And their next concern will be figuring out what a hud is.

They should allow players to identify as a REC or PRO player. REC players earn free swag like hats and hoodies when they play enough hands, and get to see the avatar expressions. PRO players get 20-35% rakeback depending on volume, a built-in hud, and a script that only seats them at tables with more than one REC.

Its 2018 tho there isn't the same population's that will sign up to an unknown poker site like RIO poker and be clueless to things like huds. Of course is the optimal market but it's not a viable model.

Perhaps few players know that online poker forums exist, but I think we can say that few players from 2p2 will have an interest in playing on a site that protects players from the dream.

I don't know what number of 2+2ers will sign up, it's certainly possible that most will stay away.

I would think that galfond choosing this approach should indicate that perhaps this really is the only way to go these days, and that some levelling of the field is required in order to create a sustainable site.

The definition of sustainable is relevant here. If you are a poker player looking for a game in which the skilled player can expect to profit then leveling the field is the opposite of what you are looking for. It was poker stars attitude that they were serving the game by decreasing the profitability and skilled money to be won-but an intelligent player doesn't agree this is good for the game. This is why the player's here protested, they didn't like the changes.

It's also why there was such high anticipation on 2p2 from a site that is taking years to launch. Players here were hoping he would serve the dream rather than the interest of the site at the expense of a skilled game. Phil has change "fair" from being a game in which skilled players win, to "fair" in the sense of changing the rules such that no one is very much of a long term winner.

Totally fine, but disappointing from a player perspective that was hoping phil would try to keep the dream alive imo.

There's no reason to think that banning HUDs and not displaying screennames will turn poker into an unbeatable game and kill the "dream".

Since it is exactly a move in that direction and stated as such it would be difficult to argue otherwise. But it's an easy sell to a population that doesn't perfectly understand the net result of changes like this.

Nonetheless he stated his intent, he is transparent about it: level the playing field. The community of serious and sincere players (ie students of the game) was hoping otherwise. I'm not sure what you are arguing that would accept this observable fact..?

imo phil galfond is trying to make his site as break even as posible for all us , edges between regs are going to be smaller , edges between regs and fish will be smaller , hence smaller winrates , he could charge less rake% but since good regulars will have smaller winrates its going to be the same or worse than pokerstars in terms of winnings for good regulars.

i don't buy the idea that recs will go ahead and google poker and will be scared of huds , recs that play at today's games like 90% of them know about huds , they also know some people earn a living playing online poker , but they don't care , they just continue depositing because its fun for them.
Some even know about this huds but are like "those numbers can't beat me , i read people's soul and you can't learn to do that with huds bla bla bla".

think about this , all the recs you play in today's games have played poker for years , do you guys really think they have not heard about huds at this point? phil is selling you this idea to force anon tables 8/ .

i'm a little bit annoyed against phil because at first he was like "my site will sell the dream all of us had when pokerstars was in the golden years" , but now he's selling us a fake dream where edges are smaller, and fish are smart and afraid of huds , fish are fish they play for fun they don't care , if fish would care about huds there were no fish in today's games and i find a lot of them everyday.

There sure is a lot of bitterness that Phil isn't making it easy enough for pros to win all of the fishes' money fast enough. Fish also play poker because they dream of winning, not because it's fun to donate to pros.

How does making the game break even help players win more money? You might be thinking about wins not in terms of EV etc. but most of the poker players here realize that losing players don't win. Is it that unreasonable that poker players should hope for a site that understands poker is a game of skill and that taking out the skill changes the game to jackpot casino gambling?

Phil definitely made the players believe he would create a site that serves the players and not the site at the expense of the players. Like I said every site has the right to rake the players as much as they want and to make adjustments so that the better players don't win.

How could you argue a reasonable player would want this? If you are a reasonable player, why would want this? Who are we thinking is going to play on this site?

Is RIO poker training forum happy about this? I suspect they are mostly in disbelief, that they probably are just ignoring the truth of Phil words. He has a training site that has all sorts of studies and discussions about huds and stats and lessons on how to use them etc. Phil comes to say these edges are unfair and not welcome on RIO poker. 2p2 and RIO forums should be his initial primary target audience. That is quite natural. Instead he alienates all the sincere students of the game.

