RIO Poker Post #3: Just Play
Posted by Phil Galfond
Posted by
Phil Galfond
posted in
Run It Once Poker
RIO Poker Post #3: Just Play
Hey, everyone!
My 3rd post on Run It Once Poker is up. If you haven't seen my 2nd post, please check that out before reading this one; it'll make much more sense.
I got a lot of insightful questions and comments last time (231 comments and counting), which is what I was hoping for, but the last thread did feel a bit like a Q&A directly with me. I spent several full days trying to keep up with it, but I know that I won't always be able to.
I encourage everyone (please!) to debate and discuss things as a group so that this thread can provide us with more valuable insight and ideas, and so that you don't all get tired of waiting for me to keep the conversation going!
For these announcements, I have structured them in a bit of a "start and end with a bang" kind of way. There are many policies I want to cover over the next several posts, and not each and every one comes with a unique and exciting feature attached. This post should have ended up a good bit shorter than it was, as I covered a couple of our simpler policies, but, as you'll see, I had a lot on my mind.
Loading 97 Comments...
i am the poker Bob. Engineer by day, all game degenerate at night, and i love it. 5 years in and countless deposits.
<3 Poker Bob
Hello Bob
Would you like to be a professional player?
I FCKING LOVE IT!
Love this idea! Ignition has the auto-seating and it is great. Though I wish people got a pop-up that said "If you leave a table to try to find a new one you will get seated at the same table within 30 minutes" or something similar. Just because you see players come and go a lot.
Also, you said:
And I don't mean to argue semantics but the deeper the rat-holers are forced to play, the more professionals will have an advantage.
Overall, these concepts that you guys are implementing are fabulous. Wish us Americans could play on there sooner :)
Thank you and I agree. I mentioned towards the middle that one of our decisions will increase the win-rates of pros, but I didn't mention it in the 100bb section.
You're definitely right that this policy will have effects in both directions on how long a recreational player's deposit lasts, but I think that the net result will be positive.
I like the auto seat feature and everything you have told us so far about Rio Poker Phil. I'm excited for what is to come.
However, I have to say that I think your comparison between a recreational player playing poker for fun and someone spending money at Disneyland is pretty poor.
I think such comparison would only be fair if the main experience people want from poker wasn't winning money, but I don't think you can say that. Yes, there are different types of players and all that, and people may seek things other than money, however the purpose of poker is to win money. The culture of the game doesn't exist without the idea of winning money by playing. So, no matter how you put it, (most) recreationals need the possible idea that they will eventually make money to keep playing. And they get that from variance, which is a natural part of the game.
If you would make an experiment, and tell straight to all recreational players faces once they try to buy-in on a tournament our cash game table: "Warning! You are very likely to eventually lose all your account balance if you keep sitting at this table", what do you think would happen? People would still keep trying and sitting because they want to have fun? Maybe a few would. But the majority of the people would just find something else to do.
The "fun" experience from playing poker comes mainly from winning. Losing doesn't feel any good. How common it is for someone to like something that they suck at? The thing about being a recreational player is that you don't realize you are not good. It takes sometime until you figure it out. When you go to disneyland, you are exachanging money for a structure that was built to give you a good time, and you will have a good time regardless of your "performance" at the park, if that makes any sense. If you are a losing player, you will only have a good time (for most people) when variance allows you to have a positive session.
The few people that keep playing and losing repeteadly, knowing that they are proven losers, are either addicted gamblers who are clueless about the nature of the game or really passionated people who like a strategy game but can't afford taking the time to learn it. However, why those people keep playing for real money? Why they don't just go play with fake chips? Its seems weird to me that you are consciously willing to lose money if you can get the same experience without losing any, since all you enjoy is the strategy and etc. The answer is most likely that even those who call themselves "lovers of the game", that dont care about making multiple deposits over the years, don't think they will get the same experience playing for play money, which means that money is a big deal for them, in terms of providing excitment or something like that, even if they may not realize it consciously.
We have to accept the fact that Poker isnt like other sports. The nature of a good poker experience is much more concentrated in the results of the activity than in the activity itself.
I think even many of the pros are mislead by the nature of the game and overestimate their abilities in certain lineups. That goes more for the fish and even if you put up a sign they are gonna be losing players the wouldn't cease playing.
It's much more to that than rationality. It's the feelings, the adrenaline, rush, competition, passion, improvement, love... whatever you might call it poker gets you addicted in a way and as said in the Post #3 a lot of pros like you think the recs are mentally inferior to them but I can be quite sure you were no different when you started out.
Plus he's not saying who's winning or who's losing. Quite the oposite he is leveling the field in a way.
I should add that im talking about online poker here, where there is no social aspect that could add potential value/entertainment/experience to simply playing.
Yeah I do too. The things I listed also appear online.
How are you coming to this conclusion? I find that very hard to believe, however I dont think we can know for sure unless someone actually tried the experiment.
Yes but all of that comes attached or as a consequence of possibly winning money. It all circles around money. A few weeks after me and my friends started playing home games with play money, we started betting real money because "there is no excitment" or "no one is gonna play seriously" without money. That was what we arrived at, even tho we were all recreationals and had never played a real tournament or live cash game. And Im sure most people had a similar experience. You can't pretend that the poker experience doesn't depend on money and the possibility of winning it through playing a poker hand or tournament.
Where did you get the idea that I think recs are mentally inferior? Thats probably you projecting cuz I never said or implied that. I was a rec at some point. Now Im a pro, but 3 years ago I would skip uni classes to 4-table 100nl with $500 bankroll. Im no smarter than I was back then. I just believed in the illusion that most recs believe: that they can win.
First of all sorry if I came too strong on you.
1) I am the living proof that people still play even after losing. My winrate is -5bb/100 over 150k and I'm still grinding that 10nl (although I did some math on rake recently and I might have found the cause). But rationally I should have quit poker because pursuing programming might be well higher EV career. You seem very rational but if we were all like that poker would have been dead by now.
