Having large splashes where the most +ev thing is to ship atc is also skill based, it's just very easy to solve. Also recs dont necessarily get less rakeback when it becomes skill based, but anyways it doesnt really matter.

Fairness is trumped by enjoyability in this case which is why all my concerns had to do with recs potentially being forced by the rakeback system to risk a good amount of money for the +ev play, and then not wanting to play again because of it.

What if someone does not have a long term winrate and therefore might not have funds to grind until unlocking a 'XYZ' points goal that will pay them % amount of rakeback vs splash the pot you can 10x your stack in one hand potentially, which is WAY more exciting for a rec or someone wanting to have fun. A winning poker player will not care about some added variance unless they are massive nits looking to squeeze every penny of ev out of each situation with no long term effects in mind

My take on the big splash pots is that you will have 1 person come out of with a positive experience and 5 with a negative experience. If 5 out of 6 of your customers are having a bad time, it's not good for business. And some customers, due to variance, may not win one for months, if ever. But I guess the mega splash pots will be super rare so it depends on whether people will have a glass half full or empty reaction to them. Phil and co will have the data whether it's working on not and I assume will adjust as needed.

On the big splash pots they need to give everyone a share of it or just refund everyone their stack back so a rec doesn't bust his account because he needs to go all in.

Instead of a 51% high-variance rakeback for all: why not simply half the rake straight away without any RB?

This just isn't true. It may annoy bad regs but I struggle to see how fish don't love the thought of winning big pots and the excitement of it happening in game. Just because they don't win it doesn't mean they had a bad time.

Because it's a marketing tool.

+1. Great idea imo

I like this idea.

they could make big (100bb+) splashed pots be pot limit so there's still some play besides preflop allin

It'll just go pot, pot, pot until it's all in anyway.

There should be a very simple 'Progress Bar'.
It fills up as you play hands.

0 - 500 hands - No Status
500 - 5000 hands - Player
5000 - 50000 hands - Pro
50000+ hands - Sicko

A badge is displayed by your Avatar.
It resets monthly.

Maybe a very small surprise reward - CHEST!!??
But maybe no reward is needed.

It feels good to know you made some progress during the session, even if you lost $$.

Splash Pots idea is genius, it is one of the better inventions I have ever seen in poker. Keep the hard work RIO !

If it were my site, I'd have two categories: high frequency splashes (0-5BB) and low frequency splashes (25BB+, you could call it SUPER SPLASH™). The high frequency splashes would play just as they do now. The bigger, low frequency splashes would instead be flips.

To me, this is the best of both worlds. You get to keep messing with the bots with the high frequency splashes, and attract recs with the SUPER SPLASH™. In the current system, saying rakeback is paid equally is technically true, but somewhat disingenuous because recs will be making larger mistakes in the bigger splashes and highly skilled players will be making way more than 51%. Which is fine, if that's what you want. I prefer the above option though.

for sure, recs love that type of thing. Great idea. lol at miserable regs criticizing it.

As some have already mentioned, they're doing the splash pot thing totally wrong.

By forcing recs to play the hand in order to win the juiced-up pot, you will have the situation all too often where the rec basically gets stacked when drawing thin or dead, rationalizing that it makes sense because the "splashed" pot is so juiced with free money.

There's a simple solution to this:

For the rare "splash pot" hands which occur, temporarily move everyone's money off the table and start everyone with 20 "play money" BB. Whoever wins the pot gets the bonus money, and then return everyone's stacks as they were before.

Have a pop-up or some kind of visible message to all the players so they understand this is a special bonus hand, and the money in their stack is just play money for this hand only, and their regular stack will return at the end of the bonus hand.

Simply put, make it like the "bonus" round of 1980s video games, where you can't lose, and then you return to normal gameplay the next level.

Also, on a side note, you shouldn't advertise "51% rakeback" when in reality it's 51% of the rake being redirected into promo money. Even though it's returning 51% overall to the players, it will be disproportionate, and will confuse people used to traditional rakeback (a model which has existed for well over 15 years).

I would change "51% rakeback" to "51% of your rake given back to the players in the forum of random bonus hands!"

i like this, maybe play for 50bbs and share the rest. They have to cap it otherwise it becomes very -ev for deep stacks at the table.

If you are using play money to win real money, there is of course no reason for all players not to go all-in. This would just be a flip introduced by a meaningless ritual. I think it's important to keep it skill based, and to add a little complexity to a game that's getting more and more solved by the day.

Doesn't mean it has no room for improvement. Criticism is a good thing, and I would bet money that RIO would like to hear critiques and ways to improve their system. Especially at this stage.

You both are also misconstruing the argument. Arguing that huge splashes have a negative effect does not mean the entire system should be scrapped.

