A few questions that I think could fit in the RIO thread but I think apply to a more general and significant conversation of what a poker site should be (no complaints to mods if they feel it too specific to RIO to not be in that thread).

Isn't it counter-intuitive to business and and ineffective from the players perspective to make policies (caps) against multi-tabling when players can just add tables from multiple sites (defeating the time bank complaint etc.) and knowing that if these policies add to the profitability of games then more pros will join to game the profits (does anyone argue RIO will have a vast amount of fun players such that the regs/pros cannot game it to an insignificant amount of fun money even with a low table cap)?

Since there exists the argument that skill edge has risen to the point where fun players are getting destroyed too fast why hasn't evidence/data been provided to show where this “sweet spot” lies been put forth? If there is no such evidence then where is the basis for this claim that we have approached this point? Put another way, how are we running on the assumption that the professional has out run the average or losing player without the observation that the average or losing play of today, with all the access to free information (and far superior strategy tutorials etc.), is no doubt a vastly superior player to the average losing player of 10 or even 5 years ago?

If time banking from multi-tabling regs is a problem why should the time bank for everyone suffer and it not just be a simple algorithm aimed at the problematic players? (Here I think its not irrelevant to consider the effects of timebank policies as they asymptotically limit to zero)

Has RIO considered that if the streaming sites are gamed they could be paying out indefinite amounts rackback such that they can't reasonable cover startup or even operating costs (perhaps I have missed something here)?

What is the recreational experience of missing out on splash pots (folding) because of not wanting to play “bingo poker” and not having a large enough bankroll to survive the variance of all-in “flips”? Isn't it that increasing the odds/payoff does not necessarily transfer to more fun for the average player that doesn’t “understand” ev nor want to put their stack on the line without seeing a board first and getting to actually play poker and make decisions?

Isn't the unique aspect or the dream of poker that you can aspire to be like the known professional idols (Phil Galfond!) and actually have a chance to play with them? Doesn't, for example, RIO poker kill this dream (and the creativity!) with it's policies (such as an inability to have unique screen-names and avatars)?

Isn't it ironic that Daniel Negreanu sold to the players the idea that pros follow the recs (regardless of rake) yet his iconic status has earned him some of the most prestigious sponsorship/marketing deals in the history of the game? Isn't his argument that such costs are a waste?

I think the idea with RIO and the policies is to make poker fun again first and for most for the average rec and keep money in the game longer, protecting them from being viciously preyed upon. Good players will still join a profitable game but it will have more fun players in longer because they aren't being destroyed instantly.

The basis for the claim that we've approached the point where fun players are getting killed too fast is the fact that most online cash games are pretty much dead.

I think its only fair for the timebank policy to be the same for everyone.

Most recs like gambling. Flipping for a huge splashed pot would be a lot of fun for a lot of recs and keep them playing in games for the chance at another one.

I think its pretty well accepted that the old dream of being like the know professional online idols is gone and dead. It will never be the full tilt days again and that's fine.

Daniel Negreanu is a nitwit.

most recs like gambling but dont use br management. how is having them (try to) fight against superior players for rakeback, or do 6 way flips with 1/4th of their roll for the 50bb+ splash pots going to keep them in the game longer

Thx jojo and you make a perfect example of the perspective I mean to speak to.

I understand why you might say this but it goes against the stated purpose Galfond initially gave for creating RIO Poker:

You are probably not a serious enough player to have spent a lot of in depth time on statistical/database analysis but what I have said is that there should be actual data. What you have done here is simply assert that the games drying up is necessarily because of the skill edge. But since its quite obvious that the bottom losing players of today are far more informed "game theoretically" than those of 5 or 10 years ago it doesn't really standard to reason that there is the edge that is responsible for the decline.

Nonetheless its either provable or baseless.

It is the same rule for everyone that if you abuse your timebank then you have less time. To punish everyone for what only some players are abusing is not at all equal treatment in the "fairness" aspect of the word equal.

I don't think this is true. I think a lot of recs play poker because they like to play poker. They like to see flops. They like to play streets.

I don't think they like being compelled to go all in preflop and I think that this was shown on the recent joey podcast when him and Phil watch a STP hand and many players obviously made "bad folds" that were quite understandable from the player type that plays poker to play poker.

Phil has stated he means to serve the dream and I think I make a good point when I say that the idea that a player might want to chase that dream has become seen as a negative thing with some players in the community. It's really strange that he specifically said this and then many seemingly recreational players sort of deny it vehemently.

I dunno man, there's probably no empirical statistical evidence that games have dried up because of the massive unfair advantages of the seriously skilled player who uses software tools vs. the fun player (who is also a lot more skilled now) because nobody has bothered to run the data because its obvious or its not really measurable beyond a doubt.

Less timebank for everyone is fair and disadvantages the multitabler. Seems pretty simple.

I think most of the recs play poker because its a gambling game first and foremost. I don't know why everyone is getting so caught up on the huge splashed pots. They are extremely rare in comparison to the splashed pots which are 1-10 BB which is irrelevant to the whole "all in preflop bingo poker is a problem for recs" concern.

