If you use targeted stuff, the reward would not be small. You could also allow opt outs, but I highly doubt most people would exercise them. You could really get creative and insure the rewards to mitigate cost as well (example- insurance against multi tournament bink).

Consider this: entire industries have made their bones with this method, and it works great. Ever go away on vacation and receive an offer to attend a seminar/sales pitch in exchange for hotel vouchers and dinner? Why do you think the 'reward' is so high? Most people believe they are not susceptible to advertising, yet all of us are.

If you use targeted advertising, the projected revenue goes up exponentially. You could even use wholly commission based advertising and put in the TOS that you will 'give back' x percentage to the players, for example. That's a powerful incentive for players to participate.

I'm getting excited for the first time in 2 years.

I pray that our savior will create a stable online poker site and work with congress to help bring legal online poker to USA.

I always thought you had that sorted out already.

Holdem manager 3, now bundled with ad blocker...

Ads suck regardless. But the forced ad before cashout idea wasn't terrible.

YouTube video ads can be pretty targeted, to use an example. I don't think many people who monetize their videos on YouTube are averaging over $10 for 1000 successful ad views. It might be possible to achieve a higher return but there's a ceiling somewhere and I don't think it would be vastly higher than my estimates. Advertising online works on scale, you kind of have to leverage large audiences to make sizable returns. Using incentives is comparative, but why incentivize a player to make a purchase when you can encourage him to make a deposit instead?

Most people don't average more than $2/1k views (some people average less). Youtube pockets about the same as the Youtubers so the total add revenue is about $4/1k views. if you compare those numbers to rake/ hand it's very difficult to justify ad revenue as an alternative to high rake.

holy **** logic

Yeah, its this. pretty simple. lol at fish complaining about HUDS. literally never ****ing heard that in a live poker room in the past ~10 years, and i know lots of live players who dabble online.

yea people think they lose cause of huds cause they live in denial and can not be honest with themselves that they are just simply awful at poker!

Right. I was just giving a broad estimate because some niche ads do pay higher.

+1.

How many of those other sites were successful or even around today?
How bad could it be him excluding US players is a step in the right direction even though it sucks for us living in merica.

I'll believe it when I see it.

I think it's doomed to fail if they don't do very specific things that most serious players would not like ie no NLHE, huge incentives to play mixed only, extremely low rake, and an extremely low cap on max stakes available along with everything else (no chat, no multitabling etc etc)

Haven't read any responses but I honestly don't see how a new site could be a whole lot better than the existing ones as long as the number of players dedicated to and capable of solving the game is increasing.

Level of rake and all that sort of stuff are just minor variables in the scheme of things.

This will always be the case but if we have someone steering a site in favor of the regs the scenario is slightly different.

For one, IF RIO offers PLO that isn't raked at x2 the bb/100 that holdem has been historically at stars etc... then naturally we'll see a much large proportion of players sit at variants that are less solved than holdem like PLO. A lot of pros shifted to PLO when they realized how wider the skill spectrum was in PLO - only for the sites to shut down the attractiveness of this transition by raking the **** out of PLO.

(If the rake stayed the same, I suspect PLO traffic would have eventually superseded Holdem traffic, which would have been a nightmare for PS/FT from a beginners or TV show perspective. However, a poker site backed by training content focusing on turning beginners into grinders and holdem grinders into mix game grinders....thats a pretty euphoric scenario for the evolution of poker variants imo and creating new harder to solve mix game variants)

PS/FT/PP had always been quite mandatory that Holdem is the only way to go someone like Galfond will probably have the zen state of mind to steer the poker site to grow mix games to give the regs what they want.

lol you guys. as i said. in order to make the games sustainable long term- they would have to implement certain strategies that would turn a "serious" for profit player away from the game.

so they limit tables, the make the rake really tiny... they dont offer games with a huge skill edge ie nlhe/ nl2-7 etc. ie the only games they offer are mixed formats AND they make the max stakes really tiny like $1 $2 limit.

gets rid of grindbots, gets rid of people trying to make a living off the game, tiny rake makes it so people actually win in games with small edges relative to stakes, and nobody is motivated to make some software bot program when the max tables is:1 and the max stakes is idk $1 /$2 FL.

thats not going to happen though because every owner/ operator etc is greedy af no exceptions

I actually agree with this to an extent apart from the lol you guys sigh. And turning serious players away. The player pool needs to 5-20% serious players to keep the dream alive man.

This is where your argument falls flat because of the cost of living index, by country.

To succeed with your proposal, they have to ringfence the pools by country and tweak stakes by regions to make the maximum win-able amount less than the cost of living per each pegged region.

Are you sure about this statement, this is phil ****ing galfond we're speculating about here?
Can you imagine what the spike in his RIO subs are gonna be like alone?

This pretty much proves his point no?

dont you mean tish

also you make my argumenteh for me with that statement.

Let me sum things up so far to put some fire in teh hole:

PG is trying to create a fair "pokersite" about which when it goes live every reg knows about, some semiregs know about and not a single funplayer knows about and in order to recruit fun players we competing vs Christiano Ronaldo, Neymar and co.

Teh question isnt really how high teh rake is, wat games they offer or how fast teh support replies. Teh literally only question if this does work or doesnt is IF HE GETS FUNPLAYERS/NETDEPOSITORS and how fast and how many.
And Im fairly sceptic here

No

Not gonna get into a stone throwing fight here

I'm a 2003-2008 winning playing. 2008-2015 loosing/break even reg.

I'm the type of funplayer they need to attract with repeat disposable income. There's plenty of me around this place.

Maybe they just stop choosing to play at poker because they realise that they are losing their money faster than they do playing at a game of chance.

So even if they have a small edge at poker, they lose that because of the Huds and all of that stuff, so they would rather play another (non-poker) game where they lose at a smaller rate, and don't have a game where they are either ignored or abused as a fish.

Go figure how the poker game has diminished lol!