RIO Poker Post #4: Decisions, Decisions

Posted by

Posted by posted in Run It Once Poker

RIO Poker Post #4: Decisions, Decisions

Hey, everyone!

My 4th post on Run It Once Poker is up! Along with introducing some design options, it addresses a very important topic: Table caps.

We want your input on these topics, so we’ve opened up voting. I encourage everyone to put serious thought into your choices and to use this thread to debate and discuss things as a community. The instructions on how to vote are included in the post.

You can expect my 5th post in a more timely fashion than my 4th now that I won’t be distracted by the WSOP!

130 Comments

Loading 130 Comments...

Phil Galfond 6 years, 5 months ago

I will be replying to as many comments as I can. I also want to introduce Nick Steiner to everyone. Nick joined the Run It Once team as our content and community engagement manager, and he will be joining in on our discussions moving forward!

Jimf 6 years, 5 months ago

I think the 4 table cap is the way to go for us fish. I don’t mind a 4+1 or 4+2 waiting approach but I would like to see an Icon that identifies the 3+ table players. This let us fish learn from the pro. Would the pros care if they were identified with an icon when playing more than 3 tables?

4-Star_General 6 years, 5 months ago

Table cap shouldn't be BOT-related issue, in theory your security team should be able to spot BOTs regardless of the table cap. An expert in database will be your best option in security not a table cap.
BOTs can just simply make more accounts and play, instead of 1 BOT playing 6 tables, you'll have 2 BOTs playing 4, with a total of 8. I'm very very concerned about security, also, you removed the ability of auto-police games with the HUDs ban.

Phil Galfond 6 years, 5 months ago

Hey, 4-Star_General :)

BOTs can just simply make more accounts and play, instead of 1 BOT playing 6 tables, you'll have 2 BOTs playing 4, with a total of 8.

I take your posts very seriously and I'm always happy to discuss these things with you, but I feel like you missed the message I was trying to deliver regarding bots and a table cap, especially because the only point I was trying to get across was specifically focused on multiple accounts playing extra tables.

A table cap isn't part of our bot-detection plans and it is completely unrelated to our security team and their capabilities. It is simply one of many policies which, in large or small part, are aimed at deterring bots. Along with bot detection, they'll help us keep our games fair.

Daxxar 6 years, 5 months ago

I much rather prefer the 4 table option and will vote on that one. So tired of playing against people timebanking every other hand and decision because they are multitabling. I Think that with 4 tables this will almost never happen. Truly hope this option will win, it is best for the games.

zinhao 6 years, 5 months ago

i dont think they're related, cuz a player can play more than 1 site per time and he will be multitabling the same way

Dan A 6 years, 5 months ago

If zoom tables aren't available at launch, than a 4-table cap is way too low. For a player with reasonable online experience, 4 non-zoom tables feels very slow and is a lot less fun than having more tables.

Nick Steiner 6 years, 5 months ago

As Phil has mentioned previously, we won't have fast-fold tables at launch. What you are voting on is the number of regular tables a player can sit at. I can safely assume you voted for 6 ;). We appreciate the feedback.

sauloCosta10 6 years, 5 months ago

4 Tables is for sure the way to go. Loving the direction Rio Poker is taking, congrats Phil and the team! I have a doubt with regards to fast forward cash game format. For example, on stars the entries are limited to 4 per account; on ignition they are limited to 2, while the table cap is 4. Have you guys thought about that? What will be the max amount of entries per stake on FF tables, on both scenarios (Table cap 4 and 6)?

Phil Galfond 6 years, 5 months ago

You bring up a good point. As Nick Steiner mentioned below, we will address those policy decisions, with the community's help, when it comes time to add FF tables.

My personal opinion, at the moment, is that FF tables should probably count as 1.5 regular tables for the purposes of a table cap. Of course, 1.5 doesn't lend itself well to a system which allows you to combine FF and regular tables - just letting you know what I think at the moment.

zinhao 6 years, 5 months ago

I agree with Dan A , without zoom 4 tabling would be too low even for recs. About that, with the bot thing, do you think zoom/non-zoom have some impact in that? I know you already said that will not have zoom at the beggining, but i really think that zoom prevents more teamplay and bots than regtables.. do you have another point that im missing here?

Btw, another good policy by RIO, i really think it will be a success, anyone who is concerned about poker ecossystem will agree with you. I think the "pro-community" should stop being so sellfish in the short-term (cuz obviously your decisions are better for poker players in general at the long term, they being regs or recs). The most importante thing in the world is not you having the volume you want with all the comfort you want at only one site.

Daxxar 6 years, 5 months ago

Here is what i am predicting about this topic: A lot of vocal people advocating for 6 table cap beacuse that is what is best for them but not for the games or onlinepoker. I would like for people reading this topic to think about that.

Also yeah i am all for a 4table cap and i think that will be great for onlinepoker and the cashgames in the long run. Multitablers will have to learn to adapt to new rules in order online poker to survive!

nwnw 6 years, 5 months ago

Make it 6 tbls for the first x months and lower the cap afterwards if you think higher cap will benefit RIOpoker right after the launch.
Im for 4 table cap though, your vision of the poker room is so different from mine now I want you to go hardcore with your beliefs and see what happens.