2) I also started playing with friends and we said the same thing. We didn't know we were going to win for certain or knew anything about the variance, winrates, edge etc.
One of the friends is still a rec who wins a tourney and plays 100nl with 400$ in the account - he is also a guy who plays roulette and says "hey, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose". The point I'm making is the recs don't think in/about EV. You can still win money and nobody is saying you can't but don't tell me you didn't think you were a king when you won that first homegame. Don't say you didn't overestimate your skill at that moment.
3) Sorry, I didn't mean it like that. We actually agree on that. I might have I missed the line where you were dissing the Disneyland comparison and agreeing on the idea that fish will still exist?
Thats a completely different situation man. First of all, you are way past the typical recreational category. A typical recreational player will lose at at least -15bb/100, with many losing at -30 to even -50bb/100. Second of all, you have played more than 150 thousand hands and browse the forums of the most advanced poker community in the world. Here people talk about playing mixed strategies at 4nl. So again, you are miles away from the typical recreational that watches Phil Ivey videos from 2007. Third, you probably already know that you won't win if you don't improve your game which is not the mindset most recreationals are in. 4th just the fact that you mention poker as a career choice shows again that you are definitely not in such category. It took more than a year of playing recreationally to realize that there were actually professionals making a living out of online poker. So you are definitely not proof of anything. Not only because of all things I listed but also because you can't simply take one example and then make it a proof of something.
You are proving my point here man. I'm not saying recreationals are thinking about winrates or anything like that. I'm just saying that recreationals don't know that they will eventually lose all their money if they keep playing. They are just playing a game where they think its possible to win money. Its as simple as that. I'm not saying that they play because they know they will win X amount of dollars. I'm just saying that the idea of winning money exists and its real for them. Once you take that idea out, once you tell someone "You have ZERO chance of winning money if you play, and in fact you will lose" I can't see any consequence other than most people either leaving the game or then trying to figure out why they can't win, in which both scenarios the recreational changes its own category of player.
A recreational only stays in the typical recreational category for as long as the illusion is real. Eventually, this person will wake up and realize that poker is a skill game in which they have zero chance of winning if they dont start improving their game. Thats where the fuss about poker dying comes from. Recreational players don't last forever. It doesnt matter if your site is good, and there are avatars or anything like that. Eventually, the rec will either stop playing or start improving. People say poker is dying because recs get better faster in 2018 than they did in 2008. In both cases you lost a recreational in the pool. And this happens because people don't want to keep losing when they know they will lose (unless few exceptions below) in a game where the purpose is to win money. So, in my opinion, you can't look at poker as simply a "experience" where the event of losing/winning money is secondary and non determinant of one's decision to keep playing or not. That said, there are for sure a few exceptions, like the addicted gamblers or the rich people that want to spend their money one way or the other, but I don't expect those to be a large part of the "recreational players" group. In fact I would expect that portion to be as low as like 2%.
I completely agree that variance and winning sessions are extremely important to the experience, but I disagree with your general premise, which is similar to the "we need to trick recs" premise I mentioned in my post.
Most people who play Roulette, Craps, Slots, etc. know that they are expected to lose in the long run.
People love to play casino games and love to bet sports, and while some of them do it because they think they'll be winners, many do it for fun. Like you said, a lot of that fun is based on the variance that allows them to have a winning day.
Poker has an added intriguing element compared to casino games, which is that it's possible to improve your game and your expectation; even to go from a losing player to a winning player one day. This gives the game of poker an achievement element, turning it into a game where your progress can build upon itself.
I don't know where you got this from my post. I'm just saying that I believe "being able to win money thru playing" is what drives most of the "fun experience" in poker for recreationals, which is in itself an illusion, since (most) recreationals have negative winrates. I never said poker rooms or pros should try to reinforce this illusion. I just brought that up because of your comparison with Disneyland. In my opinion, if you take out the prospect of winning money from poker, many will see it as less fun. This makes me believe that the fun in poker doesn't come from playing a hand, but rather in the result that such hand could bring. I hope I made myself clearer this time cuz I can't find any more ways to describe my thoughts.
However, I do understand that I'm biased from being a very logical thinking person and I understand that many people think differently than I do. I'm probably also biased for being a pro that doesn't find the game enjoyable anymore. Nonetheless, I still can't imagine poker being as popular as it is if play money poker was all that existed.
Do they though? I have a very hard time believing that tbh. The stereotype I have in my head is that person who doesn't understand math very well and is just looking for the "big hit". It just doesnt enter my head the idea of someone doing something so illogical and having fun with it, and again, thats my fault for projecting my way of thinking and acting into other people.
But thats my point haha The fun comes from the illusion that variance creates. You take off the illusion -> the experience becomes less fun/enjoyable. Therefore the experience depends on it. How did we end up agreeing? Or am I missing something?
Hey Phil, can you tell us what strategy will RIO have in order to bring weaker players to the pool? These days games above 2/4 do not run without recreationals as we all know. Majority of other sites get weak players through offering sportsbetting and casino games so i imagine that your team has a sound strategy concerning this matter?
Thanks, enjoy!
I would say fairness, advertising, sponsored pros. game integrity and awesome design. Phil as a lot of outreach and he could exercise it at any point like going on podcasts, Twitch, Poker Night In America, LATB...
Also the other sites don't bring in the fish with casino games but take them away from poker.
Good question, Maestrrro!
I'll touch on one specific marketing plan in a future post (perhaps two, depending what you define a marketing plan as), but Citvej is right in that we plan to go with some traditional marketing methods in the areas you might expect, and we are hoping that our brand, our product, the poker media, and the community help amplify those efforts.
I really love your ideas so far. Some comments regarding the autoseat feature. I play on Ignition which uses a similar feature and I have rather mixed feelings about it.