I think it is the degradation of the profitability over time that has changed the comprehension of the average player. We are simply used to not demanding poker be a game of skill.

They don't.

They are afraid of getting ripped off by poker sites or other players who can see their cards or cheat in another way. Lots of recreational players don't even know that HUDs exist, let alone would ever come up with the idea that they might be necessary to police the game. The thought alone is totally absurd.

Why would a website ban HUDs even if a lot of recreational players don't even know they exist or what they do exactly? To remove one part of the huge skill gap between professional and fun players. The smaller that gap, the longer money stays in circulation on the site, the more of it eventually gets raked.

My definition is: players that aren't good enough to be profitable over time, habitual depositors. Is your suggestion that in today's games, which are FAR tougher to be profitable in than 5 years ago etc., that the vast majority of losing players don't know what HUDs are? I think you are discounting many players with your assertion and definition.

Most of the players on this forum are not winning players, and most know what a HUD is.

A poker site isn't interested in defining players YOUR way, they are interested in facilitating habitually losing players. Poker sites definition of rec is an observation on their expected net contributions.
Yes, so how does increasing rake help players win more? It's just quite certainly obvious, Phil turned into an operator and did a 180 on his old morals and the community that helped support him be the celebrity he was.

He arose in a profitable environment and no longer feels this is an important aspect of poker.

I am all for the decision to not allow HUDS but does this mean no hand histories as well?

You guys are funny ...what happened to taking notes regarding reads on players, I didn't realize that without a HUD you cannot be profitable?

Obv this site is going to have a much tougher pool of players then say ACR for example but hopefully, they make the rake much less and long-term rewards worth it.

Yeah cuz ya know bonition is already way tougher than acr

He is starting a poker platform not a time machine to take us back to 2005.

Sorry that you missed the time when it was easy to make a lot of money with moderate talent and work ethic, but nobody will take us back there, not even PG. You sound like someone who is disappointed because of unrealistic expectations about what RIO would be.

I like this decision, and I think it's good for RECS/"the game" which is good for me. I don't need a HUD to beat tough games. Who this hurts is the mass tablers who rely heavily on their HUD and are annoying to play with in general. Also like his avatar idea, and the fact that you can get HH's 24hrs later. If the ability to have a HUD is going to make or break you coming to this site then you need to work on your game, and you're the player no one misses anyways.

For reasonable players poker means that the best players win not break even with the worst players. I understand you might not define the game this way, but its how a reasonable and sincere player would.

I have 100k games winning at a low-mid stakes field. I don't play as much anymore but I put in far more effort studying and learning the game than most players would ever consider.

Phil lead the players to believe he would serve them. It is every operators right to rake the games as hard as they can, but it is just as much a player's right to want a game in which the better players win.

Are you a winning player? Have you put in the effort you are implying I haven't? I'm assuming you got your mod status post black friday after the creative minds (minds like Galfond) left this community and poker in general as it declined.

It isn't 2005, the fields are more difficult and the poker industry, from the players perspective that want reasonably fair games, has choked out the skilled aspect such that the games function far closer to casino games. You can't really then go on to justify Phil's decisions and be happy from a perspective of a player that is a sincere student of the game.

Everyone here hoped Phil would take the opposite stance as Poker Stars, and he clearly stated he is not.

Wish RIO well sure, but why is it so wrong to want a site that serves the players' interests? Or do you argue an intelligent player should want a game where skilled players don't win?

It's just a different paradigm of play/dissemination of information. The skill component will still exist as the better players will make the appropriate adjustments to the new dynamic avatar system while most fish won't even know what to do with the info (as in how to change their specific play based off a cartoon facial expression), or they will over adjust and create +EV for regs. Just like when Rush Poker first came out or the new anonymous tables at Bovada/Ignition, it levels the playing field temporarily until better players (those who can adjust the fastest) figure out the way to maximize EV under the new paradigm. Don't be afraid people!

Best analogy I can think of (since I'm a DJ) is spinning vinyl on turntables (live poker) vs using a laptop/software to DJ (online/hud). The software shows you more information (can automatically beatmatch, etc) but if you didn't learn how to beatmatch by ear without software assistance (i.e. play without a HUD), and you rely too heavily on software to do your work for you, then you will always be at the mercy of that software's availability. Sometimes you just need to go analog, baby!

