Really, why's that?

people care about winrates and fun, not rake. There have been rake free sites before and none of them caused a massive migration of players. Of course, if Phil's site does everything else well too having low rake isn't going to hurt .

It isn't anywhere near as simple as just having really low rake tho

Low rake doesn't attract fish.

Unibet/Microgaming have much lower micro rake than Stars. Unibet in particular have grown a decent bit but they're a long way away from having "all the players". It's really hard to break a monopoly. Unibet have the benefit of being attached to a huge sports/casino site too.

Well, I think it is a key concept to creating a healthy poker eco. Win rates are in correlation with rake, the lower the rake the better your win rate. Not only that but players that play for fun, still like competitive play and even more they still like to win, even if they know long term they'll bust their account.

Fun players depositing 50 bucks here 100 bucks there are what we need. They have all left, they're not stupid man, they play a few hours and lose it all to rake, you think they gunna continue. They are trying to win but too, but if they bust after 5 hours or after 50 hours with some winning sessions in between is huge difference!

True, it's not just about low rake, I never said that. He still needs to promote and market the site correctly. What I'm saying is that it will create a much healthier poker climate not just for pro's but for recs and fun players too.

Those sites you mention, how much do they care about their poker? I bet you that all of those sites Poker contributes the least to their profit margin and so they really are not going to sell poker to their clients.

Fun players do not care about rake and this is exactly why Stars keep increasing it. Recs have no concept of win rate.
Obviously regs are important to Phil so hopefully the rake is still somewhat low but it isn't what's going to attract recs.

praying they hire competent advertisers and spend millions on it. if they dont, whats the point.

And what's the rec to pro ratio now on Stars?

I am not saying that they come because of the low rake. I fully understand that they aren't looking at rake and win rates. But they are looking at entertainment value. If rec player deposits $100 and plays some nl10 and is done in 10 hours, because he just got rakeraped, sure he might not fully be aware of how he lost his money but perhaps a % of them are, anyway, it does not really matter, we need to make sure that they aren't rake****ed for no reason. They should be getting protected for their own good, they get to play way longer(hopefully), hey perhaps even some will be able to move up in stakes.

The point I am making with lower rake is that A. You can still have a Multi Billion dollar company and B. You can still have a good amount of happy customers playing poker. Edit in C. The recs get to play way longer and don't feel like they just got ripped off!

What Stars has done, over the last few years, really did not have to happen. Not only that but they could of raked less from the get go, that's my take on it anyway!

hope they dont even offer the option to run it twice.

would go against the name of the site

Mario, what a dumb post. Everyone knows that more rake is what keeps rec players in the game.

But why don't they care about poker if it was so easy to make boatloads of money from that?

Why is nobody else doing it if it is easy money? Do all the poker/sports betting/gambling sites hate money?

At the risk of sounding naive .... what can we do to help ensure the greatest chance of success for phils poker site?

If there was some sort or action plan for players to help promote the site I think I would participate out of sheer desperation with the hopes of keeping the dream alive. I don't think I'm alone.

Phil and we the community need to somehow villainize poker stars in the eyes of Recs and new players.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

pokerstars big evil corporation

phil rio is by players for the players

play pokerstars you lose, pokerstars wins

play rio you win, or buddy poker players win, and either way it's fair

simple decision ))

tell your rec home game buddies about the site , I think the best route RIO can go with marketing is try to get some big twitch streamers on board, these days I would guess the % of people who find out about poker through twitch or youtube is much higher than people randomly seeing a banner ad on a random website (obviously) , idk it is hard to imagine how you bring in a lot of rec players with a brand new poker site in 2017 when most people who hop on just to lose a bit of money and have fun each week are people who have probably been doing it for 10 years and have always known about stars / full tilt

It's completely asinine to think that every site out there right now that have ALL been doing the same actions, raising rake, taking away rakeback, eliminating game selection etc etc, are all doing the wrong thing.

Online poker is dying a fast death. The funny part is Phil is like many other pro players. They know this and think, well ****, I need to start a business or something because I can't go on making a living playing poker.

WHEN THIS IS THE CASE YOU DON'T MAKE YOUR BUSINESS AN ONLINE POKER ROOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

phil isn't like the other poker pro, who is run when scare. phil is here for the dreamlove. he see trouble - he fight it ! with rio poker the poker dream is born anew !!

pokerstars runs ads on television during sporting events. pretty sure that draws more normies than twitch. costs alot of $

lets crowdfund an ad campaign and a big freeroll tournament. Phil has helped all of us with our poker game, now its our turn to help him and help ourselves. i guess someone from runitonce would have to set it up for it to work best. maybe some type of increased rakeback for funders.

for the ad, make a video that makes poker actually look fun, not the boring grind ESPN has turned it into, starting on day 3 instead of the crazy day 1, with endless strat talk from announcers, and 100s of poker words nobody has ever heard before. get patrik antonius and some hot broads to star in it.