One major downside with the Ignition implementation was that it killed a lot of games/stakes that would run occasionally but not always. Most players don't want to deal with clicking to select a game type and then having to immediately close the table because no one is playing. I think that showing the number of players playing each stake as you have in your screenshot is probably sufficient to solve this.
The other big issue occurs with regard to starting games. In pools without that many players, it frequently is a huge pain just to get on full 6 max tables. It involves a lot of time entering and leaving the pool, getting sat short handed, people sitting out, etc. As someone that does not like to play short handed, I very much dislike this. I think a feature like "Only sit me at full tables" would be helpful (and obviously once 6 players have checked this, a game can be started very quickly).
Thanks, Spreek! Very good point.
I didn't include much detail in my post because I felt it was long enough, but I'm happy to be able to tell you we'll be addressing your concern with our AutoSeat system.
Once you join, if there isn't an active table ready for you, you'll be put on a waiting "table" until there is a table with three or more players ready to start. Closing and reopening the waiting table would only put you lower on the list.
Love the policies so far Phil. In my opinion the 2 last pieces of the puzzle are: a fair rake system (one based on rake/100 hands so plo is same as nl please :D) and a way of stopping screen scraping of cards. If you found a way of displaying Qs10s in a way that was really easy for a human to read but really difficult for a computer then you'll make online poker a much fairer game for everyone.
Thanks for the kind words and good points.
For Phase 1, we haven't built in any major scraping deterrents to separate us from other sites, but it's something that we constantly evaluate. Trust me, we understand the importance. Our Phase 2 software will be more flexible and should hopefully allow us to fight more aggressively in areas like this.
from the first 3 posts, one can clearly see how carefully thought out this whole project is and how much brainstorming sessions there must have been in the process.
looking forward to next update... hopefully some info on the rake structure but i believe that will be in the "end with a bang" part ;)
Thanks so much, Everyday . I really appreciate you acknowledging our efforts. Whatever happens and whatever people think about our choices, I promise that we have tried (and will continue to try) very hard to do what's best for our games and our players.
You're right that you'll have to wait a little while for the rake and rewards topic!
Riopoker sounds really promising so far!
About capping buyin to 100bb, how do you go busto? Lets say im pokerbob and i deposit 100e to play 1 table of nl100. After while of playing i leave the table with 95e. If i want to play again later i have to either deposit more or drop down in stakes. That sounds pretty unpractical to me.
First I thought nice point but who really does that.
If you go to a live game and buy in for 100, go busto do you just go home or do you either:
a) withdraw more money from an ATM
b) bring enough money for 2 buyins to the casino
Also - probably deal with it to program in an exceptional case to be allowed to rejoin the pool with lower amount for a period of time in case your bankroll is insufficient.
Good question Onkleb, and thank you Citvej for, whether it was intentional or not, doing a great job with my request for people to engage in discussion with posters other than just me :)
We have actually gone back and forth with how we'll handle this, but the current method, which likely will remain for launch, is that you will have to move down to buy in with 100bb.
It's imperfect, but keep in mind that it's no different from policies on other sites besides the number of blinds we cut it off at. If you deposited the min buyin on another site, the same thing would usually happen. Our min is just different.
Hey Phil Galfond . I kinda went on a RIO binge after watching Joey's podcast featuring you and thinking about some game dynamics. So when I realized your points up to now are undisputable and what you are doing with the site is hugely +EV for poker in the long term I kind of started defending it.
I did have some questions regarding the anonymous table dynamics and worries about the avatars that I wanted answered so if I had a goal it maybe was to get your attention. Also I had some thoughts of my own so here I go:
When I first heard about the dynamic avatars an idea different from yours came to my mind - a one similar to live poker or video games where you create your own avatar and you can't change it much. It would be unique or randomly assigned to you if you are too lazy to create your own. Then I could remember the fat guy with a cigar and a hat plays a certain way and not have the long term dynamics be thrown out of the window while at the same time detering bots (I mean are the bots going to have avatar recognition). It would really have brought online poker closer to live IMO. I'm just interested if you have any arguments against this idea.
So after I familiarized myself with what the dynamic avatars truly were I started asking myself how to even play at anonymous tables without a HUD and will the avatars be misleading. You did mention on the podcast they would serve just as a rough guide but I hope there's at least a training video on how to play at such tables :)
The last idea I had was offering a RIO subscription in the store that would be redeemable with points (for maybe 85% of the price). Also offering free month's subscription as a sign up bonus is just something to keep in mind.
To finish it off it all seems kind of new but it's unexploitable and good for poker so good luck ;)
Thanks, Citvej .
I am totally on the same page with avatar creation being a fun game element. The problem is that one of the main reasons we created the more anonymous style was to prevent people from gathering a lot of data on their opponents and very strongly incentivizing HUD use. If they can figure out who you are from their avatar, they can also attach your avatar to a player profile in their database.
This also brings a bunch of other weird elements like changing your avatar each day, changing it to match other players and confuse opponents, etc., which adds distraction and a lot of extra work if you want to protect yourself and increase your edge. We're trying to remove all the extra work and worry with our policies and features.
I love all this. As a rec I obviously want to still try win but if I am losing but can still have a positive experince then I will likely come back. For instance when Full Tilt had their poker academy training videos and associated in game challenges, I didn’t mind if my session didn’t exactly turn a profit because I was progressing in other ways. Ie Learning new concepts, formats, maths, positional moves, ranges etc, as well as earning ‘academy points’. I think it made me better than I was. So even though I may have been losing, I still felt that sense of progression and wanting to come back. Tying Run it Once training into Run it Once poker would be something that interests me for instance.
Thanks, Cheehc :)
Progression is really important to a lot of players; it's what drove me the most when I started.
I'm curious what others think about tying back to Run It Once Training. I agree with you, although I think we need perhaps a less advanced course to start as Essential is already pretty complex.