Phil has stated he wants to reinstate the poker dream, that doesn't necessarily mean recreating RailHeaven from the glory days.

They will win the odd huge splashed spot. When a gambler makes a "big score" it draws them back to the game over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

Here again we highlight an inconsistency in this "rec" orientated argument with respect to what you suggested ealier:

Obviously a sincere recreational can unknowingly make this mistake but any decent reg who understands ev knows that enticing a player to just "gamble gamble gamble" runs counter to not having them "killed too fast".

I'm somewhat of a reg myself, with a huge propensity or gambling. I've ran up decent bankrolls from time to time, 5 or 6 times in the last few years around the 50k range playing omaha cash, only to eventually give most of it back every time.

Its not fun to play in games where I know I'm being preyed upon. It is however fun to play in a game where I know I'm probably still a dog but at least have a fighting chance at running something up and I will continue to play those games.

I've also been playing on RIO since its started, and even the small splashed pots create tons of action. People get stupid for no reason, raising garbage hands for small splashed pots, and then put their money in on the flop because they feel committed and it has been a lot of fun so far.

Think of a 50bb splash pot where you get dealt AA in the BB. All 5 players before you go all in and you have to flip 6 ways with what? 20% equity? Give 1 guy KK and the rest random hands and T5 suited wins, how happy will you be to lose this pot at 100bb while taking a shot at a higher level than your bankroll can take. You go from 80% equity which might have gotten all-in preflop 2 ways, to a flip where your hand will likely not win.

Thx for your comments jojo.

It seems to be somewhat prevalent that there is a player type that has selfinconsistent points to make and whether this is because of some conspiracy plot by nefarious sites (not likely) or just a general phenomenon that occurs naturally for whatever reason, what I notice with these players is that they never are able to see that they are making obvious (to a reg that understands EV) inconsistent points.

What is more interesting is that you can point this out to this player type and they have no intention in addressing or understanding what is being said to them.

Exactly. This is a nightmare scenario to the stereotypical fun player. And thats coming from the experience of hearing over and over this type of complaint about getting AA from this type of player.

There is a certain amount of fun to it in a certain way. But it quite ironically and observably doesn't serve the stated purpose. I think that we saw on joey's interview multiple players folding is a perfect example. They don't understand EV so it can be an unfavorable (ie scary) position from the eyes of a rec who wants to see flops and play streets because to them they get to play poker and out play their opponents.

Thanks for your comments RunitPony. I'm starting to think you may be one of those guys who gets a little too focused on theory and statistics and somehow misses the forest for the trees when its slapping them right in the face.

Cheers!

I think what I am trying to say is there seems to be a segment of the community that, like you, represent a player type that can't really exist beyond their forum profile because they are logically self-inconsistent.

When this is pointed out to this player type they seem to never actually acknowledge the obvious truth of this but resort to a type of passive aggressiveness and a weird "cluelessness" of what is being pointed out to them but also a weird knowledge of the game, rake, player types, and the effects of the parameters that sites choose.

Both representing a player with a lot of experience and knowledge about the workings of these things and player profiles but one that doesn't mind knowingly making bad decisions.

I don't think a lot of habitual depositors are knowingly and willingly making bad decisions. I think a lot of them really think they have the skill that they don't. This is why the vast majority want to see flops and play streets and not just play "bingo poker". This is what is unique and special about poker don't you agree?

I totally understand your point of view, but beleive your response further confirms my inclination that you are probably a person who is quite socially inept, and has a lack of emotional intelligence which clouds their understanding of why or why not a fun player chooses to continue playing or not when they're aware they're likely not a long term winner.

Actually you are asserting you understand my view but I think the causal observer would easily notice you don't. The idea that a habitually depositing player would understand how the different player types are motivated better than well established winning player is not really palatable to me. The implication that the professional player is implicitly out of touch with what motivates a recreational player to make decisions I think is a misunderstanding of how a professional player makes their decisions (and profits).

I've done a lot of thinking and studying on the different player types and their motivations. I may not know you as much as you know your self, but I think probabilistically speaking a professional player knows the motivations of a recreational player's decisions in general better than they know their own.

As for my emotional intelligence and social skills (irl) I don't think you infer very well in that regard either.

Anyways, yes players continue when they think they are the underdog but if they are shown and know a specific spot is wrong to take they will generally not take it. It is only a smaller and small subset of losing players that are not interested in taking an action they know is better.

I'm not implying that the typical professional is out of touch with what motivates the rec, I'm implying that YOU appear to be out of touch, and it makes sense how that may not be palatable to you- likely a dunning-kruger type situation occuring.

I'm quite certain that the average habitual depositor wants to win by making good decisions rather than to gamble gamble gamble. It's very much the reason many people play poker rather than the other house games that are jackpot games. Gambling is fun too and so is the little jackpot game here and there but the idea that we might serve the good of the game by enticing habitual depositors to break their roll on flips is completely antithetical to not busting them too fast.

