CantStopCalling, I played the beta and it wasn't reg infested at all. Some people were actually playing terrible. Ultimately the net rake will be a lot lower then stars and party so I think the games will be very beatable, especially the action splashed pots create.

Unibet boast 1% rake in nano stakes but they take far more in fact almost double, triple and even 5x more!

$0.50 pot they take $0.01 (2% Rake)

$1.05 pot they take $0.02 (2% Rake)

or

$0.20 pot they take $0.01 (5% Rake)

Maybe I should read the complete article, but this reminds me of the pokerstars promotion of the billion hands that created quite a bit of action on the tables in small stakes.

But in this case it will be evenly distributed between all players and not just the lucky ones, and the system can't be manipulated (i.e. some regs playing 24tables HU folding all hands so they had more chances of hiting).

There may be variance in the short term but if in the long run this averages out to ~50% I think this is a great idea. It created alot of action on pokerstars cash games, even after winning the large pots and flips. Many times the tables broke soon but on others the action increased and games got more loose after the hand. Though this will be for smaller pots so it won't have as much as big of an impact.

In terms of percentage of relative rake it seems pretty good, but the increased rake caps have me a bit concerned. As I play in pokerstars.fres, more than the rake % what makes the most dent on winnings are the increased caps. Though these ones are somewhat reasonable compared with pokerstars.fres.

Anyway I think it's a cool idea overall.

I'm a bit worried that tables might break too often after splash the pot. Its a cool idea and its hard to give any strong opinion without experiencing it in real setting. Its crucial that these pots happen just the right amount of frequency.

Why? Hard to imagine people leaving the table after 10bb splash.

How is it 51% for everybody, don't you have to win splash pots to get rakeback? Or is splash pot just an extras bonus to make it more entertaining?

That's what it should be imo.

Also I'm almost sure the rake at the lowest limits are too high!

Id rather have 40% rake back straight into my account and play splash the pot with the remaining 11%. That way both the recs and regs are happy. Regs would rather have their rake back without fuss, while recs want to gamble their shirt, make it so we have both.

I don't mind the idea, but would rather have a fixed amount as well, without any hoops to jump through.

Just go on MPN. 30% rakeback into your account every week on all skins, 5% rake, low rake caps, good sign up bonus and join one of the skins through rakerace.com for another 20% rakeback a month.

Personally I think the rake should just be a flat 1.5% at every stake.

This will allow players to last longer and it allows players to move up in stakes.

If players move up in stakes the poker room will get more rake.

With splash the pot people will be busting their accounts more frequently trying to win the dead money in the pot.

This isn't good for a new poker room that needs to keep players playing on the site.

Hey Phil, How will you determine on which tables and how much rake to put out? e.g. if all 10nl tables rake in $100/hour, does that mean the next hour will have $51 distributed across all 10nl tables? is it possible for a person to have sat down for their first hand and get a splash pot for it?


If the site performs less well over a month, will the splash pots decrease in frequency/size? Or is it expected to main a level of consistency?


This idea is genius for keeping the game fresh, offering a different product, and giving bot users headaches. Well played!

So hyped I made a 2+2 account to say I'm hyped

Was the beta real money or play chips?

Probably deserves to be in the strategy section but as 'splash the pot' has only been mentioned here, what's the correct strategy for a 1000 bb splashed pot? Shove all in PF with any two?

If everyone at the table goes allin you're risking 100bb to win 1600bb which means you need 6.25% equity and against 5 other random hands 72o has 8.59%

The threshold for shoving any 2 to win the splashed pot is going to be <100bb. So asking if it's correct for 1000bb is insane.

Is there not an inherent advantage for short stacks with this system?

Looks like it. hmm

Maybe a mandatory rebuy for any stack less than 80bb?

Thank you - this is gonna increase variance a fair bit then!

I think you underestimate what 10bb added to the pot means. It turns a 1/2 game into 5/10 virtually making 100bb stacks into 20bb stacks. Then add the fact that probably at least one person will have less than 100bb stack to begin with and you get a picture how the pot might unfold quite often...

I'm confident that our STP plans will make the overwhelming majority of regs and recs happier than a flat 40% in their account and 11% splashed, and that most players will agree with me after playing for a while, but we'll have to wait and see!

I've done my best in my post to explain our reasoning, but I expected many regs would still feel the way you do when we announced the system, and I understand why you're concerned. I'll keep an open mind and see how things go once we're up and running.

Thank you for your feedback. I very much hope you'll give it a shot and let me know what you think!

Thank you!

The splashes will be randomly triggered based on rake collected from the previous hand, so there's no element of increasing or decreasing rewards over time based on previous splashes.

The splash frequency and distribution will likely change periodically as we alter our configs, based on data and feedback, to find the right balance of large and small splashes, but the Expected Value will remain the same.

Are you eating some weird mushrooms perhaps? I have no idea what are you trying to say.

So you also believe poker is just luck?

^^^^^And variance is what potentially could sabotage this fun and innovative idea IMO.

For a new site player retention is one of the most important things in order for them to grow.

Inevitably, some players will end up on the wrong side of both RB variance and increased game variance due to splash pots. While over time it should even out I'm afraid that a good amount of rec players might be lost because of very steep pre RB rake at the micros.

Imagine playing micros with that rake and running bad in splashed pots for a prolonged amount of time which will happen to some.

It will be really hard to convince such rec player to stay patient and keep depositing because eventually the variance should even out. As a result the chance to retain this player after their initial deposit might be wasted and once they decide they're done with the site it will be even harder to convince them to comeback, even if adjustments to the system are made based on data.

I hope I'm wrong about this.

There's an inherent advantage for short stacks regardless, but yes, they will be more pronounced in the medium-large splashed pots.

We only allow for 100bb buy-ins, in part to mitigate the short stacking issue, so hopefully, stacks will usually be closer to even.

People can avoid topping up so that their stacks dwindle, but that's just part of the game. We didn't want to force people to top-up because it's a pretty awful user experience to be forced to sit out right after losing a pot if you don't have enough money to top-up to 100bb.

I do want to reiterate that under the STP configurations we're likely to try, the overwhelming majority of splashes (when they occur in the first place) will be 1-3bb, so the game is not going to be changed that much.

Thanks for helping us test!