I know some will say that educating the recreational players will lead to tougher games and more of the money leaving via rake, etc. I'll hold off on getting further into my thoughts on that right now.
I really like what you mentioned about training videos tied to challenges, but this is something we definitely won't be able to build for Phase 1 launch. We'll be able to get more creative in Phase 2, but for now, do you have any ideas on what would you like as a player in terms of a low-tech tie-in?
By that, I mean things like: play 200 hands and unlock access to a free video, play 20 days this month and get a free month of membership, etc. (not claiming that these are what we'd offer!)
Do you think that simpler implementations like that still would be a nice positive for you?
I know ROI training is out of my price range and the content is super advanced but I would guess it could be easy enough to do VERY Basic tutorial and beginner type videos for ROI poker players that would be free and released after completing challenges. Could serve as a bridge into ROI subscription training site. Fundamental lessons around rules, hands, ranges, bankroll management, pot odds, implied odds etc etc.
Full Tilt had probably 20 videos just explaining the pure basics of Holdem that were tied to different challenges. In terms of ones that wouldn’t require to much difficulty to implement would be things like;
Watch video of Phil explaining Holdem rules.
Play 500 hands of Holdem full ring
Reward - X ROI points (assuming you have something like point reward systems). And new video of you explaining Omaha rules and then 500 hands of that challenge
Here is a list of semi-easy to implement challenges
• Play X hands of Y game with Z table size
• Buy-in X game with Y% of your total bankroll or less (to teach bankroll management) and realise a Profit of Z%
• Increase your bankroll by X %
• Double/Triple/Quadruple your initial buy-in in X game
• Earn a profit in a PLO session where the session lasts 60 minutes or more and no ‘sitting out’
To be honest though the most fun things are challenges that require hand tracking type challenges
Here are some examples from full tilt academy that were probably ‘-EV’ but were fun and got me bluffing, heart pumping and excited to keep playing..
• Win 10 consecutive pots from the button
• Win 3 pots without a showdown within 5 consecutive hands
• Defend your Big Blind 5 times in a row by winning the hands.
As a rec I got to the point where poker(holdem mainly) started to feel like a job/chore more than fun. So having these challenges and making me do weird things but playing in the same game (same liquidity pool for ROI) I think is good. Holdem can become stale after awhile and you can get burned and lose interest. So reward systems and things like challenges to keep the experience feeling fresh are important for me personally.
Cheers,
Che
As a pure pokerer who played online for almost ten years without a HUD I am a massive fan of this so far, especially taking short stacks to the guillotine. Yo Phil, 95% rakeback!? WOO!
Hmmmm. I guess we could 20x the net rake from what we've got planned and give 95% back, but I don't think that would help much :)
Thanks for the kind words, CaligulazBaby . I hope we continue to make you happy!
I think having option to buyin just with 100bb is not a correct aproach. It is not just anectodical because just from my experience running games on one of the apps. The higher the games the more inclined recreational players are to buyin short. Their experience is also better cause edges are small etc.
Also if you look at the sites that do run short games 20bb-50bb buyin the games with short buyin are consintently softer than the ones with big buyin.
People will hate what I say but if I could eliminate professional shortstacking I would go to as low as 20bb min buyin cause it does effect higher stakes games.
100bb min will severaly affect traffic for 1/2+ games.
In all honestly If you really think it is the way you want to go it would be better is to have 2 buyin options min and max. So say 50bb and 100bb. Still super simple and not big deal but at least let people to risk less money. Having just 100bb will be bad for everone.
The two buy-in options is an interesting one. I like that more than a sliding scale for sure.
Based on what you're saying, I'm not convinced that healthier games at slightly lower stakes would be a worse outcome than what's happening currently. It depends heavily on how much the policy really does affect redeposits as well as stake selection.
We'll be going with this for launch, but we'll pay attention to it, both the feedback like yours and the data we gather. We're only trying to choose what's best for the games, and if it turns out we realize another path is better, we'll head down it.
Thank you for your thoughts.
I personally love the 100bb min and don’t like the 2 buy in option at all. Yes it is better than a sliding scale but not really good for the games for all the reasons you had when deciding to go for the 100bb min ;)
Hi Phil,
I have to admit when I first heard about RIO Poker I was skeptical about the idea of a poker site attached to a training site. However, having read your posts and gotten an insight into how your team is approaching the development of the site, you have completely changed my view.
I think in this heavily greed-driven market it will be a novelty to have someone at the top who truly cares(I hope, if not - you have me fooled) about restoring the purity of the game.
That being said, I think it's important that your "mission statement" reaches as many people as possible, I'm not sure everyone will get what you're trying to create otherwise. The changes which were made on Bodog/Ignition, such as anonymous games and limit of tables, are mostly just seen as another way for a greedy company to attract more recreational players and make more money. I believe if players understand what you're trying to accomplish with RIO Poker they will support a true good guy, especially with so many sketchy and untrustworthy sites out there.
I sincerely hope you are able to change the decaying face of online poker. You have the full support from the online poker community, hopefully you are able to draw motivation from it for as long as possible.
Thanks, Krzysztof Slaski, though you kind of spoiled the announcement of you as the newest Run It Once Pro with this post!
When you say " as many people as possible," do you include the more casual recreational players, too? We have been debating how mission-oriented vs. product-focused to be on our website, so this discussion comes at a very good time.
I'm of the mind that although we need to communicate our mission here and there, the core poker community will be informed enough about it that we're better off making our landing page focus more heavily on the fun and exciting features/rewards/bonuses for the players who don't know about us and may not care as much about our goal of helping online poker survive and thrive.
Obviously, we can fit all these aspects in somewhere, but it's a question of how much weight to give each.
Thanks to you or anyone else who has thoughts on this!
Thanks, man. We are really trying. I don't have you fooled!
...
or do I?
...
No, I don't, really.
haha, sorry for the spoiler.
