Effective rake is "25% lower than on PS" according to Galfond, which is absolutely terrible because it's worse than what PS offered before they went away with supernova elite and if anyone remembers PS used to be among the worst when it came down to rakeback anyways.

Is Phil personally paying you to shill here?

What does it matter what stars used to offer? And tbh way back when things were good stars had dealt rb. After that is was contributed something like platinium 25% and sn 30-40% imo with the lowest rake on the market. Atleast close to it. So you really are pretty dumb.

Agree. It's like advertising something 199€ instead of 200€.

Why are you calling me dumb? What you have said isn't factually correct to begin with, there were plenty of sites that offered rakeback up to 70% when registered through pokerstrategy with major rakeraces, reoccurring sign up bonuses and other bonuses such as gemstones and a baseline 30-50% rakeback which would add up to 60-70% rakeback for an average 50-100NL reg. PS would generally attract people for other reasons than rakeback. You are absolutely clueless so stfu.

And yes it does matter since Galfond marketed his site to be the first truly fair site when it's gonna be merely slightly better than what PS has now.

Just throwing this out there, Micro gaming rake structure seems much better. https://poker.redkings.co.uk/faq.html
Especially at the lower stakes! 60ct cap and 5% at nl/plo 20.

5+ Players Dealt In:
Blinds Cap
€0.01 / €0.02 0.06
€0.02 / €0.04 0.12
€0.05 / €0.10 0.3
€0.10 / €0.20 0.6
€0.25 / €0.50 1.5
€0.50 / €1 and higher 3

Quite a big difference imo and Micro still gives around 40-50% rake back too. Am I missing something here? Phil you plan to launch in EU, correct, aren't these guys your direct competition?

Micro Gaming only allows its skins to offer up to 30% RB. People who get more than that are (to the best of my knowledge) doing so through rogue affiliates.

I did think that the rake was going to be lower to be honest.

Crypto currency sites charge .10% per trade and they make an absolute fortune. They also have to deal with security, customer support, software development, staff expenses etc so I don't know why in the hell poker sites have to charge like 5.75% per hand.

In terms of credit card transaction fees which poker sites say they pay for (but they really don't because you end up paying for the transaction fee in rake anyways) I think people should have to pay for credit card transaction fees like you have to on crypto currency sites and if you don't want to pay these credit card transaction fees you can make a bank transfer which is pretty much free although it will take a day or 2 for the money to reach your account.

If people paid these credit card fees or just did a bank transfer for like 10 cents the rake would a lot lot lower

so effective rake on the lower stakes of RIO will be just shy of 3% on the long run. What was the effective rake on pokerstars in 2010 for a recreational player that didn't put in 10thousands of hands each month?

Am I missing something? What's 2010 got to do with it?

I would suggest you do the same. No need to get so offended when first you say something dumb (because you are like Forrest Gump would say not a smart man) and someone corrects you. Just going to ignore you actually. I have better things to do than argue with obv a dumb person.

nah it's nothing deep, I am just curious what it was like back then for recreationals rakewise

Iirc the recs were probably mostly bronze tier which was very low rakeback. The tiers rakeback went up exponentially so the recs never really got much at all.

Back in the day Full Tilt used to give guys like Eli 110% rakeback plus a monthly check and this Gandalf clown is bragging about 51%? GMAFB

Not everyone signs with an affiliate so not everyone gets the 30% rakeback. Many recreationals also don't claim bonus points.

Also, I played on redstar a few years ago and I think the points had to be claimed from what I recall or maybe I'm mistaken.

Anyway microgaming sucks with their software and handhistories, besides some skins stole money in the past from players, including unibet?! I have memory.

But you guys are only focusing on the rake percentage of the pot, what about the rake caps? They're significantly higher in RIO. Let's also not forget that pokerstars offers a much higher variety of games, better software and security. That has value. So I think the price from RIO isn't all that enticing to move the needle in my view, but it's better than the competition. It will depend on the quality of the games and promotion I guess.

Thoughts from a caged American pleb:

Idk if STP is the ideal rakeback system, but poker needs innovation and that's what RIO Poker is all about. I would snap play on your site if I could, but I can further see how once I'm in a cash game, I wouldn't want to stop playing if there hasn't been a big splash in awhile because I feel "overdue" for one. If I understand the system correctly, each hand is randomly likely to have a given splash, in which case one can be no more overdue for a big splash than one can be overdue to be dealt pocket aces, but recs and regs alike (and esp. recs) won't think like this and so it'll keep them playing longer. I think the concern people were identifying earlier is that in a 1000bb splash pot, it'll be correct for everyone to go all-in, which could then break the table as 1 guy has all the chips and others may not want to rebuy (on the flip side if the rec wins the splash pot that table will be running all night).

like the idea, but should be bomb pots, prolly as good as a bot deterrent as playing a regular hand but more of a change/interesting for recs esp. takes out pre and getting ul with a bad posi in a splash pot and doesn't make ppl feel bad when they fold pretty hands. reduces edges for regs arguably ok

Come on, you can barely speak English and you think your words suggesting I am dumb can offend me? Also you haven't corrected me at all, if anything I corrected you as there were plenty of sites that a normal 50NL reg could get a 50-70% rakeback even as late as in 2014.

So no, RIO rakeback should be a large disappointment for anyone who isn't going to be a streamer and as Phil wrote himself on RIO it's going to be only about 25% better than the current atrocious state of pokerstars.

With that said I am still hoping Phil is going to offer us players a better deal as time goes because this just doesn't seem good enough.

#1 This is bull****.

#2 RIO's rb system is arguably the best in the market right now. For all parties.

#3 And if you remember the 2014 times, but still don't realize that RB (promotions) also have to appeal to the rec's, than you are a part of the problem of today's poker.

Well, who do you mean with us players? recs and high volume grinders are two different animals and if back then, recs basically got no rakeback at all (despite some deposit bonus), the rakeback of RIO with ~2.9% would be way better than being raked 5%.It's more than 40% better.

Galfonds intention is to give recs a solid rakeback as well. But I think you can't do that and give high volume grinders some uber rakeback on top, because it's not feasible. Pokerstars could fund SNE easily cause the vast majority of players got only very little rakeback.

It’s a solid troll. A-

Software is decent and the handhistory system is atleast fair to everyone compared to like party. And those skins that stole players money were all part of the tusk and unibet for sure wasn't one of them. Atleast most of them. Then there were some skins like eurolinx and bet on bet imo that went under allso. So you might have memory but not that good it seems.

He probably means losing b/e regs that rely on the rb and is hoping that some magical day a site appears and offers 70% dealt rb by default. He is just too dumb to realize it ain't happening and what rio is offering is very competitive at least with the current markets.

Yep, it seems as if it's a real innovative idea that should liven up the game play as well. All in all the better players should still receive the higher rakeback/lower effective rake long term but that is the way it should be as rake is the portion of money that comes out of the pot/prizepool that would have been going to winners.

It's much more fair though in that some mass tabling grinder doesn't get a higher percentage solely based on the volume that they put into the games and the lower volume players still get an equal shot at the prize money.

Basically it's a level playing field.

The site is finally launching this Wednesday.

https://www.runitonce.eu/news/8-a-po...-20-16_1-eight

Well that escalated quickly.

I'll be there.

Wow that's really exciting. Congratulations to the Run It Once team.

Will Phil be streaming on Twitch on Wednesday to bring attention to the site?

I encourage everyone to click the link posted above (post #3247) to read Galfond's message.

To do list:

- Spread the news of Wednesday launch

- Sign up and play on Wednesday (for as much or as little as you like)

- Share your views of the site (I imagine this thread may be a good place for that).