CO: $5.48 (Hero)
June 25, 2018 | 10:31 p.m.
MP: $9.18 (Hero)
June 19, 2018 | 10:31 p.m.
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.