I am not sure my understanding of marketing is good enough to even try to contribute to this discussion. What I was referring to there, is that your unconventional approach is what drew me into fully supporting your project, and I think poker players will get behind RIO poker when they understand the idea well.
However, I agree that exposing different target groups to different advertising is likely the best option. I guess this is where market research comes in, which it seems you have fully covered :).
Cheers!
I like the auto-seat feature, but I'm very skeptical about the capacity of fish attraction. I mean, even if you have the best site out there but you aren't able to appeal enough to net depositors, you are going to fail. It's clear that you and your team spent a lot of time to brainstorm ideas, but I feel a big pieace of the puzzle is missing: bringing a lot of deposits.
Can you please share on your next post how do you plan to advertise etc?
Thanks, 4-Star_General . I answered a similar question from Maestrrro a moment ago:
The next post probably won't touch on marketing, but perhaps the one after will.
Let's say i would like to open 4 tables, but don't want to play shorthanded, only 6max.Is there an option that allows joining table only when there are already 5players?
Good question. There's not. You will never start a table heads up, but you will start with 3 players sometimes.
We could consider an option like this in the future, but if everyone did it it would make creating games a lot more difficult.
It looks all good. I had been hoping for more, a revolutionary approach.
Poker has been losing players hand over fist for years now in a global growing gambling market.
The problem isn't recs losing too fast - it's not like pros are doing well right now. The problem is the game is dying and needs to be reborn.
It's too easy to be a 'reg' and there is a very marginal benefit between the skill of a world class player and the skill of a reg in a 25/50c game. And then seat position on the fish can just throw everything out the window.
Game is for all intents and purposes, pretty much solved. Which has had the effect of changing poker from a tiered skill ecology to a near binary ecology.
Until someone comes up with and markets a game that,
, all efforts to beat the last ounce of blood out of the dead horse will be exactly that. A poor alternative to casino games.
Also fwiw having played a fucktonne of anonymous in the last couple of years. Not having a hud doesn't have much affect on my winrate against fish. It does however hugely reduce my edge against regs. If this is the same for everyone? It would further exaggerate the binary ecology. But I suppose it does churn more rake...
Thanks, Julian.
I completely agree that this would be great, but it's virtually impossible for us to achieve all of these as a startup. 1 & 2 are hard enough on their own, but add in 3 without the access to multiple televised poker events/shows and without the marketing budget of a company like Amaya, and I just don't think it's possible near-term.
While we are already making changes already that we expect to improve things, the more we grow, the more opportunity we'll have to improve the future of online poker with larger innovations.
Hey Phil, great ideas!
Just a quick question (I apologize in advance if this was addressed earlier in this thread already and I missed it): Are the tables 6max/9max? Are you always seated at a full table? I remember enjoying to pick tables mostly based on the number of people since I enjoyed playing 3-4handed. Or will there also be special 2/3/4 etc. handed tables?
Cheers,
EluciusFTW.
Thanks EluciusFTW . You'll be seated at the first available table for your chosen gametype/stakes. It'll always be at least 3 handed (including you), but beyond that there won't be any way for you to choose.
I like the idea of 4-handed tables, but we didn't choose it over the more traditional 6-max tables, and splitting our player pools into different table-types is something we just couldn't consider for our early days. Liquidity and availability of games is too important.
Just make the games 5 handed imo :D. I played a lot of ongame back in the day and loved that UTG wasnt a thing. Its somewhat a dead seat anyways imo.
In any competitive game the majority of players belive in themselfs. They play because they see a chance to winning in the moment or in the future. This is a must in most cases in a competitive enviroment to enjoy the process and it's often independent from the current reality, it's shoot for a better one. Every player have a different depth of understanding. Those who can't "win enough", and not have "much success" for a long time start to get really confused and frustrated, maybe addicted, but not happy. It's even worse in a negative sum game, than in a zero sum. Negative sum games being sentenced to death in the long run, only positive sum that can have a future. We truly need to evolve and offer something because we already come from poker with rake at the first place, but we can definitely learn from Walt Disney a lot.
The problem is the recreational player. He deposits 50€ and plays and loses 10€, then he has to go dinner with his wife. After he comes back, he can no longer play at the €50NL since he only has 40€. Yet being forced to go 20€NL will feel as much as a defeat since his memory of the 50€NL and his 10€ loss there is still fresh. At 20€NL it will feel much more impossible/harder to win that back and thats exactly what he wants.
Anyway with a kind of bad vibe already he shrugs and plays 20€NL, after a couple of hours he loses and he only now has 3€ left.
There are no 3€NL tables, he can't join the 5€NL tables, he is forced to withdraw or re-deposit. At this point he will leave RunItOnce forever and return back to his favorite EU site.
Probably not.
Year or he will deposit again just to not waste that 3€, which is probably more likely <3
The same scenario can be created for pretty much all sites based on their limit and buy in structure...
Does this mean there is no zoom equivalent?
I think Phil said in another post that they won’t offer fast poker because splitting up the pool in reg tables and fast tables would be bad for overall liquidity. That makes sense because as a new site it is important to get games up and running and splitting the player pool makes that tougher. Just think about all the fast poker variants on smaller sites that are pretty much dead trafficwise. Even on Party the fast forward traffic is sometimes very low and not even close to the Zoom pools on Stars.
Love the seating/buy-in rules, bravo! :-)
Question about the seating procedure:
Let's say you'd like to play some fun-but-rarely-played game, Stud 8 and whatnot. The client tells you there are no running tables and you'd then probably pick some other game and move on.
How does the client work when it comes to giving people a chance to play their favorite non-standard games? Can you put yourself on a waiting list for some mixed game X and get an offer once enough players are waiting?
As someone who table selects pretty aggressively when given the opportunity, I agree with this structure and think this is a great idea.
