For example look at how amazing the customer support is. They respond fast and are really helpful. I had to deal with them twice already and they were amazing. That just shows how much they care about the customer and having high integrity. You as poker players should be able to make such "reads" on a company to make assumptions about their mindset / future behavior.

Have u ever heard anything about projection?
Maybe u are talking about yourself there

Yeah, I've been trying personally to develop a product for over two years now. Development is excruciatingly painful, expensive and time consuming. Way more than I initially bargained for.

There is definitely some truth to what you are saying but ultimately people at large just may or may not care. And that's ultimately what matters. And your average consumer won't read your decree or give two ****s. They want a high quality platform that works very well with a large player pool, bottom line. And that is painful af to deliver on, I can tell you first hand.

I checked out Phil's website and I can tell they are putting a lot of work into trying to do the right thing and so I have to say at this point that I hope he succeeds but there will be a very rocky/bumpy road between now and then. It's barely the start for them. You say 1-2 years but yeah, I mean, might as well call it 5-10 and hope the terminator AI bots haven't taken over skynet by then.

Personally, poker is the last market ever that I'd ever want to be invested in but I really do hope it works out for him.

Yes Phil is venturing into a though market and it's unlikely that there will be another chance for regs to get a platform that is as close as possible to what they deem to be ideal.

That's why it's imperative that the reg segment of the playing population recognises how crucial for their own interests it is to support RIO. It's true what you say about the public at large and it's not just a question of whether it works out for Phil but also whether it works out for us players. Like it or not but Phil's and our interests are aligned.

No I have never heard anything about projection.

Maybe u are talking about yourself there


Hang on in there Phil, what doesn't break you makes you stronger.

I just meant u should not say something like that to a random guy on 2plus2.

Its abusive

This view is f**king hilarious. Wait, you're serious ?

"Imperative"
"Crucial"

Really ?

Look, I wish Phil and his venture well, but how is that success imperative for regs who choose to play elsewhere, or crucial for their self interests ?

.... especially for players in the States, who Phil does not allow on the site ?

I don't think I'm bitter at all, sure sometimes I get mad, who doesn't right? But to say I'm a very bitter person is just complete nonsense. Perhaps your interpretation of my posts are misguided.

You can scroll through all my posts and see for yourself! Not that hard to verify your claim.

I don't think many people in here are bashing Phil or want him to fail, in fact quite the opposite. I have seen many more with constructive feedback and perhaps they are let down by the product launch but they weren't toxic or wishing Phil to fail, I think I've seen 2 or 3 people hoping for failure, other than that most people are on board with everything you state.

The problem right now are the bugs though. I can't fault anybody for not playing until we have a stable client.

I also don't think the majority of people are being negative, they have shared their opinions and if that was negative feedback, doesn't mean that they are being negative, it's just facts brother. We shouldn't be sugar coating anything, if we start doing that, then we end up with a sub par product in 1-2 years.

Hoping Phil succeeds for exactly the reasons you mention.
He listens to us players, he will tweak things for the better of everyone, not just for the sites interests.

I think the issue is people had such high expectations and the product is extremely subpar. It is just plain terrible. It took them 3 years to build this.... Thats just a failure in every definition of the word. I mean I am wondering where the **** is their QA team and if there was even one at all that they decided to release this. Then have no bug fixes at all.

Me like everyone else wishes Phil all the best but they should learn a lesson or two from it and just either abandon the project,start from scratch again or just figure out some path forward. What they have now leaves only bad taste in your mouth.

Again where was their QA team when they building this product if they even had one at all.

Yes, I'm f**king serious.

Current trends in on line poker threaten the very existence of professional poker. Pretty soon there might be no "elsewhere" where the regs can play for a living. (yes, there are other threats like AI etc but that's not the point of this discussion)

But that doesn't effect you directly. And you don't play on any of those sites that are implementing sh**ty changes on regular basis let alone for a living. That's probably why your comment is short sighted and out of touch.