Nick Steiner 6 years, 5 months ago

There have been a number of comments on fast fold (FF) poker. As Phil has mentioned previously, we won't have FF tables at launch, so what you are voting on is the amount of regular tables a player can sit at. As far as FF goes, we will make a separate decision on this when we are closer to launching that format. As always, the community's feedback will play an important part in this decision!

cheechchooch 6 years, 5 months ago

i like that. it ruined all the "normal" tables on pokerstars. i really liked to play ante tables(btw. would love to see them at rio) and now nothing is running anymore because everyone is playing zoom/ff .

Phil Galfond 6 years, 5 months ago

cheechchooch I love ante tables and I actually argued for launching with only ante tables at one point. We're starting with only 'regular' tables (non-FF, no ante), but I hope we'll grow quickly enough to expand to other game formats soon.

Kalupso 6 years, 5 months ago

I am surprised ante tables are not more popular on European sites. There is so much more action and fun (at least for me) on ante tables. Maybe it is less important with fast fold because you will spend more time on interesting spots and can quickly make the standard ones and get a new hand.

Andrew Sweeney 6 years, 5 months ago

When can we expect the launch? Isn’t Summer over?

Phil Galfond 6 years, 5 months ago

Fair question and I was very much hoping to be launched by now. I suppose it's up for interpretation, but I'm pretty sure Summer is not over just yet, and we're trying very hard to launch in time.

Though it'll depend on where exactly we're at, I expect my next post to have some more concrete information on our progress and launch plans.

VeloceRapper 6 years, 5 months ago

Damn, I've always played 5 regular tables with the 6th slot for a music player, so personally I'm pretty indifferent between the options. That being said I have a strong initial preference for a 6-table cap at launch. For most new players, their first experience will determine whether or not they return to a site. If games aren't running, players may not return. If I was on the team, early liquidity would be my biggest concern (honestly it would give me sleepless nights!). The site gets just one shot at a successful launch, and the 6-table option will help make it a smooth one.

In the long run I appreciate the benefits to the collective playerpool of a 4-table cap probably outweigh those for 6 and I would support a switch to a 4-table cap after the launch stage.

A quick word on new player experience: I think the difference to a recreational player of playing against 5x 6-tabling regs vs against 5x 4-tabling regs would be minimal.

I will be reading the thread over the next few days to see if my mind can be changed before casting my vote, and whatever the vote's outcome I look forward to launch and wish the RIO team all the best for their hard work.

StreetSpirit 6 years, 5 months ago

This is a really good point, and I agree 100%. To me personally, the 4 table cap just might be a deal breaker at launch, but wouldn't mind going towards that direction in the future; if the games were running and I enjoyed the software/games/experience. I will have to think about this a bit more before casting my vote.

Manko 6 years, 5 months ago

Pretty surprised to see all comments here saying they would prefer only a four table cap. No one would time out on decisions with only two extra tables unless they are extraordinarily slow.

Daniel Dvoress 6 years, 5 months ago

Hi Phil,

When it comes to the table cap, what is considered as an "active" table that counts towards the cap? A table you have open? A table you are sitting at? A table you are being dealt hands at?

I can get behind a 4-tables that you are being dealt in at cap, but it also kind of depends on how the lobby works. If it's just regular seating, then at high stakes the tables will often be empty except for 1-2 people open sitting. If the people that would generally open sit now cannot open sit because they are 4-tabling lower stakes games, that prevents higher stakes from running.

Phil Galfond 6 years, 5 months ago

Our system seats you automatically. If there are no available seats at the stakes you're looking to play, you do sit on a 'waiting' table and this does count as one of your tables.

With reasonably good liquidity, we should only have to worry about this at the higher stakes, but it will be more of an issue near launch.

I agree that this isn't ideal in that it could lead to higher stakes games running less often, and we'll always be looking for improvements. Given the current UX, it would be awkward to not count these waiting tables as real tables because of what happens when you are given a seat at a new table while already playing the maximum number of tables.

We could force you to choose a table to sit out next BB, but then what if you change your mind before that BB? and what if you keep changing it for an hour while playing an extra table? And what if you get two new seats and need to sit out on 2 tables?

There are many potential solutions, but with each one comes a web of new decisions and development changes. We decided on the simpler user experience, but I'm open to ideas.

Daniel Dvoress 6 years, 5 months ago

How about a solution where tables that you "started" (you were on the waiting table before that stake was going) don't count towards the table max at all?

I do think this will be somewhat of an issue - for example a lot of players will play 5/10, 10/20 and 25/50, but say only 5/10 runs regularly. Now a player can't sit to start 10/20 and 25/50 unless he only plays 2 tables.

Basically, my position is that a low table cap is good, but given a low table cap it should be somewhat of a priority to not punish people that want to start games.

ZenFish 6 years, 5 months ago

+1 on the 4-table cap for improved game quality, and that's what I've voted for.

If we need to go to somewhat extreme measures to give the fish a more fun and sustainable gambling experience, I'm totally on board with that. I personally think that a moderate-volume/high-winrate approach is the way to go these days, so a 4-table cap suits me just fine.

