You really need to address some of the better points made by The_Jackal21.

But how many hands do you have to play to be sure to get that 51%?

Is it more or less than the hands Helmuth has played in MTTs, as he is often cited as being the outlier for luckboxing and shouldn't deserve what he has achieved?

I think ultimately Rakeback that is part % given to the player and part STP is the best way to go. IMO, it's a happy medium for everyone. Psychologically, I think it helps every player to get something back at the end of each week. For the grinder, they feel like they can play through a downswing easier knowing they are guaranteed something at least. For the Rec, "free" money is always a good thing as well. I also think STP has merit for a lot of the reasons that have been mentioned already as well.

This entire passage and the majority of most of your posts sum up to one conclusion: Splash The Pot increases variance.

I agree. I've never once disagreed.

This was part of the intent, as I made completely clear since the very first time I discussed our rake and rewards program back in January.

Here is a passage from that post which pre-emptively voiced and addressed the precise concern you keep sharing:

-----
“I like my rakeback variance-free, thank you very much”


Over the past few years, I’ve played in a mixed game in Las Vegas with an average of 12 games in the rotation. One or two of the plaques in the mix say “PLO Flip.” When that round comes up, we each put 10 big blinds in the middle, get dealt 4 cards, and run out a board.

We only play one hand of it before moving on to an orbit of the next game, but it still has an unmistakable impact on the quality of the game. Play loosens up, we gamble more, and we have more fun. Though there’s no way to know, I’d bet that the game would have run less frequently if we didn’t have the flip plaques in the mix.

Some poker players may not like variance in their rakeback, and others won’t like that Splashed Pots are bigger pots, which force more action and create added variance as a result. I understand this take, and while I can agree that there is a level of variance that you could theoretically reach that would be “too much,” I’m confident we’ll stay far below that threshold.

If you’re expecting a wild, absurd Run It Once Poker experience where you’re playing with big splashes every other hand – that’s not how the math works out. The majority of pots won’t be splashed and the majority of splashes will be small.

The right amount of variance is very healthy for a poker ecosystem. I could expand on this topic for many paragraphs, but I don’t believe it’s a controversial statement, so I’ll keep it at that. I’m confident that the bit of added variance from Splash The Pot will be an undeniable positive for our games.
-----

What you and I seem to disagree on is what the "right" amount of variance is. While, as I've mentioned, we plan to reduce the variance in very large splashes, I can tell that you'll never agree with me that STP brings the variance closer to the "right" level for the current ecosystem.

Beyond that, I don't think there's much about STP for us to argue about. Nobody is arguing that it doesn't increase variance.

Are you aware that we offer preflop stat categories built into our client? The categories and stats used are detailed here: https://www.runitonce.eu/features/dynamic-avatars/

Fantastic achievement to have a new poker site up and running, something to be proud of
Also I think Phil Galfond seems like a really nice guy, and who better to have running a site than someone who really knows about poker.

Graphics/animation are much better than many other sites, they look very nice & slick, but they also are essentially dull.
Want to know why? Because poker is a social game. And you have removed an essential key element of poker itself - people.
Characters, we get to know, recognise, differentiate, make friends, invite friends, talk etc.
If we win/lose we want to come back - "I can beat that guy", or "I will get that guy next time".

I think you noticed that there was something lacking, so you tried to spice it up with 'Splash The Pot'.
I'm just picturing that rare occasion, of when you've been playing for hours and finally you are building a big stack and running good...
Only to then be presented with the option - get zero rackback, or risk your entire stack now for a 1/6 chance. hmmm.
It makes me wonder, did you make it so that everyone has to shove their entire stack, on big STP, so that you can collect the maximum rake? ;-)
STP is interesting and a clever idea, but maybe needs some adjustments?

Also the rake at lower stakes, makes Stars rake actually look good.
You know if you compare the base rake, and consider the difference on Stars as direct rakeback.
Then it's like approx 21% to 28% direct rakeback on Stars, no questions, no fighting with variance, or players.