And how the players in the states have to do anything with this discussion? It's obviously not directed to those who can't play on RIO. You bringing them up is completely irrelevant.

"..Phil does not allow on the site".. WTF, aren't you a lawyer? Why would you imply that Phil has a real choice in this situation?

I guess there are no online poker site currently available in the US then.

Not internationally regulated ones with shared liquidity, no.

Going unregulated route is a false choice.

His site is not available to the US, so not quite sure why you think it has any significant impact to players in the US. Anyway, it should be really ready in Q1 of next year. Just say "One Time!" as people did in this thread for years - it should make you feel better for a bit.

Phil just needs to hire someone who can make the tables resizeable and people like me will instantly start playing. Or offer some sort of theme that is very minimalistic and allows us to see holecards, the board and betsizes very clearly.

Did you not read a few posts above yours to see how the irrelevant topic of US players appeared ITT?




Personally, supporting RIO doesn't make me feel neither better nor worse. And I don't care about any euphoric "one time" or missed deadlines, even though of course I wish we would have seen its' successful completion already.

I support it because I deem that to do so is in my interest of being able to continue making money playing poker on line.

And since it's a non zero chance that it will ultimately be beneficial to my interests I choose to focus on RIO's potential rather than its' failings.

My comment was neither short-sighted nor out of touch. By contrast, your shrill cry that supporting RIO was "imperative," "crucial", for regs seemed a knee-jerk reaction in your own narrow self-interest.

No online poker operator owes you a living. While it is their clear interest to afford the opportunity to players to make a living playing poker, it is less important to them than attracting and keeping the far greater pool of recreational players.

The evolution of online poker has shown that recs matter, without them there are no opportunities for regs to prosper. What you generalize a sh***y changes may be reductive of your win rate but better for recs. (I don't know which sites or changes have gored your ox, and it does not matter much. A site may make poor changes for sure, offering recs some gambling opportunities in say an online casino may suck for regs, but it may make sense for sites and for recs ...

I have no clue what you mean by calling unregulated sites a "false choice". I think you are naive, but maybe you don't know that ALL sites were unregulated for years, during the poker boom, and, "regulation" does not prevent or necessarily deter fraud by dishonest sites. Regulation operates more as a market protectionist policy than protection of individual player interests, even where individual players funds are segregated.

A player, who can play legally on each of two choices, might prefer an honest, but unregulated guy over a dishonest, but regulated guy all day, while minimizing exposure and bankroll risk as appropriate.

Yes, WTF, I am a lawyer. I tell clients what the law is, what they choose to do is their decision. (Since you had a WTF knee-jerk moment, there seemingly is a business model Phil, or others, could copy to operate in the US, Global Poker is not a client of mine and I have no idea and zero inside knowledge of what they do.I offer no opinion on their operation. I think it is imperative and crucial for you however to bring this possible US market access route to everyone's attention ... to gain international liquidity for RIO.... assuming your home jurisdiction has not acted to ring-fence your market in the interim.)

Seems to me like you're the one who's having a knee-jerk reaction to my post actually. You keep being hung up on my word choices of "imperative" and "crucial" that were part of my "shrill cry" for whatever reason. And based on your post seems like my choice of words and your perceived tone of my post is really what's bothering you. It's ok, you'll get over it.

Because everything that follows your first paragraph has very little to do with my post you're replying to. Nor is there any accuracy in your assessments of my believes or options on the topics that you bring up.

I stated from the very begging that my own self interest is why I support RIO. Not sure why would you bother to accuse me of something that I already admitted and that is part of my argument to begin with? And it's not a precursor to my knee-jerk reaction as you claim. It's a rational, self aware stance that I'm transparent about.

How did you arrive at the conclusion that I think that any online operator owes me a living? Actually, the fact that nobody does and yet RIO is choosing to offer and protect that opportunity is a major factor why I support them and why it's in my and any reg's interest to do so.