It looks like Phil & co is getting this right and I can't wait to see the result. :-)

Dan A 6 years, 5 months ago

Could there be a benefit for rec players if pros can play more tables? The more tables somebody plays, the lower their win-rate at each table will be. The relevant question of what's better for recs is comparing the marginal win-rate of a pro's 6th table vs. another rec's first table, rather than just saying "pros have higher win-rates so a rec would rather play against a rec". It's likely that a pro's 6th table win-rate would still be better than a rec's win-rate, but there must be some (higher) table limit where these two win-rates will intersect, e.g. playing against a 24-tabling player is better than a 1-tabling rec because it's too difficult to focus on 24 tables at once.

camikaze007 6 years, 5 months ago

I far prefer a 6-table cap over a 4-table cap. A very small percentage of players play more than 4 tables anyway so it won't be that big a deal if those select few were allowed to play on 2 extra tables. Without zoom it would take much longer to get in any meaningful volume with a 4 table cap and it would be very difficult to be able to build up a bankroll and progress through stakes. A 6-table cap would increase rake for the site and liquidity whilst allowing those few people who want to 6-table be able too.

ChipTracker 6 years, 5 months ago

Make a third (C) option for table cap voting! In that option one would vote for RIO launching with 6 tables cap plus RIO will open another voting for table cap 3 month (or so) after a launch of a poker room. I prefer 4 table cap, but maybe it would really be better to start with six, so give us that third voting option:P:)

Nuno Alvarez 6 years, 5 months ago

I know software isn't super relevant for some players but this table backgrounds, card backs and card fronts look really sweet! So much hype!

goldfish-eric 6 years, 5 months ago

Actually design and usability are relevant to most people if only on the subconscious level.

I believe one reason for the early success of Pokerstars was their interface not looking as ugly as was typical in those days.

Because I care for those two elements, I'm very pleased with the previews we have been shown so far. This also goes for the game choosing dialog box and everything else.

JulianR 6 years, 5 months ago

To paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld, "You don't give they public what they want, that's why they're the public! They don't know what they want!!"

Political polls (Brexit, Trump etc) having little predictive value. Asking the wife, "what's wrong?" is a sure fire way for fireworks.
People don't know, are too scared or can't enunciate what they REALLY want. Polls have little informational value. Do polls have value as advertising and community engagement? As advertising, they're ok. As community engagement they're hollow. Because on a deeper level, we know that if the poll runner really cares about and wants the best for his product they're not going to listen to us.

So the pollsters client becomes disenfranchised.
A perfect example of this feeling is recently I accidentally opened "Google Assistant" on my phone, googles version of Siri. Under my breath, I replied "fuck off google". Releasing some frustration and hoping some smart programmer may have programmed in for Google Assistant to go away and let me do what I was doing previously.

Instead, Google Assistant replied to me something like, "I can see you're frustrated. I'm sorry you feel that way, is there something I can do to help?"
There's nothing like being patronized to by a robot.

How they listened to some 3rd grade psychologist and implement this response is curious indeed. A robot can't feel empathy, so we don't care when it empathizes with us. Instead it feels hollow and belittling. I'm quite sure this is not what google intended.

Same goes, if perhaps on a smaller scale, for polls where the pollster doesn't, or shouldn't care. This is important for RIO poker to be aware of. Because being a smaller, more agile offering, you should be able to out compete others with REAL community engagement and customer satisfaction. Copying others in this sphere would be a mistake. This is an area that matters to net depositors and will have farm more impact than minimal table number caps.

The little informational value that polls have is for new ideas that haven't been previously thought off by the pollster.

OK, now I've got that off my chest and finished my rant on value or lack thereof of polls, I'll tell you what I think.

4 v 6 tables. I need to play more either way, so I'll play across sites to get enough tables. 6 tables is better IF they are good tables. The difference between 6 and 4 on game quality is going to be small. A company hamstringing itself by restricting it's cheap as fuck scalability for little benefit is not seem very smart. Maybe if it were between 6 and 20 tables, and there was a legit concern about detrimental game quality this would be an issue.

Table designs - More is better, I've long used 3rd party add ons to get table designs I prefer.
Simple, quick deciphering is better. For everyone, not just mass tabling pros. i.e. Card back 1 and card front 3.

As always, good luck.

Sternom Poker 6 years, 5 months ago

hey,
there is one thing that i really miss in many pokerclients. i am glad that i am not tilting anymore, but for those players they are tilting, it should be a very usefull option to have a DAILY deposite limit

Nick Steiner 6 years, 5 months ago

Sternom Poker , we will have a variety of features related to playing limits

  • Daily, weekly and monthly deposit limits
  • Limit on the total amount taken to tables on any given day
  • Limits on stakes you want to play
  • Complete self-exclusion for a variety of time-frames between 12 hours and 1 year
  • Alien Slayer 6 years, 5 months ago

    I vote for 6 tables. If you try to get stars zoom players to switch over to your site you can't expect them to be happy with 4 regular tables. It's like switching from a race car to a scooter...the decision taking is going to be quickly enough since you are unlikely to have tough decisions on all tables at the same time. Combined with a reasonable time frame for preflop decisions it shouldn't slow down the games too much. .
    Also given the lack of HUDs many players will voluntary play less tables to gather reads and would just have a lower hourly for playing too many tables readless.
    Also as mentioned with the waiting list already counting as an active table is a problem, keeping in mind to extend the game variety in the future. Being able to play on 4 tables and staying in the waiting list for 2 more seems much better then playing 2 and waiting for 2. Especially to encourage the opening of tables on higher limits.