I personally consider myself a modest winning rec player (8.9 big blinds/hour over 2,958 hours of live play at 1/2, 2/3, 2/5 and 5/5 over the past ~10 years) but never went pro because I found that I enjoyed the game less when I needed to win (to pay bills) and much preferred stable income with poker on the side. I have always been a student of the game even as a hobbyist and I used to play plenty of online before Black Friday but once I learned about the existence of HUDs I realized I would always be at a disadvantage if I didn't take the time to install the same software and learn how to use it effectively (tried to do it once but had a Mac and I felt in over my head...this was a while ago so it may have gotten more user friendly since then but still) so I just stopped playing online and focused more on live poker.

I for one would be interested in trying this new software out and seeing if I can figure it out faster than all of the HUD-hugging regs out there.

You are not correct here, and Phil is quite explicit that he is purposefully lowering the attainable edge and means to continue to do so going forward. You are misunderstanding what this means and so you conclusion is based on your wrong assumption.

You are not willing to put in the work, and so you think those that are should have their edge equalized.

It should be the most studied players win the most on average, that is what poker is, and those that don't understand the game properly should not also decide its fate. Of course a losing player wants the site to take from the winnings player. But it doesn't result in the losing players winning it results in the site winning at the expense of all the players.

Any good pro wants a game that is enjoyable for everyone, but to do it at the expense of the profitability of the game is to secretly offer a jackpot game under the guise that it is still poker. Phil KNOWS this.

I didn't imply that you didn't put in work. I said you are one of the people who wish they played in a time when it was easy to make money and who think that those days might be back. But that's just not going to happen, those days were already gone before Black Friday and won't come back. There's no business model for a poker site with low rake and big edges for winning players. PG said he wants to do things better and more player friendly than other networks but he never said that he could bring the golden days back.

Very possible that you put in more work than I did, but I played years before BF when poker was still easy and nobody had to study hours every day. Not sure why it matters, but I was a mod here pre-BF and have worked many years in the poker space as coach for a training site and also consulting for a poker network.

Let's see how the final product (or beta) is going to look like before starting to complain about it.

I'm only suggesting players that do their homework should expect to win. The direction Phil explains, that runs parallel with Poker Stars, is the opposite direction. I never experienced the golden days. I expected to work hard and it excited me to think that I could reap benefits from this effort.

No reasonable player is happy about hearing a site reducing the attainable edge without a corresponding rake % decrease.

Games are not golden, but are sites suffering in regard to their share (or comparative profits) or are they gaining because the fields are more break even and there is less and less possible edge? Or are they simply able to gain political support for unfavorable changes that the general player pool doesn't understand the long term and over all effects of?

edit: Also since the times are not golden shouldn't the players want more attainable edge rather than less?

Instead of complaining, it sounds like you need to start putting in some work and learn how to beat recs without using a HUD

I don't know what makes you think anon/HUDless poker is somehow unbeatable.
Esp, considering that Rio will very likely offer lower rake + higher rakeback than the site whose policies you claim Phil is emulating.

Poker is only sustainable if the losers win often enough to keep losing. Taking steps to protect weaker players can also benefit winning players.

I stopped using a hud a long time ago. I play mostly mtt/sng's and the stats are not very useful. In fact I think most players that use HUD trap themselves into wrong assumptions and it keeps them losing players or at least from expanding. Nevertheless you are implying that the decisions made do not lower the overall attainable edge and they quite obviously do and Phil states this, and states its his intent.

I understand you have the opposite opinion but it seems clear no reasonable and sincere players would favor changes that lower the attainable edge.

There is no suggestion that Rio will offer lower rake and higher rake back. It is actually quite concerning that this is something that he failed to go over. And you also don't understand that lowering rake in tandem with lowering attainable edges does not favor the players. Phil has directly stated he means to lower the profitability of the games. You can't invoke a theoretical counter argument that is not inline with his stated intentions.
Not if the steps taken are to lower the amount the winning player wins.

Why? For example, I think TooCuriousso1 is still a reasonable and sincere player.