Your aforementioned evolution of poker has also shown something else: an increasing trend of eradication of a winning player. An extreme example of it being GG Network banning winning players very recently. Carbon has also done that. Other networks are doing that by negating our edge, mainly through rake. Just don't confuse these statements with thinking that any network owes me something different. But RIO could potentially be a provider that negates my edge the least. That's why, in the context of these current industry trends, it's crucial that any winning reg or any player who hopes to eventually win, supports RIO. And another example of how to do so is in our own interest.

I think it's pretty obvious from the context I used "false choice" in that I didn't mean it from the player's perspective but from the operator's perspective. So your entire explication of safety and fraud in regulated v unregulated gaming is irrelevant to this discussion, even if accurate. Nor is the history and effects of regulation, a good portion of which I played through, was majorly affected by and am familiar with(albeit not on a legal professional level obviously).

I said unregulated route is a false choice because it's not a real choice for RIO, or any other company that is building a regulated international business. You obviously can't access regulated markets via legal means and US market via whatever means at the same time. That's why when you claim that Phil is not allowing players from US, WTF is quite an appropriate reaction IMO.

Very curious to hear more about that business model that seemingly exists and could be copied by RIO and others. You know, the one that Stars and Party don't know about or choose not to pursue.. Because I'm all for RIO having that type of liquidity. But have you checked that whatever route your aforementioned Global Poker is accessing US market through does not permit them to allow their players cash out outside of US and Canada(excluding Quebec)? Or is it not imperative nor crucial to be able to cash out when you play on line poker?

Which brings me back to you being so hung up on my words. Sure the words I chose are perhaps too dramatic for my post. However, this is an international forum and many posters(including myself) are not native English speakers. Don't let that bother you so much, just let it go. Otherwise, all it does is just makes your mind appear "narrow".

JossoDee slamming down with the perfect English vocab and he's not even English lol!

You do it better than 90% of English speaking people, kudos brother!

I see, when you are talking about your own interest as a player, that is different than when you segue into talking about "false choice" facing an operator ... I gotthat, but I missed how it had anything to do with your interest as a player .....

If you want to learn about the Global Poker business model operating in the US, Google is your friend. I'm not endorsing it or opining on its legality, but it seems to be functioning .... (I don't get it myself.) You could also Google Club WPT before labeling the US market a "false choice".

You are correct that clearly illegally serving one international market can cost an operator in other regulated markets. After all it cost GVC a severe scolding in New Jersey right before they were licensed. PStars survived Black Friday by flourishing in non-US regulated markets, as did Party as well. I do not know what market you play in, nor whether it has ring-fenced itself, but you seem happy with RIO having limited player pools, so have at it.

Where we also differ greatly is your apparent assumption that a site which is built to cater to regs will also attract enough recs to feed the beast. That is a challenge, aside from first getting your software to work, that has forced poker operators to monetize their recs traffic, and get non-poker revenue from a portion of their regs traffic, to sustain the operation overall.


Also, you complain, understandably from your perspective, about networks expelling "winning poker players". Poker online HAS evolved to a point where recs simply devour regs at the poker table at an unsustainable rate if left to maximize their feeding frenzy. I do NOT think expelling winning players is wise long or short term for an operator. It is better to build an array of services, beyond traditional poker, to attract recs who will play poker on occasion without getting slaughtered, while maintaining a healthy product mix so regs can also survive at their game of choice.

With respect to Phil, I've not seen how RIO is going to solve one underlying challenge. Winning players have a value to any site's ecology, but their "win" funding is often very expensive for a site to bring to the table. One of the few encouraging regulatory developments over the last few years has been a recognition that sites must be allowed to lower their cost of the deposits feeding their winning players.

Look, I understand that as a lawyer your time is very valuable. But please, If you gonna comment on other peoples posts take a little more time to understand what they are saying and then spend just a little more of it to make sure you're following the discussion that flows out of your own replies.

Had you done so you would have remembered that the whole "false choice" discussion only came about because you introduced the topic of US players in your original reply to my post. You would have also noticed that I never claimed that to be in any way related to my self interest. More so, that I immediately stated that I didn't even think it was at all relevant to what I was saying. It's all in just a few posts above this one starting with your reply.