    So all in all I wouldn't worry too much about game quality, if there are still players going for 6 tables that would be most likely on lower stakes and them playing a pretty straightforward strategy which doesn't adapt to the leaks of individual players - so the rec-expedience isn't necessary worse since they don't get exploited that much.. So to ensure not to scare anyone off from the beginning with a 4 table cap and to avoid that waiting list dilemma I think 6 cap is best.

    Juan Copani 6 years, 5 months ago

    hey phil,

    is it mandatory go for cap tables at high stakes? lets say 5/10+ .. i assume it wont be that many traffic there, and personally i would try to create the conditions for regulars feel incentivice to play against each other.. for example, the other day i did hear an interesting point made by zeros, saying that he would remove the rake when table is hu..

    as a regular that starts tables on stars for the last years, i really have the feeling that rec players feel way more encourage to join the table when there is actually people playing rather than sitting/waiting. This is why i think oxota point its a thing, and by capping tables at 4 you could end up punishing people that are willing to start new games.

    Phil Galfond 6 years, 5 months ago

    Interesting. I like this idea as a temporary solution, specifically to get high stakes running more regularly. I'll bring it up with the team!

    Brian Hamilton 6 years, 5 months ago

    I agree with this. I also believe most of the bots/mass multitablers are playing smaller stakes than 5/10, so having the cap solely at mid/low stakes will still deter them.

    I live in the US and sadly won't be able to play, but I do have experience playing on Bovada/Ignition and I think the 4 table cap works really well. I would play more than 4 if i could, but I don't feel like it holds me back at all and think it's probably ideal for sustainability of the game.

    Alien Slayer 6 years, 5 months ago

    And forgot to agree on the topics others mentioned: players who want to play more tables will just play 4 tables on rio and fire up 2 zoom tables apart - and now really slowing down the game flow. Or they just stop the session on rio if lets say on party there are constantly new tables starting and they can play their desired 6+ tables there. If you can play 6 tables on rio you won't feel the urge to look elsewhere ;)

    So it comes down to decide if these players are worth aiming at or to simply say that rio is trying to get other types of players to play on their site.

    a a 6 years, 5 months ago

    Limiting the number of tables is ridiculous. if it's so good to limit the number of tables, why not limit only one table?
    "I think the government (Casino in this case) solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem"

    DarrenDirt 6 years, 5 months ago

    I am a rec (almost entirely play on mobile, so no HUD and never long sessions) but I would still like a launch cap of 6 tables.

    Pretty much like this 2+2 post says, agree with those reasons:
    https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=54118001&postcount=2600

    And I only 1-table or sometimes two.

    kunst27 6 years, 5 months ago

    I voted for 6 tables.
    And when FF tables are provided, I suggest # of FF tables X 2 + # of regular tables <= 6 as a limitation.
    The calculation becomes simple.

    And I also have different opinion about 'game quality'.
    I believe recreational players prefer rather 'low' quality of other players. For example fish-like plays, mis-click, any kind of mistakes, and random actions. It fees like more funny.
    If the play quality is too high, recreational players would feel it's too tough to play at the site.

    Eldora 6 years, 5 months ago

    This one is tricky but the definition Phil aimed at is the other way round.

    Good game quality means many weaker players (which makes the games softer and more juicy -> thus more valuable to play in -> higher game quality).

    It's indeed pretty counter-intuitive now that you pointed it out :P

    Cheehc 6 years, 5 months ago

    I liked the 4 table option for a few reasons;
    1) I liked your argument that it was better for casuals, game quality and deters bots.
    2) I only play to a max of 4 tables anyway.
    3) The site is only offering cash games at launch. Maybe 6 tables makes sense if/when tournaments are added? or actually maybe in a different way
    - Ie being allowed to register for up to say 2 upcoming tournaments/sitngos while playing 4 cash tables currently. When a tourney starts, you are prompted to leave one of your cash game tables before taking your tourney seat. you cannot register for more than 4 tournaments/sngs.

    Phil Galfond 6 years, 5 months ago

    Thanks, Cheehc!

    We will make our decisions about tournaments once we're closer to launching them. For now, you should look at this as if it has no effect on tournaments.

    III 6 years, 5 months ago

    Hi! Where i can vote for design, i play 1-2 tables max 4 tables.. so i like solid 4 colour cards and solid pure decks ( Cards front Nr.4, Cards backs Nr.3, Table Background Color Nr.4)
    Thanks!

    Best wishes and Good Luck!

    Phil Galfond 6 years, 5 months ago

    Hey, all! Please do me a favor and don't vote until you've read the post. You're actually making a big decision that will impact the company and the rest of the community, so please read what I had to say and give it some serious thought.

    Thanks!

    III 6 years, 5 months ago

    Hi Phil! I want to see Tournament and Cash game ( Monthly ) Leaderboards and Rake races if this will be impossible to do that:)

    What about Tournanments Late registration and rebuy limits? Better is 15 - 25 min.. not to 60 min. and rebuys 1 max 2.