So 2 suggestions:

1. offer normal avatar/screen name tables alongside the anonymous tables. let people choose.
2. change big STP splashes, so that people don't have to risk their entire stack. perhaps they risk none of it, or at least have it capped at a small amount (everyone pays the same). and why not risk none, if you are infact giving the rake back?

Sorry if some of it sounds a bit negative, just being honest, to be helpful

Fair enough Phil. I'm just giving you my interpretation of the tone of your most recent blog post.

With regards to FX/SNGs, once those two issues are sorted I will deposit on your site again. I deposited on day 1 but I'm not a cash player so would get crushed were I to play any serious stakes on there.

Take 50NL
https://i.gyazo.com/30531d91568fa83f...efa1f3a779.png
https://i.gyazo.com/7815b71ba6375d1b...29db64dc02.png

Your cap for 3/4 handed that's gonna happen often is 66% higher
5+ 50% higher with higher rake on top. I don't know what the actual rake numbers come to here but rake itself is gonna be a lot worse than stars. Especially 3-4 handed where you reach the cap a lot because of wide ranges.
And net rake better but worse than the old stars SNE even supernova etc.

I'm combining these with your last post
- you see how StP is a barrier to entry for regs with a learning curve
You made it a barrier to entry imo
As what you see is net rake (obviously as that's what YOU charge people to play on the site - it's your bottom line doesn't matter where it comes from in the medium-long run, which is how a business runs it's metrics)

What your average modern grinder you outlined in your last post sees

Higher rake cap, higher rake
And I have to fight for the novelty of StP I don't understand how to optimally beat to even get to the NET rake better levels of Stars
With massive player pool
Where I've built my my grinding habits - there's just not much incentive to change them beyond a simple try because we love ya Phil


Like I get that people don't understand here that lower rake is much better than flat rakeback than withholds your money, maybe people are really that short sighted but I'd like to think if you match Stars rake and market StP as something that gives you a bonus 51% and an incentive to switch you would get a lot more regs actually changing their habits...and playing each other more

As they can do the same thing as on stars with StP on top
instead of trying to get to what they already have by having to understand it.

What are the benefits of allowing P2P transfers?

Aren't they just a relic of pre-Black Friday grey-market jurisdictions where people had trouble getting money on and off the site and so would pair up?

No non-gambling service I know of does this. For example at the moment I have credit on Google for Adwords, and also on Facebook for spamming people's news feeds, those sites don't have an option to send money to other random users because they are not money transfer sites. Also no major white market general gambling site (e.g. the online sites of the big UK high-street betting shop chains) enables this as far as I know.

Seems to me the downside is a load of potential fraud, weaker KYC (because the link between the real world bank customer and the person playing the hands is weakened), and a more favorable environment for staking farms/stables.

Please don't say that being in a stable is part of living the dream.

Ummm... amidst all this talk about Splash the Pot, a lot of people are missing that it's not the primary reason the site has struggled.

I see a lot of lack of understanding of the market going on here. I see that Phil offered to talk to players one-on-one via a survey he offered on his blog. I hope he does it, and I hope he listens.

While I have been somewhat of a Negative Nancy on this thread, that wasn't my intention. I actually hope it all works out.

I just believe it needs a lot more drastic action at this point than it seems is planned. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I believe the writing is very clearly on the wall if some major changes don't get made very soon.

You said you need to gamble for rb everywhere and that's just nonsense. And I said I don't need the extra variance to allready high variance game nothing about not having edge in stps. We can now drop this discussion.

I think the hud you offer in it's current form is very childish and amateurish, that's just my opinion. I don't want to have some avatar change based on how a player plays, I'd much rather just see the numbers myself and make decisions based on those numbers, and also make the read myself how I want to view a player, if tight passive or loose passive etc, I don't want your program to tell me the player's tendencies, I want to figure that out myself, based on actual stats.

It is much more professional and also much more transparent if you just have numbers, stats. You don't even need a fully fledged hud, just add some basic stats, kinda like what you have to make the avatar function.