You would have also noticed that I only claimed US market to be a false choice specifically for RIO or any other company going the regulated route, and only in that context. And it will be until (if ever) the regulation changes. Or until some sort of DAPP crypto platform comes about that manages to surpass it (and there's no reason why RIO couldn't eventually morph into that if it ever becomes a viable liquidity solution). This topic however belongs to the legislation forum or other threads, because in no way this is specifically/exclusively a RIO problem. Nor is it something that RIO on its' own can solve.

Your assumption that I'm happy with RIO having limited player pools is also incorrect and I have no idea what prompted you to make it.

I gathered myself that you don't know much about Global's model. But yet you keep proposing it as if it's in any way a viable route to accessing US market specifically for RIO. Is the fact that ROW players can't cash out after playing on it not enough to make it not viable? Yes it is. But in addition, Global also claims to have their sweepstakes model(whatever that means) patented and to be the only operator that can operate under that model. I did look into it with the help of Google and other posters in these forums when it first came onto the scene, because I was intrigued. And I've concluded that it's not a solution for a world wide liquidity, not even close. If you can argue that conclusion please, be my guest.

And then the WPT club.. Sorry, but you even mentioning it makes me think that I was for sure correct to claim that you're out of touch. Not even gonna expand on this.

Fair enough, we can agree to disagree here.

I do however wholeheartedly agree with you that it's a huge challenge for RIO. And it's among their biggest hurdles in offering a rake that everyone expected to see based on their "site for the players" rhetoric.

To be clear, I brought up the expulsion of winning players from some networks only to juxtapose their stance to that of RIOs, not to complain about it. And so to emphasise the value of RIO to any reg player in the context of a current market.


Perhaps regulating crypto payments could be the most immediate solution, albeit a partial one?

Ok, that is something you deem valuable but operators shouldn't give a rats ass if they can share player pools. They'd pick the option that gives them the most value.

If that means retreating from any other market and operate in the US then that is a choice.

I actually value liquidity above anything else. But since this is a RIO thread I was speculating from RIO's perspective(or what I deem it to be). My bad if I wasn't clear.

I fully agree that theoretically it's a choice. But practically - not really, not for RIO nor Party, nor Stars nor many other companies, especially the public ones or those that aspire to become public at some point.

I see this brought up a lot.

How many players do you think should be able to make a living? The top 100 players (playing 50 hours per week)? The top 1000 players? The top 5000 players? And what is a living? 100k USD per year all-in? 75k? Multiply those two numbers, that gives you what pros need per year.

Then factor in the other profitable recs who win, and those who bink MTTs and don't gamble the money, and this is the amount of money that you think non-pro players should be able to take out of the poker ecosystem.

Then calculate what you think a pokersite should cost per annum (some costs are % of the above, some are fixed, some are more complex), and multiply that by the number of operators you think makes a healthy competitive poker ecosystem.

Add up the above three elements, and this is the amount you need in deposits every year to sustain the poker industry.

Easy!

I don't disagree with anything in your post.

But not being able to make a living because the network bans you for winning(or because of other anti winner measures) is not the same as because there aren't enough deposits coming in to sustain the poker industry.

There is also an issue of how deposits are distributed between the operator and the winning player, what share of them is "allowed' to be won by the players. That's something that is under the control of an operator and not everyone has the same approach to this (for the record, I'm not implying that this should be done in any other way than what the operator chooses). A company like RIO might divide the amount that's left after their costs are covered in a way that's more favourable to the player than some other networks. At least that's implied in RIOs pitch to the playing public.

Obviously as deposited amounts shrink so does the amount of winners, the amounts they win and the amounts of rake collected by the operators.

There is a point where there aren't enough deposits for both the operator and the player to be reasonably profitable at the same time.

Are you implying we are already there? Judging by the Star's revenue numbers doesn't appear to be so.