This seems like the best way. Make the splashed pot smaller, and then refund stacks after. Taking a 1000 bb splash on a 6max table with 100bb stacks as an example. If the splash is 1000 then what will happen is one player wins 1500 and 5 lose 100. If instead the splash was 500 then everyone is still incentivized to gamble, one player still wins 1000, and the other 5 are refunded 100 bbs.

This would result in the big gamble, one player who is extremely happy, and 5 who are no worse off than where they were before the hand.






I also think that the system as a whole could create an incentive for short stacking instead of reloading, and also nitty play. Would need to see how often they occur to determine, but it's still a concern.

There was a lot of discussion about it on discord, and their team is aware of it. Ppl were suggesting to share the big splash pots according to the hand you have and how big your stack is.

refund is just silly, if you want to gamble with no money involved, you should just play for playmoney on other sites, or fire up some freerolls.

I really like splash pots overall and gambling is fine but I think the big splashes just have too much variance and the gamble gets worse as the stacks get deeper.


Another option may be to cap the size of the pot to the lowest stack at the table so that everyone gets the same price on the gamble.

Very well put imo. How much "better" does it feel to see a 250bb splash vs a 50bb splash? 5x more dopamines/serotonin released? My guesstimate is that no more than 100bb is needed to keep both the recs and the crushers happy. It's a full buy-in. It's an extra digit. Those things resonate positively w customers in the same way the 51% RB concept will.

Higher frequency STP w smaller cap = more often someone wins = more often a rec gets a piece. Especially if that's their rakeback. Recs who see good players "win a bunch of free money" leads to "no wonder I can't win here, I'm gonna fire up some Spins instead" thinking, faster than they can close the client.

Another feasible alternative would be to provide rebates to the 5 players who didn't win the STP. Is there any doubt they will experience a visceral feeling of loss after not winning said pot? Turning off too many potential frequent net depositors early on could be something really tough to come back from, I'd guess.

Requiring 100bb buy-ins is too much an ode to the OMGCLAYAIKEN in you. Phil Galfond, RIO owner/businessperson, is being ignored within that inner monologue. Everyone loved watching Brad Booth pull out those bricks and bluff Ivey off KK. But deep-stacked poker played at a high level, is much more enjoyable for your customers to watch, than to attempt themselves, with their own money. To stave off the pro short stackers, without turning off the recs who sometimes want to buy-in w random amounts, perhaps consider a 60bb-100bb buy-in?

It's not enough to consider what recs believe they will enjoy that matters. It's also important to consider what they will actually enjoy, in practice. Otherwise, to borrow the phrase from NCAA B-ball, you will have a lot of "1 and done" customers. Unless able to charge substantially higher margins for their product (not really possible in the online poker space), new companies entering a dynamic, but intermediately mature market, might want to cast as wide a net as possible, within their budget.

It's good that there are no SNGs at launch. I think 2 MTTs/wk to start, w some added money for the 'loyalists', isn't a bad idea, if RIO software can handle the technical demands. It shouldn't split the pool too much, esp if held at two distinct peak times, such as Friday evening and Sunday late afternoon time zones of your largest customer base.

Unless your team doesn't anticipate the software will be up to par, I think it's a mistake to forego standard mixed games for the near future. While almost all of your customers will not have Archie, short deck, badeucy, or 2-7 razz in their repertoire - I suspect many of the players who used to fill the 8g tables - until rake, the Stars monopoly, and poor gov't regulation, made it too tough for all but the best to continue on - they would immediately give your site a try.

As opposed to the NL/PLO players w too many sites to choose from, many of the mix players are looking for a place to play. Welcoming them w open arms matches well w your Elite RIO membership, where these games are taught. That's a win/win for RIO. Without knowing where the software is at, the PR wrt mixed games indicates RIO is at least 6-12 mos from offering them. I would think games like FLO8/Big O would be easy to roll out, but I'm guessing and have zero software expertise.

As a US rec player, it might seem odd for me to post, as I'll have no skin in the game for a decade. But without knowing you in the slightest, my impression is that you want online poker to succeed and I give you credit for putting yourself out on a limb to try and accomplish that. I guess I'm trying to pay back that credit w whatever this post inspires you to do, even if it means putting me on ignore (couldn't blame you).

I'd just be careful not to let the 23 yr old version of yourself (as a consumer), who could play all day and night, take precedence over your current ambitions, as an operator trying to ensure the long term success of RIO poker. It's prob harder for you to drop down to an avg player's mindset than it is for me or almost anyone else. Therein lies the challenge, I guess. Just some rambling thoughts. I hope it works out. Gl

and this too!

Ok, so did someone try any bot on this platform yet? Can they be traced? How do they deal with collusion? Any info about that?

Bots works just fine haven't been traced yet. And no issues with colluding either. Just go for it.

I am being very frustrated that my timebank does not automatically enable itself when I am trying to tailor my betsize preflop in the bet slider. I keep on timing out ...