they try to improve, get lucky in an MTT or accept their fate as a flat line small losing player.

Luring many of such players into the Venus flytrap will wipe them out quickly and completely thus reducing the size of the bottom of the poker eco system pyramid.

Pokerstars are doing exactly this, with higher rake than previously, with low skill poker variants, and a wide range of casino games, plus sports betting, and whilst they can short term replace a lot of wiped out poker players with fresh players from new geographical territories or from existing territories by using a lot of marketing, eventually the well will run dry, especially as all other major poker operators are doing a similar thing, deploying a similar business model.

Far better to build a sustainable poker only business model IMO which if done well would attract enough poker players. Are RIO brave enough/well funded enough to try this method, or is their thinking and perhaps their investors' thinking to simply maximise every buck of profit by all legal gaming product means necessary?

My prediction is that they'll try a bit of both, they'll have casino games but they'll also say that their poker games are free of unfair software aids, bots and collusion etc. This would be pretty good but still a fudge of sorts if your aspiration is to create the perfect and ultimate on line poker site.

P.S. I self-imposed a 100 word per post limit on myself which was valid until the end of 2017. This is now over. I can and will make short posts the vast majority of the time. This is not one of them because it is a big subject to cover.

Is it that long already?

GVC has tons of money (to invest in poker), b/c it's not a 'poker room only' enterprise. a similar example might be Unibet. so long story short: the mobile gaming market is way too important, to be ignored. this is also the reason why TSG tries to be successful in 'other verticals', simply you can't lay all your eggs in one basket (especially if this basket is an old product and there far more reliable baskets out there)

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.

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.

Thanks for post.

Always helpful to hear from people with working knowledge of a topic.

While I prefer to have a HUD and to be able to seat select, I can live without those if I had to. I will never make a site my main game if I can't look at a database of my opponents' statistics. Players have to be able to track others so that they can be certain that they aren't playing against bots or otherwise being cheated. There is obviously trust issues when it comes to poker sites. History has shown that we can't leave it up to these sites to police everything on their own.

At the Bodog sites(Ignition, Bovada) you can bot in anonymity with little chance of being caught. I can see why many sites are moving in this direction. If the players can't track bots and other cheaters then the sites can still enjoy the massive volume of rake these accounts produce without the negative feedback. The players also have no way of knowing if the offenders have been removed in anonymous games.

If players are allowed to change nicknames it should be on a limited basis. Maybe after 100k hands so that a solid sample of hands can databased for potential cheaters.

There has to be some balance where players can be sure that game integrity is maintained while still making the games a good environment for recreational players.

Well UnibetDavid has to be really naive thinking there are very few HUDs there.
Holdem Indicator is like tip of the iceberg there are at least 2 unofficial under the table converters for unibet that work.
At least Unibet makes them worth a lot less because now you can have only session HUD there because you can always change the nickname etc. (but not while playing).

This is also just a lie to make the generalization that pros are for HUDs because they want to suck out as much money as possible from ecosystem.
Most of the pros are for HUDs for 2 reasons:
1) Sites consitently do terrible job with catching bots without players and database analysis that gradually increase in the complexity as the bots become more and more complex this is impossible to catch them.

Nowadays the best players for Holdem/Omaha on small stakes + are bots or players using illegal real time aids. Thats huge issue.

2) Making huds against T&C makes the situation worse not better.
The HUDs are still avaliable but only for the regs that know where to ask so the honest regs that don't want to break the rules are getting penalized for this.
(Party Poker,Microgaming, GG network,Unibet -they all have "hush hush" HUDs )
The only difference is that they are super expensive (you end up paying XXX eur/month to be able to use one).

On top of that if you play on one of those sites you can't anymore report collusion and bots (because well you need a HUD to be able to spot them in a first place.).



So basically what UnibetDavid is saying is that it is better to have a few cheaters that crush the games than having HUDs allowed for everyone.
Maybe , I have no data to argue with this but at least from a stand point of poker pro I can say it with great confidence that most of poker pros are against HUDs but knowing the ecosystem we just don't see a way to make them gone without some regs still using them and insane increase of botting going on.
Sites don't even understand how many loopholes they have in their security.

In my previous post I omitted a word, so what I was saying is that you could run poker as a loss leader (not that you do), such is the disparity between the size of the poker games you offer and the size of the bets any poker player is a click away from making on the same screen on casino games.

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. If you are really trying to build Unibet poker then you should not allow this to happen, or if the player wants to do this they should have to open a separate unlinked account. It is as plain as day that players are being tempted and lured into playing non poker gambling games.

Perhaps you have been fed a load of nonsense by your higher ups because whilst poker on your site in of itself may, can, probably does make a profit, it is laughable to call it a separate entity when you clearly have multiple other no skill games a click away on the same screen.

Unibet poker might be an autonomous entity but it certainly isn't a separate entity. If it was you would run it on a completely separate platform with no casino games, sports betting, bingo and whatever else you offer visible.

It also remains the fact that if you are genuinely trying to build poker games so that the total player pool grows and the variety and stakes of games grow, then you are damaging this by having casino games etc on offer to poker players.

Put simply, if a building society (for non UK people, that's like a savings bank that offers mortgages and other financial products) wants to build its long term customer base so that customers start small by saving a little and one day get a mortgage with them or invest in a pension scheme, or a butcher's shop wants more customers to come in the shop to buy quality meat and come every week thereafter, then neither of these businesses are going to put a row of slot machines inside their shop.