    Focus and patience, Good luck Phil,
    Greetings from Latvia:)

    miami002 6 years, 5 months ago

    Phil I love you man. You are my favourite person in the poker industry but I really feel like you are making a mistake when you are going with 4 table cap. I think that 4 table cap is way too low. In my opinion somewhere around 7-8 is a optimal number of tables. That way everyone should be happy, non-pros dont complain that much about low pace and pros can play reasonable amount of tables which everyone should be able to handle. By forcing players to only play 4 tables you are pushing them to find action from other sites. That doesnt solve anything, now we need to mix in action from 3-4 different sites and also business wise this is a bad idea. I would assume you want to keep your customers not to push them elsewhere.

    Daxxar 6 years, 5 months ago

    I am going to guess you play more then 6+ tables. If so are you saying this because whats best for you or whats best for the pokersite and online poker as a whole. My gut feeling makes me think you like to play a lot of tables.

    hansglick 6 years, 5 months ago

    I throw it :
    Poker is a competition but it does not look like a competition. Why not display a sort of leaderbord of the best winners at each stakes the last 24 hours. Obviously this kind of thing would be adressed to the recreational players. It will not reveal good and bad players since it would be computed on a very short period. It would just be fun for recreational players.

    Ali G 6 years, 5 months ago

    6 table cap makes sense, I think being able to have a personalized avatar is important too

    Nick Steiner 6 years, 5 months ago

    You will be able to set your own personal avatar, but you will be the only one that sees this. With our Table Alias system, opposing players will see a different avatar for you on every table which will keep players anonymous.

    hansglick 6 years, 5 months ago

    Similar to the leaderboard idea, in order to entertain recreational players, why not rewarding "the best bluffers of the week" at each stakes?

    Another idea : What about "action table" with the famous "seven-deuce" rule?

    burek2000 6 years, 5 months ago

    As a player who spends a lot of time on computer I value more and more dark/low brightness themes in computer programs to make them easy on the eyes. Hence I voted for the darkest table theme available in the poll. I believe there should be at least one dark, low contrast theme available.

    As for table cap, I have voted 6-cap. 4 tables might be better for the longevity of the games, but for me personally 4 tables are too limiting and would put me off.

    Furthermore, 6 tables cap sounds like a much safer option for RIO at launch(early liquidity and higher chance of games actually running) and I don't think the better game quality can compensate for that, especially as I wouldn't expect it to be drastically better 4 vs 6 tables cap.

    PatrickNicholls 6 years, 5 months ago

    Hi Phil, I support the 4 table choice. But if you want the traffic at your site you have to go with the 6 table choice, as most pro's multi-table, and you need the pros to cross over from the other sites. Maybe they wont play your site with just 4 tables available! Who really knows until start up. Cant make everyone happy. Cheers.

    lunatus 6 years, 5 months ago

    Felicidades RIO pero falto variedad en los avatars creo que ahi debio haber mas opciones ( por ejemplo el femenino ) variedad de formas y no solo de colores .
    Ojala y lo implementen mas adelante
    Saludos
    (Mx)

    Eldora 6 years, 5 months ago

    dough..I'm already regretting this before I start but well...

    Va a tener muchas diferentes avatars, no solamente el abuelo ;)
    Era un ejemplo para demostrar los diferentes colores para marcar por ejemplo los villains tight o loose aggressive. Entonces los colores son una opción adicionalmente para clasificar tus oponentes

    Saludos :D

    Here's a screenshot from Update #2 with some examples

    trustfundbankroll 6 years, 5 months ago

    Table caps aren’t going to impact a reg’s volume, they’ll just play across multiple sites, so I’m not sure how this improves game quality with regards to “tanking”. Messing with time bank and shot clock settings would still limit the amount of tables a reg could play, but would generate more rake for you guys, while actually improving game quality. I understand the cap is also to protect recreationals, but they don’t know that, and more volume on a site might be more attractive to them. Start with 6 tables, it’s mostly going to be regs to start with anyway

    Thanks everyone for working so hard to make this all possible! I believe baby

    Phil Galfond 6 years, 5 months ago

    Thank you!

    I agree that a table cap won't do much for game speed, but I think that's a very small concern compared to the game quality and achievable win-rates.

    Citvej 6 years, 5 months ago

    Do the votes even matter ot is it some kind of a level? :)

    Saying this because I voted for most of multiple option questions. Except not that last question glitched ad finished before I would click all the options

    Regarding tables I would sometimes like to see some regs playing too many tables and not payig enough attention. Or when I'm stuck open another table and make some more mistakes. That's why my vote would lean toward 6 tables.

    Phil Galfond 6 years, 5 months ago

    For the table cap, the vote will decide our path!

    For the rest, we'll be gathering the data and making our own decisions with it, but the responses will be heavily impacting them.

    Citvej 6 years, 5 months ago

    Phil Galfond Oh sorry I mixed things up since there was some time between voting and posting the comment. Anyway I liked most of the design and would like to see most of it implemented.

    ST608 6 years, 5 months ago

    Love the way RIO is going with this and looking for engagement from the community and players!