Not sure if you've talked about this yet, but another Bovada implementation that I feel pretty strongly about is a maximum table limit. I think a table limit narrows the skill edge gap between recreational and professionals even stronger than the removal of HUDs at a given stake and will simulate the skill level of their opponents closer to live poker. I know the industry standard is 4 cash tables maximum, but an argument can be made that a maximum of 2 cash tables is even better for simulating live poker at the same stake. A two table maximum for cash games would strike a nice balance between simulating live poker at a given stake while providing the advantages of multi-tabling (more action/less downtime between folded hands) that live poker can't provide.
I don’t think a 2 table limit would be a good idea because it would limit the ability to get volume for regs too much and would deter them from playing on the site. I would guess that most regs and ambitious recs play something like 2-4 Zoom tables or 4-6 reg tables on average. Sure there a lot of heavy grinders out there playing more but that’s not the point here. Limiting the table count to 2 would be just too harsh on most people’s playing routines imo. A table limit in general isn’t a bad idea but I find it tough to find a reasonable number. Maybe 6? And definitely more for MTTs and Sngs. But if you implement a pretty high number then you can just not do it st all...
Volume would go down but the skill level at a given stake would also proportionally go down. That (and no rakeback) is why Bovada is so much softer than ACR at a given stake. Basically what would happen is players who can beat $100nl on Stars would be playing at a much higher limit, probably somewhere in the realm of 2 tables of $1knl. The hourly of regs won't be affected because the decrease in volume is compensated for by moving up in stakes due to higher quality games. However, for recreational players there would be a big difference. There wouldn't be as drastic of a skill level difference from the $200nl or $500nl that they usually play at a casino to $200nl Zoom or $500nl Zoom like there is now.
I agree with some of the comments concerning people having to move down if they lose X amount on a stake, have to leave for some reason and then return.
I think the opportunity to rejoin a stake with the amount you left with would be a good workaround.
Poker Bob still has to buy in for 100bb, but when he has to go for dinner, he isn't forced to move down. Instead, he has the option to rejoin with the amount he left with. If he busts then he has to buy in for 100bb again.
Ye, maybe that is a good solution if it will be "time limited".
You (Phil) and your RIO team is trying really hard to make good product for a customer(s), which sadly nowadays is a big exception in worldwide business (in all areas).
All business companies (bigger it is, worst it gets) are chasing only their profits and revenues which according to their (mostly criminal) leaderships must grow insanely no matter what. And they are prepared to kill for it, literally. Only goal they have is how to squeeze out of their customers as much as possible and give those customers back as little as possible.
So, I am very glad that you do what you do. You cant please everyone and one should not even try to do it because on the end no one is pleased and that actually is, how it should be.
I am here now quoting you:
Our primary objective has always been the viability of the poker dream, now and through whatever challenges the future throws at us. Beyond that, we kept two simple goals in mind while designing Run It Once Poker:
A good experience
Fair games
And that is all it matters I believe, as long as you really trying to do that in practice too (in "real world, not just on paper"). Sure, sometimes one can even unintentionally ride off his own path but you are quite transparently communicating with your (potential) customers in the process of building a product (another very good thing from RIO and exception from the rest of the business world) which may help to stay on that path. And you (or if I may say we all) will get there eventually, just do not give up. It may not happen over the night but I see the light, hallelujah:P:)
Some people skeptically wonder how RIO will attract new & fresh customers and I think everything I have been writing above are the strongest & main reasons which might/could/should attract customers and make RIO poker site to thrive. Thus the main threat to RIO poker site success right now is a possible failing at advertising, promoting and presenting of that true RIO mission (and goals). Therefore this is an important issue and RIO needs really good advertising and marketing experts who are capable to make a deep conceptual and long term strategic plan (after that an execution of that plan is equally important, because bad presentation of a perfect idea is unfortunately again fail).
And one another thing I would like to mention is, do not forget or underestimate a "blockchain" (or any other "technology flow" which is occurring or it may occur nowadays). I would just say, stay alert and be prepared, at least in "background", just in case:P:)
I think, those 2 things are basically now most important for RIO to address on. Other fields are important too for sure, but it is obvious RIO is working on everything else hard and fine. Probably RIO is working hard on those 2 issues I mentioned as a threat as well, Phil just did not write about them yet, therefore I apologize:P:)
I have thought that you (Phil) have been one of the most intelligent people in the game for a long time. Not just game theory but understanding people and situations, seeing all sides even if not agreeing with them. I would guess when there a dispute over poker or some another gambling matter you would be someone who people would often go to about what is fair or right, much like Barry G was back in the day. I am so happy your sites is well on it's way, it exactly the poker community needs even if not everyone realizes it yet. I have had players from a home game (who loved playing) took one looks at my screen with the HUD and yeah that's why I won't try/play online. Like you I love/loved my HUD, but it's better for the game a a whole not to have it but if other people are using it, how could I not. ROI is probably saving online poker. Thanks guys :)
A very effective and simple way to stop all bots would be to make all the games deep.
Sooner or later bots will get better at deepstacked play. Bots are already cooking our meals, stealing our jobs and working in our homes and the world is just watching.
PEOPLE WAKE UP!
Your solution is (if any) a short-midtermsolution.
Completely agree with this post Phil, nice :)
The implementation of making it difficult/impossible to game the system will be tricky, but team RIO is in a far superior position to any other poker site in history by clearly acknowledging the nature of the problem and having the expertise of online pros focused on fairness who also have sufficient power in the decision making process. GL.
I will use this post subjetct to give my 2cents about all this reflection, hope you read, Phill.