It is completely ridiculous for anyone to suggest that cross selling non poker gaming products is neither a deliberate business strategy to enhance revenues, nor that it doesn't damage the poker eco-system. It plainly and obviously does both.

Do you need to tard up every single thread?

Why don't you make a counter argument if you disagree with what I'm saying, instead of trolling me.

Pokerstars are clearly leading players towards, higher rake and lower skill poker variants and offering progressively more gaming products and former CEO David Baazov freely stated this in an interview with a financial journalist that to "vertical" as he put it (cross sell) other gaming products to their poker players was a core part of their business strategy.

Unibet may have done things the other way around, other gaming products first and poker afterwards, but the end results (particularly for new sign ups to Unibet poker) are exactly the same.

Unibet's defense is basically, "we don't know about what Pokerstars do, but we are the good guys." Plus there is no acknowledgement that even if them offering casino games etc to poker players is some kind of freak accident of business organisation, that it has the effect of removing money from the poker eco-system thus damaging it.

Other than his slot machines in a butcher shop example I think he's made some decent points. No offense, and you may already know this, but if you consistently find that you don't like the posts that someone makes there is a feature in these forums to block out what that person has to say. Or, as he said, you could make a counter argument.

He didn't read the post he was responding to. I'm about as anti-casino as you can get but the Unibet rep was making the point that due to the size of their existing casino/sports operation cross-selling benefits their poker site more than it harms them.

If you're going to fire off walls of text everywhere SageDonkey at least read the posts you're replying to.

I did read that part but it is not a valid "excuse". Yes some extra players, who usually play casino games might try poker and that could add to the player pool, but that is no protection for players who signed up with Unibet for poker and are then faced with a constant temptation in front of them of other gaming products and of having those products deliberately marketed to them via emails and "special offers" etc.

UnibetDavid also goes on to say, "....... I imagine they (RIO Poker) 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."

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.

Well yes, earlier on I suggested that this would be the view of nearly all investors in an on line poker business; "let's cross sell as many other gaming products as we can".

This is a terrible ethos to have if a company truly loves poker and IMO it would push an on line poker site towards being a company that has no real ethics. Acting perfectly legally, yes, but without proper care and respect for the game of poker.

Let's go back to what Phil Galfond said when he first announced RIO poker as a project:

"I want a fair, honest, transparent poker site that believes in the dream that I have lived. I'm going to give it my best shot." Phil

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'.

I am not calling you a liar, I am saying that you are being unrealistic about poker players being tempted into non poker gaming products.

I am not saying that gaming/gambling sites are evil, but I am saying that my view is that it is unethical to attract a customer for one specific product, i.e. poker which is a game not played against the house, and then have unrelated gaming products which are playing against the house on their screen and/or email marketing those unrelated products to them.

This is what Vicky Coren-Mitchell said in her statement about ending her relationship with Pokerstars
(source: https://www.pokernews.com/news/2014/...rodu-19939.htm)

Coren-Mitchell, who had been with PokerStars since 2007, revealed that her decision was influenced by her own personal principles.

“I can’t hang around, sleep on it, have meetings and talk myself into staying, when my gut tells me that the right thing is to walk away,” Coren-Mitchell wrote. “This is no criticism of PokerStars itself: business is business, they are providing a new service that people want, and I know they intend to abide by some key principles of responsible gaming. It’s not anti-casino either; I spend a lot of time in casinos, and I have been known to indulge in live table gaming.”

She went on to say: “I cannot professionally and publicly endorse it, even passively by silence with my name still over the shop. Poker is the game I love, poker is what I signed up to promote. The question I’m probably asked most often in interviews is about the danger of addiction, going skint and so on. I’m always careful to explain the difference between the essentially fair nature of poker, where we all take each other on with the same basic chance, and those casino games at unfavorable odds which can be (especially online) so dangerous for the vulnerable or desperate.”

And I think she was being kind/diplomatic when she said about casino games, "they are providing a new service that people want", because how many customers when Pokerstars had poker only really emailed them and said I'd really like you have a little icon on the screen so that I can play some blackjack while I am playing poker. I would suggest that the number of poker players who requested this was zero or close to it.

Apologies if I misinterpreted your advice for RIO poker about having the same ethos as Unibet Poker.

I agree with you that 1. attracting masses of casual players, and 2. having games attractive enough to retain those players are essential but I also believe that your own poker model is messed up somewhat by it being too closely linked with your other gaming offerings.

I accept that you have an advantage in maintaining the poker eco system by attracting your existing casino players to poker, but you are also encouraging poker players to the casino games, so the other way around, and that I think is both unethical and damaging to the poker eco system.

As previously mentioned, other poker operators, not just yourselves and Pokerstars, are doing the same thing, attracting people to poker and then cross selling other gaming products which are played against the house and not raked (brokered) by the house.

This is all unethical IMO, so I am aiming my criticism industry wide, and my hope is that RIO Poker can avoid using this tactic and create what I would consider a proper poker site. If they want/need to cross sell other products then IMO those products and services should all be poker related, and there are plenty of products and services that they can upsell/cross sell.

They already have one obvious one, poker training, but there are many more obvious things too.

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?

David please ignore Sage, his existence is a running joke