    Personally, I tend to play between 2-4 tables but voted for 6 purely on account for the fact that more games will run and give RIO increased traffic on start up. All the designs look on point too! You can't please everyone but I'm looking forward to putting in some sessions upon launch for sure!

    Nick Steiner 6 years, 5 months ago

    Thanks for the support, we are glad you liked the designs! We went back and forth on 4 or 6 max tables and decided it was best to let the community decide. The poll results will be announced soon.

    EluSiVeMark 6 years, 5 months ago

    I like the idea of the voting system. The tables and cards look sweet.
    As far as the table cap i prefer 6 for mid- and lowstakes. Perhaps at higher stakes to keep the games a bit softer a table cap of 4 is prefered?

    Recreational players don't really see this forum i believe. So in order for them to have a vote/ interest in future developments these kinds of posts should also be on the populair newssites like pokernews, highstakesdb etc.

    There are tons of news sites about poker in different languages. For example in the Netherlands we have pokercity.nl. These sites are being visited by recreational players who are interested in the game. If they read all these ideas and futures together with the option to participate in voting i am sure a bunch of them will be convinced to play on Run It Once Poker.

    niban 6 years, 5 months ago

    I’m a recreational player who found this by reading Phil’s ideas cross posted on Poker News.

    Question: do you plan to launch Vegas-style mixed games on your site? I love the deterrents from bots and the stalling multi-tabling players. These games also seem to provide action and intelligent intrigue as well. It could give people a chance to learn the games at lower stakes.

    Kyyberi 6 years, 5 months ago

    I took the poll before reading the post. Damn. So I missed the bot deterrent part. And now I can't change it. I should have selected 4 instead of 6. :(

    Rival_Dealer 6 years, 5 months ago

    Hello Phil.

    All pros / semi-pros are gonna play at RIO Poker regardless of it being 4 or 6 tables cap, BUT ONLY IF RECS ARE GONNA BE THERE. No recs = No regs = Failure.

    So you just should do whatever is best for the recs first. Make their first impression a good one. Make them stay. And all the rest will work out by itself.

    Which option is the best for the recs? Well, obviously the one that doesn't involve them being smoked by the pros in a matter of few hours every time they make a deposit. So give losing players a chance to be a break-even players, and break-even players to be a slightly winning players. Success is what makes people continue playing. It will keep the ecosystem alive and well in a long run.

    That's why inspite of the fact that I've got 4-tabling ZOOM background, I voted for the 4 table option.

    But the issue with "waiting in the line to play at a certain table counted as an opened table" should definitely be adressed asap, and most important BEFORE the launch.

    Also big props for the cards and tables designs. Based AF.

    You're writing the history Mr. Galfond. My endless respect to you for everything you do.

    Nick Steiner 6 years, 5 months ago

    Thanks for the feedback. As Phil has mentioned, given the current UX, it would be awkward to not count these waiting tables as real tables because of what happens when you are given a seat at a new table while already playing the maximum number of tables. There are many potential solutions, but with each one comes a web of new decisions and development changes. We decided on the simpler user experience, but are open to ideas.

    OneTrickPony 6 years, 5 months ago

    Hi,

    I am on the same road as the previous comment. But I would like to add a few thoughts.

    First, I am a recreational player and always will be, but after a few years of playing regularly I do also like to play 6 tables. So my personal view would be to go with 6 tables.

    BUT (in capitals, as the other phil would say ;-) ), imo you have to compare the following two things against another:
    Is 6 tables so much better for RIO to start business and for professionals for "just" convenience and hourly THAT it justifies the disadvantages of the pure recs as well as net depositors, because they will loose faster and more likely?

    Especially when slight winners might become loosers in the long run just because of the table cap of 6 (which is displayed in phils blog i think).

    And here I have only one option imo, which is vote for 4 tables! You can argue and counter argue every detail, but there will always be the truth, that in the long run, the best decision for the recs is the best decision for the pros equally as for the running company of the poker game!

    Also, please excuse my english, I hope I made my point clear.

    Best regards, I wish all the RIO team nothing but success and admire you art of making business!!!
    Your communication with your customers is a role model for my own business!

    edit: One more thing from my own experience as a business owner (also in a completely different branch (clothing)): When I face an important decision and am not quite sure, I always try not to focus too much on short-term related goals and influencing factors. The most important decision making factors for me are always longevity of my business and product/service quality for my customers. All the other factors (like financial aspects, employees, marketing etc.) will - in the long run - benefit largely from decisions based on those two mentioned factors in the previous sentence.

    Cheehc 6 years, 5 months ago

    I know this is not related but after you have launched with NL and PLO what is on the top of the backlog in terms of new formats to add?
    With 6+ Holdem/Shortdeck getting a lot of hype (Triton games-Phil Ivey, Dwan, Jungleman etc) and no other site is offering this format, it seems like a huge point of difference that ROI could have if it was first to market with this game type and pushed it. As a casual player, I want to play this soo bad (as NL and PLO are stale to me) and have been looking around sites to play it on, only thing I could find was an empty table hidden on an Ipoker site..
    It just seems like a Poker Boom 2.0 game... when we see the top pros playing it in million dollar cash games, it brings back 'the dream' feel to poker.. which has been dead since black friday really..