I've been following all the threads about RIO poker, about the rake discussions and I have always been concerned about poker ecossystem and all that involves it. I'm a professional pokerplayer for 3 years and a half ~, and I admitt that I have no idea of (lol) how much it costs or how much it needs to be invested to create a poker site. BUT, it seems to me that this 'old way' of how things are going simply doesent fit anymore, or if it fits, it fits in a bad and "lazy" way. We're used to an ecossystem that gives the operator, lets say, 7bb/100 (a lot of games are way more than that), when the average reg can make 2bb or 3bb, its simply insane, and more insane than that is that the rec that wants to PLAY, pay for everything, and it just, obviously, makes the game thougher and the average and lazy reg forced to get better. If you make a very silly comparison between other activities, sports or e-spoorts, they all have another source of income. People watching, ads and etc. Maybe poker is not that cool to watch, but poker operators could be WAY more creatives than that, instead of just send the bill to the recs. And I believe (with all my non-knowledge lol), but just seeing how much an average rec lost to support operators+regs that people still wanna play, A LOT! But it doesn't mean that they need to pay the margin operators are aiming, and if those margins were smaller we would have easier games (better for recs and regs), more recs winning in the short-term, most fun, more people willing to play.
I grew up railing railheaven and dreaming about being a poker professional, its just not possible that poker sites could not monetize all that hype that could have in highstakes games in some manner.. paying to watch those games with all cards revealed, mandatory streams with a highstake game rake free that you only can watch paying, i dont know.. and besides of that just stay with the old-fashioned-lazy way, rake every hand, rake every hand.. even those apps are showing us that could have another way to look to this scenario. I dont have the solution, maybe poker is not that popular anymore, who knows, but we really should try to expoit something else.
About the already published policies, i think RIO is choosing the best way to protect the longevity of the games and i'm VERY happy about it. I loved the auto-seat and 1 option buy-in thing. If recs are more incentivized to play in annonymous no hud games, then annonnymous no hud it should be. If you're a reg and hud and bumhunting are essential to you, i really think you should do something else. I already played all type of environments and they all have they're pros and cons. I just think non-annonnymous games are more fun to 'feel' the game, to know which players are playing which games, who are growing up and etc, but i think its more a ego reg battle and it doesnt have more value than a non-hud annonnymous experience for the rec. And maybe you're keeping it to phase 2 highstakes games (:
sorry about my 3rd world country english xD
I'd like to hug you rn. 100% agree.
In the joey podcast Phil Galfond said that he wants the games to be beatable.
But honestly I'm not quite sure what the
definition of beatable is.
I'm making up 3 cases and I want to get your opinion on how the poker site should react and if you think that the described game is beatable.
I just want to point out that when I say 'games' I mean a specific game at a specific stake.
1st case: The games are theoretically beatable but noone is actually beating them.
2nd case: The top 1% of the player pool is beating the games.
3rd case: The top 5% are beating the games but only by a small margin (1-2bb/100hands)
I have asked before regarding automatic seating when we don`t want to play hu,3 or 4 handed.I think this solution from MPN can be implementable. https://gyazo.com/4d65a3e11010e58c2d2308c9b9be3529
So basically we can choose number of seated player,for some players like me this feature is very important.
Very much liking your direction of travel with RIO poker… I have a collection of random thoughts: please excuse the long brain dump which follows.
I have a better suggestion to cater for Poker Bob (he almost feels like family after reading this thread). Take a leaf out of Gyms’ playbook*, encourage recreational players to subscribe with a monthly standing order / direct debit. Bob signs up and starts depositing his €20/50/100 per month. He’s sober when he does this, so it’s not something he can’t afford or will regret. Any time Bob fancies a game, he logs on and plays with whatever he has on balance. If he gets drunk and blows it all one evening? No problem, he may take a little break but the affordable monthly drip continues and he’s encouraged to return. Higher €-per-month contributors would get additional perks (freerolls, discounted RIO training content etc.) In time you will end up with some high balances. But that’s not a problem, as you will have the money in segregated accounts, and the growing interest dividend on the collective balance helps subsidise the rake. If someone hasn’t accessed their account for a couple of years, stop taking the money: it is possible to be socially responsible and profitable.
* hell, advertise it in gyms: “You exercise your body - why not exercise your mind. Don’t flop out. Play poker at RIO"
Multi-tabling. As a returning, previously vaguely profitable, ‘rec’ with a rekindled interest poker and developing my skills, I’m strongly in favour of there being a limit on the number of tables you can play. This gives each table a higher rec:reg ratio (I don’t like this black and white distinction, but point holds). I’d be happy with two. I suspect four is a compromise more ‘regs’ would accept. More enjoyable for everyone. Those wishing to develop are more likely to do so if they’re not auto-piloting. Those playing primarily for profit face softer-on-average tables. Those playing purely for fun are less likely to find themselves up against a table of joyless grinders.
Rakeback. Don’t offer it. Just offer a lower rake to everyone. Rake is fair and transparent. Rakeback is regressive and opaque, and good players ought to be profitable without it (especially if the overall rake is lower anyway). Also, not offering rakeback makes it simpler, and therefore cheaper, to administer.
The whole poker-economy thing is fascinating to me. Are you, or are you considering, modelling it so you can assess the potential consequences of different rake sizes, different player ability demographics etc.? (I run a data science consultancy, so this is kind of my thing - if I had more time, or someone was paying me, I have a crack myself.)
Looking forward to the next announcement and subsequent launch.
I think you could increase the quality of games drastically, by excluding some countries.
Will US players be able to play on RIO Poker?
Love what you're doing with the new poker site, Phil, long time fan. I've been playing poker on and off, able to turn $100-200 deposits into $1000 on a few websites but not much success beyond that. I'm more of a recreational player trying to make poker something more than what it currently is for me.
Nope.
By the way, one thing that I consider to be very important for RIO and poker sites in general is that there are two player groups that have been largely ignored by most operators. Women and older people. Although there have been some efforts by other sites to cater women (i.e. Unibet and Stars), the second group has been pretty much ignored in the online poker community and by operators. Getting people 40/50/60+ to play and engage in online poker would be a huge push because those people have usually time (grown up children, maybe pension etc) and money. To get those people into online poker you have to be trusted, transparent, easily accessible, fun etc. A lot of those things are alreday key goals of RIO. Secondly, you have to find ways for targeted advertising for those groups as well as special promotions and offerings to make your product the go to site for them. I dont have any detailed suggestions but I think a lot of your policies go into the right direction and that you have the chance to really be the first operator that can say that they are actively working to get older people into poker because a lot of them enjoy playing/gambling/whatever you wanna call it. Just take a look at Vegas...you can find busses full of older men and woman having money and time and looking for a great gaming experience. Why not try to give them a proper offering for the time they're at home waiting for the next trip to Vegas?