If everybody has stats available, then it's fair for everybody, correct?

Could you point those points out for Phil to address?

And everybody has the stats driving the changing avatars, so yes, it's fair for everyone. As I see it, Dynamic Avatars are like a color coding system. And your complaint boils down to "I know you color code, but I don't like it, even if you provide the color code key". I guess you just want to have it your way, which might mean BurgerKing would be the place for you!

So, let me get this right. Because the logic baffles me a bit.

First, you assume that the game wouldn't of run as much if not for the flips? How do you know?

Second, you are comparing the flips to stp's and consequently "gambling" for rakeback. This is weird, if you want to add spice to a high stakes game because you feel it will do better, sure, but why do you think this correlates to micro/low/medium stake games that already run very well? I really think you are out of tune at those stakes, people tend to gamble a lot more at those stakes then they do at higher stakes, partly because it's not much money and partly because many players suck at the game, I really don't think you can compare the situations, and I def do not think there should be a link made between the 2 examples.

Then you go on to say that some players might not like the variance that goes with rake back, but again, this is my point, those flips you are talking about are not for YOUR RAKEBACK, they are only there to trick players to loosen up, a little unethical if you ask me, as many see it as gamble but the savvy poker player sees it as a tool to get his opponents to make mistakes later on.

The fact that I'm complaining already and think it's a bad idea to compete for rake back, should give you some worry about your thoughts regarding "the right amount of variance" The right amount of variance is already too high at PLO, you are making it even higher, that's just wrong. The games are super high variance already, especially at the lowest stakes.

I think the main difference here is that, I have actually played on your site with real money at the those micro/small stakes, while you haven't. I have tested it in real life, and have evidence albeit a small sample size, that you don't get anywhere near 51% in the short term and have gathered that those stp's don't make for way better tables, I'm comparing your tables with other sites, it's just not true at all, your games are nittier imo, not something you want to hear, I'm sure but so far it's the truth.

1 more thing i want to point about ethical, as I am stunned by your views and logic.

You point out that stp's are good for the game and that we should embrace them as pro players, correct. They are good because recreationals will play those spots worse and as a result we will have an even bigger edge.

Tell me in your own words how this mentality is "ethical" towards the recreational player? How are you now protecting the recreational, being ethical?

Just want to add to this, Phil. Why not give players a choice? Let them choose between your avatar or simply stats without the avatar? You could give the option of say 6 basic stats, turn off the avatar thingy for those that don't like it and prefer a more tradtional hud.

I hope this dictator thingy doesn't get to your head

That's a fair point, if everybody has the stats then giving people a choice whether they want to see those stats in the form of an avatar or numbers should be easily understood, correct?

Or do you have issues, with giving a choice or the fact that I prefer to see the stats as numbers?

I truly believe what most will understand about your stance is that contrary to what you say about "choice", you are simply complaining that something is not being given to you in the exact/precise way in which you want that something. You are "that guy" that complains to Apple about their phones not having a headset jack: "why don't you produce every iPhone model with and without a headset jack" and use the concept of "choice" to justify the fact that you just want to complain about not having something in the exact way you want it.

One day I play like this and one day I play like that... I really don't care about huds. Huds can give you also wrong information on certain situations.

Phil...
1 Give people great software (I did not install your client yet, will do it after this post)
2 Good rake back
3 A lot of games to choose
4 Friendly support
5 Fast withdrawal
and you will crush all other sites for sure! People also like graphs... maybe you could insert it in your software. Hire or ask people to promote your site "sneaky" on forums etc. I like this one a lot! https://www.runitonce.eu/promotions/...rakeback-bonus

This is the perfect timing to start a fresh and good poker site... GL!

1. The client is my favourite non-Stars software but I think they really shot themselves in the foot by launching in a broken state and possibly alienating early adopters. Taking half a year to add resizable tables is bizarre. How does that happen - did no-one ever try to resize a table during testing? Did the development team think they were making a phone app?