    Nick Steiner 6 years, 5 months ago

    Thanks for the feedback and I agree that short-deck is an exciting new format. We have some innovative ideas for new poker formats and we will be discussing these at a later date.

    Zer0 6 years, 5 months ago

    Why not just make it 5 tables and get the show on the road?
    You can always change it at a later date.

    Quido 6 years, 5 months ago

    By the way what is the purpose of voting for different backgrounds? I mean can't we all choose which ones we like the most just like it is possible on every site?

    Daxxar 6 years, 5 months ago

    Not sure where i read it but that the option to switch between layouts and cards wont be finished until after launch. So before that we will not be able to change the layout. But i am guessing it migth be possible to just swap the pics in the folders to change background however the settings menu wont be finished in time.

    Nick Steiner 6 years, 5 months ago

    Most of the design options are things that you’ll be able to pick between in the Settings menu, but finalizing that menu is low on our priority list in terms of launch-necessary improvements, so it is possible that we’ll launch before some of these custom options are available.

    WM2K 6 years, 5 months ago

    I feel a little uncomfortable making a vote on the table cap. I mostly only ever play 4 tables myself so ya 4 tables is fine by me but I also want RIO poker to succeed and make the biggest impact possible in the industry and maybe a 4 table cap hurts those chances? I have no data and research to make a good decision here.

    Samu Patronen 6 years, 5 months ago

    I have a similar dilemma. Some people suggested having a table cap of 6 at the beginning and reducing it to 4 later on. I think I might be in that camp.

    WM2K 6 years, 5 months ago

    Ya im just in the do whatever is best for RIO poker camp lol. Whatever allows the site to crush the hardest and make the biggest impact then thats what I m into.

    ChipTracker 6 years, 5 months ago

    I would like to address to one another (and yet a bit correlated) issue - option which is mostly overlooked but quite important regarding higher quality of a game (influence on speed, boredom, annoyingness, etc.), namely "sit out" function.
    Some multi table players are slowing down a game by auto sitting out frequently due to not been fast enough to play all those tables (this will be on one level already improved by 6 or 4 max table limitation) and some other players just don't care about sitting out "when temporary leaving the table" (while they are going to smoke, to talk on phone, to eat, on toilet, etc.), which is very bad practice and quite selfish. I may even leave the table "for good", if someone is constantly auto sitting out every few hands (without justified reasons). Such a bad practice-behavior can be a huge hidden game killer in online poker which drives a lot of players off the tables (site, etc.). So it would be nice if RIO finds a solution to kind of force (encourage) players to "sit out properly" when they are temporary leaving the table, and too many (not justified) auto sit outs done by multi table players should be reduced as much as possible somehow as well.
    We all, as online poker players, should learn some "nice game codex and practice", which mostly already exists at live tables and benefits us all.

    miami002 6 years, 5 months ago

    Look! One or two tabling recreationals sit out all the time as well. I see it on a day to day basis. Regulars just dont make such a big deal out of it. Regulars use their time wisely and play more tables while non-pros instead of playing one more table waste their time and energy to complain about it and write obscenities to other players. People just complain way too much these days about the things which arent even that relevant. Oh you had to wait for 7 seconds, what a big deal. Some players just act like its the end of the world or something. People around us travel 2-3 hours every single day just to get to work. And you can`t wait for 10 minutes overall to play 1000 hands?

    miami002 6 years, 5 months ago

    Theres a big difference between complaining and talking about the things how they are. Im sure we have all played only one table at a time and I know it is super boring to wait for others to act. Solution - open one or two more tables and you dont even notice how slow other players sometimes are. Its that simple!

    ChipTracker 6 years, 5 months ago

    O I see, I used word "regs" too lightly and seems I offended some players. My bad, I was trying to address on anyone with such a bad behavior, codex and practice (so it really doesn't matter is it a reg, rec or whoever). 7 seconds (occasionally) might not be such a problem but activating auto time bank (to give a player a chance to reconnect without real need / reason for that) "every time" when one auto sits out just to go to smoke a cigaret and that one is not willing to click on "sit out" option it should be a problem. We are no longer talking about 7 seconds but rather about minute(s) and when this happens very frequently, it adds up significantly. Essentially even 1 second is too much if such a bad practice is the only reason. Furthermore with 4 or 6 max table limit one will not be able to open few more tables and on the other hand it seems we are all trying to avoid multi tabling in the first place. So, I don't see why encouraging a better practice from a players, making games more fun and saving a bit of our time would be a bad suggestion? And that is all it is. I was not complaining, I was just describing my observations and trying to get some discussion about this possible issue <- and there is that difference too, I was just "talking". If it is irrelevant, we will just move on, I believe this threads are intended for "this".

    Paulo360 6 years, 5 months ago

    Hi Phil,
    Are you planning on opening runitonce poker to the regulated countries in Europe such as France, Spain or Portugal?

    Nick Steiner 6 years, 5 months ago

    We have licenses from MGA and UKGC, and we won't be applying for any others before launch.

    Applying for licenses for smaller regulated markets will always be on our radar, but it's dependent on many things, including how we do once we launch and the data that comes along with that.