And most of them don't want to play this kind of poker. I played 100k+sitngos. The habitual depositors are most often loose passive or tight passive and its the rare gem that is a manic that is loose aggressive. Recs that habitually deposit want to see flops play streets and life preserve with smaller showdowns not stack pre with bad hands.

And this was brought to my attention by Joe Ingram making this point to Phil and then them both witnessing much of the table folding in an stp hand so its really not that crazy of an argument to point out.

It might be difficult for a habitual depositor to understand I guess but I don't think that player understands the motivation of their class very well which is part of the reason they are in it.

Again, I think you're weighing far too heavily the impact of these large "splash pots" especially when considering the positive effect that the smaller, far far more common smaller splash pots can have on the overall dynamic of the game.

Obviously most recs don't want to just jam in their stacks preflop constantly. Poker recs choose poker largely because of the element of skill or perceived element of control of their destiny. The absolute mouth-breathing recs you probably played against who frequented your low stakes sit'n'gos when you were a rakeback pro probably were weak and passive because of the nature of those games. This is not the case of the typical rec , especially one who's playing mid or higher stakes cash or tournaments.

And again, your assertion that someone is likely in a class "because they can't understand some fundamental flaw" in their thinking is a huge testament for how little you understand about the psychology of gamblers and why they do what they do.

OP is far removed from reality(I didn't read the rest of the thread)

I've been playing on RIO since it launched and the biggest splash pot I've seen was 15bb.

Small splashes that occur majority of the time have nothing but positive effect on the game.

All these concerns you have are way exaggerated compared to what is actually happening.

And are you really that naive to think that someone would make business decisions without looking at data?

I have to agree with your "habitual depositor" profile.

Nowadays mindless recs that want to just blindly gamble are few and far between.

Majority of habitual depositors simply are players that are further behind in their learning of the game. I also believe that in this day and age majority of them are attracted to poker because it is different from other gambling games since you can make +EV decisions. And I agree that most players want to make them and would make them if they had sufficient knowledge.

Still, in no way splash pots encourage gambling to the point that OP is painting ITT.

Josso jojobordello has admitted to being a regular habitual depositor:

Do you consider yourself of this same player type? What would you identify as?

I think joey ingram would consider himself a professional long run winning player and my points about STP are actually HIS points so you are really suggesting he is far removed from reality as well. There are other people that identify as long term winning regulars/pros (as do I) and they also feel the same way.

Why is it the long term winning players have the same complaints and the players claiming to be content at losing keep arguing that the pros don't understand the game and the nature of the player types that make it up?

What I am noting is that there is only the self-inconsistent player type, that can't truly exist other than in notion or forum image, that continually supports ideas such as what Daniel Negreanu sold to the players which is that games that are profitable for pros are bad.

Can you give an example of something that I have way over-exaggerated on (from the OP since you haven't read any posts before you claimed this) using a quote rather than vague accusation that doesn't really counter any of the specific point I have made?

I wouldn't think decisions were made without data, but I am saying that no data has been put forth. In RIO pokers case the data is not data that is local/private/proprietary to RIO poker since they have only just launched, and so it can easily be made public to support the idea that recreational or net depositors of today face a significant edge disparity compared to the same player types from 10 or 5 years ago.

That is a claim. But the claim doesn't seem to account for the observable fact that these "recs" from today are much better than the "recs" from the past. If the disparity exists why hasn't any site proved it in order to justify the claim that edge must be taken and rake increased to battle it?

I think you must be referring to this:

I am not against the novelty of the stp program. Even if it was unfavorable its an attempt to be novel. I am not speaking to the whole stp program. Phil said he wants there to be far more many smaller pot bonuses and many very large bonuses (less of the in between). Small ones are kinda meh (but not insignificant) and the large ones I think would be frustrating to see for recs with small rolls that come to play poker and not bingo poker (this coupled with the fact that they cannot choose their buyin which I think is not an unrelated or insignificant point).

I don't really see how I am exaggerating and again I am only rehashing a point that many experience intelligent professional winning players have made about the recreational player type.

Most importantly and the theme of most or all of my points is the strange phenomenon of the impossible player type that seems to pervade all the poker site policy related discussions that want to speak as tho they understand the player types more than the winning regulars. I think that is concerning and we miss obvious important counter points as a community because of the behavior.

You're whole concern with the impact of big STPs is exaggerated because they are not happening at any significant frequency. In fact they are so rare that they will not have any major impact either way. I haven't yet experienced a single "pre flop bingo", as you describe it.

I'm stating this based on my experience of playing on RIO since it launched. Joe Ingram has not played on RIO, I think you attribute more weight to his comments than he would himself. There are plenty of pros that actually played on RIO and love STP. Since you asked, I'm a pro player and while I had great reservations about the idea of STPs initially, after playing on RIO I clearly see what a great idea they are.

Note, I only play NL and my comments only relate to the great game of two card PLO. Maybe you are a PLO player and thus your concerns are different. I can see how impact of STPs in PLO might be much greater than in NL.

Jojo, get off your high horse, insulting people isn't a good look for you and your enlightened perspective.