But anyway, the positive - lots of sites have tried the "fun" software approach but you can tell RIO has had input from poker players - it sounds like basic stuff but in-game text (stack sizes, total pot, bets) being prominent and easily readable and being able to tell positions/action at a glance is stuff that many sites ignore. I feel like I "need" third party software/mods to play on many other sites but I'm good with RIO as it is.

2. I actually like Splash the Pot as a rakeback method but I was very apprehensive about it going in. Those that don't like it seem to REALLY hate it though.

People only shove for the huge splashes, same as when Stars used to do milestone hands. Don't remember the same hate for milestones but I guess we've all become more cynical since then.

4. Only had to contact them once, they replied very quickly. Obviously this could change if/when their traffic increases.

5. Cashouts are fine, same as any other site (no huge wait times like 888).

depositors throw money at the tables and everybody wants a piece ... poker rooms, grinders and 2nd level grinders like software developers, trainers, stable owners or whatnot ... who are you to claim that one hustle (e.g. playing well) is legit, but another (in this case teaching players to play well) isn't?

online poker isn't "dying" b/c people rooms charge more or players get better. it's just simply less money on the table, hence less to make.

and btw ... if there would be plenty of fish on RIO, throwing money around, ppl couldn't care less about software or STP

It seems pretty clear to me that the thinking is that the avatar approach is a more fun (even if "childish" or "amateurish") and less intimidating way to provide some indication on how players have been playing. This is more appealing to rec players.

While providing actual stats may be more "professional", that kind of describes who would like them most -- professionals. Even in your proposed scenario where they are optional, recs may feel more comfortable playing on a site where no one has access to their stats. At least I believe that's what RIO's/Phil's thinking is.

Everyone has gotten sidetracked by minutiae here, myself included. STP and HUDs are definitely worthy and interesting topics, but they're not why the site is failing.

Here are the actual, factual big problems, and the site will not get traffic until they are addressed. Take it from someone with almost 20 years experience grinding online poker, and closely observing and analyzing the industry:

1. MTTs. They are a must for any poker site since... oh, about 2003. You launched without them. Huge mistake. You don't seem to be making them a priority, at least according to your latest interview on DAT Poker Podcast. Another huge mistake. All resources should be directed at rushing MTTs into the software. MTTs drive traffic, including to the cash games. Without them, the site has no shot.

2. Marketing. Your StreamR rakeback idea is interesting, but it's only good for a site with existing traffic. For a site attempting to develop traffic from the ground up, this won't work. You need a marketing budget, and you need innovative marketing strategies beyond extra rakeback for 3 days, which will put virtual butts in virtual seats. Your playing on the site probably helps (and is a smart move), but you need far more. Without substantially better marketing efforts, the site has no shot, even with MTTs.

3. Allow short buys. This isn't as important as #1 and #2, but it's still important. Fishy recs love short buys. Why? Because they are tempted to run a small bankroll into a large one, and that's how they go about trying it. Some will keep repeatedly short buy. Others will find the highest limit they can sit, and slap their entire bankroll down. By forcing an exact 100BB buyin (that's still a thing, right?), you are taking a lot of the joy out of the game for the recs.

4. Middle and lower-middle stakes. You need to get these going on a regular basis. A site isn't going to survive with only micros and low levels. A lack of middle/lower-middle games won't attract grinders or well-heeled recs. Easier said than done, I know, but the marketing strategy needs to especially focus on these games.


There you go.

I can tell you from vast past and present playing experience that the grinders will go wherever the games are good, the limits they want run, and the payouts are fast/semi-fast. Everything beyond that is secondary. This is how Bovada continues to thrive, despite crap software, anon tables, crashes, and aggravating customer service.

If you get too bogged down in small details or too obsessed with your own innovations, you will get lost in an endless loop of hope and failure.

Good luck.

That's because:
In Pokerstars Milestone hands, everyone at the table wins.
In RIO poker STP(big splashes) everyone loses, except for one guy.
It's not the same.

Phil should make it more like PS Milestones, then it would be hugely popular.

Completely agree here, and a change to something that addresses this problem is on our list!