    Nebuchadnezzar 6 years, 5 months ago

    I voted for the 6 table cap, i think having a lower cap would put some regs off from joining. And the low cap will stop new games from starting up.

    Either way I'll be checking the site out.

    Is there a launch date yet? And what will the rake be like compared to other sites?

    Nick Steiner 6 years, 5 months ago

    We'll be making an announcement shortly in regards to the launch date and covering rake at a later date. We have some fun things planned :)

    Nick Steiner 6 years, 5 months ago

    ICYMI: On Friday, we announced the most important decision in our poll on our social media accounts. 60.3% of the community was in favor of a 6 table cap. We will be announcing the winning designs later this week.

    IturnTrader 6 years, 4 months ago

    I personally voted for a 4-player CAP, I do think RIO need to make the decision that at least creates some discomfort for pros. A 6 table cap is not far from what allot of people would play at a solid level which will defeat the purpose of trying to increase the quality of the games. If all of the pros are sure that a 4 table cap is too low then that is exactly what RIO should go with as it is indicative that you are actually affecting the quality of the pool.

    A few have suggested on here going with a 6 cap and then switching to a 4 cap later if it appears to be the best choice for RIO. I would suggest that you should do it the other way around as you should aim to capture a good first impression with the recs rather than with pros. If you raise it to 6 later, all the pros that initially did not choose RIO will then give it a go anyway whilst there will be no difference in the attractiveness for recs based on that sort of change.

    Sigmund-Freud 6 years, 4 months ago

    Had some ideas and was adviced to post them here.
    1.RIO poker. Option to buy RIO pro coaching with frequent player points.
    2. RIO poker. RIO pro coaching awarded in MTT's, SnG's, and other creative ways in cash game etc. example rio pro weak, play x amounts of hands and enter a draw for pro coaching relevant to stakes.
    3. RIO.com. Many can not afford pro coaching from high level pros. But draws would make it affordable. Eg. pro has 500$ hrly for coaching. Enter a draw at 1$ a ticket. 1/500 is not bad for excellent coaching. The draw does not happen if the 500 limit is not reached obv(unlikely). Random thoughts��. What is your take?

    Nick Steiner 6 years, 4 months ago

    Hi Sigmund-Freud, thanks for the suggestions. I can't provide much on these right now, but I will add these to my doc of ideas/suggestions.

    There is actually a new thread where players can post suggestions and ideas for Run It Once Poker. If you'd like to voice this there, you may get more input from the community.

    https://www.runitonce.com/chatter/ideas-thread-potentially/

    meadowstream 6 years, 4 months ago

    Reading these updates it seems like RIO Poker will be a lot like the mircogaming network. The've made a lot of interesting choices. (See: https://mpn.poker/blog/)
    The only problem seems to be the traffic and a lack of some features in the software. But all the fundamentals like low rake, no shortstacking, anonymous and untrackable play is the same.

    Estuary 6 years, 4 months ago

    Some questions for you.

    Will MTTs or SnGs be anonymous?

    Will we be able to take temporary notes of an anonymous player at our table?

    Will railing only be for high stakes cash games and MTT final tables?

    Will there still be deposit bonuses despite the push to disincentivise multi-accounting?

    Will chatting be allowed during a hand by all players?

    Idea: (Option) Display BBs of Hero and villains

    Eldora 6 years, 4 months ago

    Hey Estuary interesting questions,
    I can't answer all of them and will leave these to the RIO Poker experts and I also suspect some of these questions might be revealed at a later point

    1) Note Taking
    Yes, you will be able to take notes on the players at your tables. In addition, there's also a color coding system allowing you to mark players at your table.

    2) Chatting
    Chatting will be allowed during hands, however, the traditional chat function is replaced by an emoji and standard (poker) conversation selection - so there will be no freestyle type chat.

    You can also check out these two features in Phil's latest video update where he plays on the site and explains how it works (if you haven't done so in the meantime).

    Aception 6 years, 4 months ago

    Hi there. As a micro stakes player, my problem is that the rake at the tables makes the games unbeatable. I have played quite a lot and I am a break even player (after rake), which means I have generated thousands of dollars in rake but I have received 0% of it. I understand that a poker site is a business and wants a big piece of the action but when they take ALL of it it makes me feel I'm being taken advantage of.
    So I suggest this mechanism which would fix this problem and make you stand out from everyone else: have no rake at the tables and charge a (big) commission to withdrawals. This way you essentially create a partnership with the winning players with transparent terms. Your percentage can scale down with the amount of course so you don't lose the high stakes business. I'm pretty sure this will make a blast in the community. At least you will have 100% of my poker action :).

    Aception 6 years, 4 months ago

    Sure but the point remains: if I'm break even after rake I generate value but I'll never receive any of it. With my suggestion this gets resolved.

    camikaze007 6 years, 4 months ago

    The problem with this is the recs - they don't even know what rake is so why would they want to play on a site that charges for withdrawals than one that doesn't? And if you have no recs you have no regs and you have no site. Rake is an issue, especially at the micros (up to 15bb/100 in some cases) but the simple solution is just to lower it.

    Be the first to add a comment

    Runitonce.com uses cookies to give you the best experience. Learn more about our Cookie Policy