LOL.

This.

Just picked this post as a random example of a view that's expressed often.

How does the above square with the fact that casinos run single-zero roulette rather than double-zero roulette? (outside of a few tourist-trap places like Vegas where they need to kill the sheep in the week it's there rather than shear it to get return business.)

Now, losing roulette players might not express themselves using terms like house edge or say that single-zero roulette is less negative EV than double-zero roulette, but it's just not as good a game if the money leaves the table too quickly and it doesn't feel "fair".

Double zero roulette has a house edge of 5.26%, single zero has 2.7% - poker should be raked like the latter if it's going to be sustainable.

a lot of fish barely even realise rake exists

im pretty sure

naivety is strong itt. do you think PG's backers are so broke, that some spare change would make a difference, or that the "poker community" is willing to raise any decent amount

if you want to change something, vote with your feet. if you want to try extra hard, use social media or go on twitch streams and tell others about a product.

best thing is, there are already some alternatives. and those are bigger, than RIO poker will be in the first 6 months+. so i'm pretty sure, those who complain the loudest, are those who won't change their behaviour or do something which doesn't have any immediate effect financially.

this is what we hope of- but in reality poker players will vote with their winrates l(

You can't afford to acquire those players. It's hard to tell people who you are, and hard costs money. The margin on player lifetime value is not that big, and a big chunk of that is acquisition cost. That's why previous low/no rake sites have failed.

the only thing pathetic, is your limited understanding of the poker economy. if you had half the rake, more break even plo25 pros would join, so table dynamics would be different and you wouldn't have gotten "half that $900" ... besides that, if you didn't deposit the $900, someone else paid the rake. also lol @ saying the sites are border line criminals, but still doing business there.

i don't know what's more hilarious ... that you think some random depositor could build a bankroll, if the rake would be lower, or that you think the rooms don't have a reason to rake in the first place. right now, the industry faces the highest cost, while the deposit volume (in $) is lower than a very long time.

gosh, not only is it stupid, to fantasize about such a scenario, you even fail to acknowledge, that 'back then' (golden age) we had the Americans. a rich country with millions of net depositors. nowadays we have booms in countries, where the income is way lower, which means less money can be made.

i also hate to crush your dreams, but RB promotions are a result of poker rooms competing with each other. if we would have only one room that has "all the players from PS and FTP etc", there would be no need for competition. as a side note about logic ... if a poker room has all the players, other rooms wouldn't exist. this means, whatever the rake is, it would be the highest and lowest at the same time mindxplode.gif

of course just my 2cts ... overall you seem to really know, what's wrong with the industry. GazzyB123 is 100% correct, hopefully PG offers you a job as an advisor and signs other HQ posters itt as well

I never proclaimed to have the expertise of the poker world, like you obviously do!
Lot's of if's!!
You don't have to deposit to pay rake, that's just nonsense babble !
They are all borderline so one has to make a choice!

I don't know what's more hilarious, the fact that you took time to write your idiotic post or the fact that you think I care about your idiotic post!

So now nobody can move up in stakes?

And yes players would be able to play longer if the rake would be lower, are people really this stupid? Do you make money off un-suspecting poker players? You sound like a shill, like a Stars employee, is that why you have "just shillin" in your avatar?

Who said anything about the site not raking in the first place? Learn to read before spouting your nonsense first! Every poker player would agree with my post, so who the **** are you in this scenario, you seem to hate the idea I presented!

Great ideas start with a dream. The only stupid person here is you! Without a dream or idea you have nothing! Please stop, you are embarrassing yourself.

I agree we need the Americans on board, hopefully they will be allowed to play soon, add in the Chinese and we are rocking again.

You are not crushing my dreams, you are just making a fool of yourself with a worthless comment that has been nitpicked but completely wrongly misunderstood. The points you are making have nothing to do with my comment but that just shows that "your secret agenda" is why you are posting in the first place!

As a side note to logic, so you suddenly decide to take that one sentence as literal as can be and actually assume I meant they take all poker players, I thought you couldn't embarrass yourself even more than you already did! Just WOW!

What don't you like about my proposed idea?
That they undercut the whole poker world by cutting rake in half?
That they should offer the best VIP program?
That they should run the best tournaments?
Perhaps have great freerolls too?
Maybe that they take close look at PLO rake and decide it is raked way too high?

What the **** don't you like about that?