Matt Berkey

Only Friends Poker Podcast Verified account @OnlyFriends_Pod · 9h

New for members: The Green Room 🎙️

A live look behind the scenes as the cast preps for the show, before every episode.

Today it's open to everyone. After today, it's for Brainiac members.

Doors open 10:30 AM PT 👇
youtube.com/watch?v=CGcCFp…

View quoted post on X

Only Friends Poker Podcast Verified account @OnlyFriends_Pod · 11h

We're back. Only Friends Ep 720 is live today at 11am PT.

Melissa Schubert, Brent Hanks and @NikkiLimo in studio, Conrad on the line.

I'll tell you what ended the show and why we came back 🎙️

View quoted post on X

Only Friends Poker Podcast Verified account @OnlyFriends_Pod · 3d

We are so back!

11 AM PT · Monday, Nov 9

View quoted post on X

Nick Howard Verified account @nickhowardpoker · 4d

A few final things worth clearing up about our new collection rate at Venetian.

We listed our first stream game at 25/50 with a big ante. It's a widely tested format recreational players enjoy because it drives more action without penalizing them nearly as much for playing more hands. The game played deep and much closer to a 100/200 game than a conventional 25/50.

The smaller listed blinds gave competing game runners and pros an opening to distort the true cost of our collection by framing it as though it were being charged in a much smaller game than players were actually playing.

They took it and ran with it. I respect the effort.

The top analysts in poker will tell you that starting pot size is an objective reference point for evaluating collection relative to the size of a game. At 25/50 with a $300 ante, our starting pot was $375. Using the listed blinds alone dramatically exaggerates the relative cost of collection.

We've spent years studying these models, and those same analysts have verified that our collection rates fall within the range already accepted in live and online raked games around the world, often with less favorable lineups. Many of the people in our network already play in those environments.

Having built one of the largest data driven companies in the poker industry, I think it's reasonable to expect that my team would've validated the economics before putting our reputation behind this model. (we did).

I personally announced the collection before the first hand. Given how established these rates already were in comparable raked environments, often with less favorable lineups, I genuinely didn't anticipate the controversy or think a separate explanation beforehand was necessary. Whether players would've felt differently without the controversy that followed doesn't matter. That's on me.

Vegas private poker is an extremely competitive market. The people driving the distorted narrative are primarily competing game runners and pros whose livelihoods depend on where recreational players choose to play. I don't know whether their comparisons are deliberately misleading or just bad math, but it's hard to ignore their financial incentives when they consistently avoid comparing our rates to accepted rates in games with worse lineups.

There's also a difference between a collection rate that was disclosed and independently benchmarked, and one that was hidden or misrepresented to players.

Beyond that, I don't think I need to make the case that additional winning pros come at a cost to recreational players. If you prefer playing in games with more pros and less collection, you absolutely should. That's your choice.

We've spent years studying how much recreational players lose to pros, what they want from a poker game, and the tradeoffs they're willing to make for better lineups when the costs are presented accurately. That's why we built a different model, with limits on professional seats and a focus on guest experience.

Going forward, I'll make sure our collection rates and relevant comparisons are transparently available upfront, so players can evaluate the economics for themselves without relying on anyone else's interpretation.

Ultimately, players get to decide whether the experience is worth what it costs. That's how it should be.

View quoted post on X