Redefine old and you have my support. So, to be sure you wont make a "mistake" again here is a hint, number 70:PPP:))
I did not mean to offend anyone. I thought of „old“ compared to the majority of 18-30 year old male students for example ;) Most operators focus on that demographic and I think that is a mistake. Of course 30, 40, 50 or 60+ are very diverse groups so excuse my rather simplistic categorization above but I guess people understand what I mean. Plus, for most 70+ people the technology barrier might be a little too big compared to „younger“ demographics
I had a close friend of the family who was a 60+yr old card player. Loved going to his local casino and playing. He tried getting into the online stuff but most software was too crap. Maybe the play style of the games also was strange for him compared to live where pretty much for sure the table was a bunch of weak live players.
Either way he definitely wanted to enjoy the game online but just couldnt get into it. I think you are right that there could be hidden value in catering to these people some.
Mehizahn, everything is fine:) I was just joking and I know what you mean and you are right (as I already said). For start, "oldies" need big buttons and not too many options; simple, straightforward navigation, installation, "self executing functions", etc. on poker client and webpage.
LOVE
all the decisions so far.
Hope to get a beta invitation
Q:
1. fast forward or normal?
2. Given it is "normal" poker, given I join with 100bb, given I double up, given there are 20 tables running, given I got assigned Peter S. as my name, given I then quit with 200bb to "pocket the win", given I then rejoin 1 table...
am I still Peter S. and am I still playing on the table I left before that?
2.1: When I join 4 tables, am I the same Alias on all 4 tables?2.2. How many tables maximum?
in which way you'll provide premade %-of-pot betting options!?
Kind regards
Update, update, update!...Am I too pushy? O yes I am, aaaaa...I am sorry but I am like horny stray dog, who sensed a hot poodle in the distance:P:)
Update? There are only 8 weeks of summer left...
Yeah, and it is 1 month since last update, it seems I am not really that pushy after all:P
We're back in complete "silence" again and it doesn't feel good at all...
I thought updates are gonna come once a fortnight. :-/
Hope there is one more by the end of this month.
Yeah, I believe it was announced that updates will be delivered in shorter time periods and that forum discussions will be more active. On social media Phil is quite active but here on this forum everything is reminiscent of abandoned ship (again). I understand that he is busy but then some forum mods should be more active and present. I really dont find this very encouraging.
You are very anxious man. Phil and Rio are doing their best
I am far from being anxious, I am just not afraid to question the "authority". Please, show me how/where they are doing their best? Up to this point I am seeing only typed words and even those are now reduced to zero (not the first time). More than a month not a one comment, reply or any reaction from them, so I really cant see such an attitude as a "doing their best". I believe in RIO and I am rooting for RIO all the way and I never said that they are not doing what they are proclaiming, I am just saying that I simply can not know that because communication on this forum is not done well (& btw I hope RIO poker client support will not be that way).
Sorry, ChipTracker! The WSOP is the only time of year I get to play much poker these days, so I'm busy with cash games and tournaments, as well as working with our new video team to use the opportunity to create content for our YouTube channel (plus whatever time I have left for the usual business operation stuff).
I've been trying to write post #4 while at the tables, but it's going poorly thus far. I'm a very slow writer, so these long posts take forever. I will be doing my best to get it done, edited, posted within the next week, but I can't make that a promise. We're just over 2 weeks from the end of WSOP, and I'll catch up after that, increasing frequency if I've fallen too far behind during WSOP.
Edit: Just realized I need to record some training videos too!
Edit 2: Thank you all for your patience! I really am sorry and not making excuses. I was too optimistic in thinking that I could keep up with everything I took on.
I completely understand that you, Phil, are very busy man and that you are working very hard, so I would first like to make it clear that I am really big supporter of RIO and you personally as well!
I only want to say that even one, shortest notice possible, now and then would make a difference, a better impression of a RIO in general (especially in this period). And there is probably no need that you are always the one writing a notice. "At the moment" you are too busy, but you could even take a vacation today if you choose so, no one can complain about that. It would just feel nice if your, let`s say "secretary", would make a short notice like: "Phil / RIO will be back in a month, so you, the impatient ones, go watch porn in a meanwhile or something.":P:).
I already admitted that I am like horny stray dog when I smell a hot poodle in a distance and I can become a bit pushy. So, if you take that poodle away for a while, no problem, just throw me some bone here and there to shut me up and banish me from your yard until you come back:P:).
"Btw" I am glad that you play poker on WSOP and you should play it as much as you can, GL and go, get them!:)
Hi, me again, the anxious dog. May I "say" something?:PPPPP:)))
Hey ChipTracker nothing being wrong with being anxious - take my word for it we all are.
I can certainly understand your complaint about none of the staff jumping in for phil when things get busy. There are several reasons why we're electing to not jump in regularly but I hope I can convince you that us not caring is definitely not in there.
We hope for your understanding and that you don't misinterpret the dynamic of this post at some times. To give you at least some update after all I can tell you that phil had a very busy week and I'm sure he's already crafting the next update to pick up the pace again shortly.
Hey Eldora, thank you for your reply. Sure, I understand you are all very busy and you are all working very hard, so really no problem. My posts-replies are not always that serious either. I am a bit impatient but that is all. If I would anyhow think that "RIO does not care", I would probably not post anything at all and I would probably not stick around that long. I look forward to new updates and I believe in RIO - for me No.1 poker community:)
Be the first to add a comment