No one is winning at 200nl on CoinPoker
This has datamined hands for this year at 200nl. Not a single pre-rb winner at 200nl with any significant volume. Grant
Guys who say they don't see a problem with the system encapsulate exactly the current problem, which is:Sites actively trying to make you believe that winning money in poker before rakeback shouldn't feel normal. And I say that's fkn BS. I think it's safe to assume that almost everyone in this thread started playing the game because they believed they could become WINNING playe
Guys who say they don't see a problem with the system encapsulate exactly the current problem, which is:Sites actively trying to make you believe that winning money in poker before rakeback shouldn't feel normal. And I say that's fkn BS. I think it's safe to assume that almost everyone in this thread started playing the game because they believed they could become WINNING playe
Yes, vote with ur wallet.
I stopped playing at GG for 2 years now. **** them and their model - anyone who grinds leaderboard there is selling ur life - 12-16 hours a day multi tabling at the hardest core, burning out - meanwhile GGpoker keeps reducing ur other rakeback (fish buffet + 100k flipout) to compensate for how much u make through leaderboard.
Lmao, its a big **** u in ur face and u still hold onto it.
And I could see the same partern happening at Coin. The way they make their promo shaddier and shaddier after each update. And they have been pouring unbelievable amount of money into marketing. At this point, I gotta ask, how would they turn a profit with such marketing money without raking us to death
My own data also shows that it becomes difficult to win at the table on CoinPoker after the rake increases. But I like Coinpoker and I believe they will lower the rake rate.These are H2Note data from March-June, mixed pool data of 100NL and 200NL.There's no need to list all the results here, but I can say that my database shows an average loss rate of 7bb/100. There are also
For context, something to remember as you're absorbing these numbers is the non-splash portion of rake (splash is theoretically zero-sum, even offering some skill edge for people playing them well) is somewhere in the 8-10bb/100 range for 100-200nl.
Coin recently revamped (again) their rewards structure for I believe 50nl+. For most/all of those stakes they eliminated the 15% flat daily RB and "infused" splash pots and effectively shifted this money into "missions" (various rewards for various totals raked over a two-week period) and "bankroll boosts" (direct deposits into the accounts of regs going through extended downswings and/or recreationals/fun players). Coin Races (leaderboards, LB) also saw their prize pools boosted (although they also now reward more spots; for those unfamiliar, the leaderboards are FLAT - whether you are the last person paid or the person who raked the most during that two-hour window, you receive the same RB%)
A member of the Coin community has been keeping a running tally of how much the different LB's in each time slot at each stake are paying. It can be found
.
Using this data, at "mid stakes" (100-500nl) the LB's are paying out 51% on average the past two weeks (since the Rewards revamp) w/ a low of 41% and a high of 70%. If you just consider *just the LB aspect of rewards* and assign a (conservative) estimate of 8bb/100 rake paid by 100-200nl regs players are currently getting ~4bb/100 back from LB's (I say 'conservative' b/c at 10bb/100 rake paid you'd be getting even more bb/100 back)
Therefore, anyone in that chart above w/ a net WR of > -4bb/100 is currently making money *from the LB's alone*. Based on the missions I've seen, players are getting anywhere from 10-30% (i.e. my most recent mission was 16% RB for $50 raked, 20% for $200, 25% for $1000).
There is obviously nuance, but effective rakeback is far and away the most important consideration. We can poo poo the high rake high reward GG model all we want but the reality is it's proven the most successful and until a competitor finds a way to innovate and improve upon it we'll continue to see more and more sites adopt it.
What surprised me most here is that nobody asked anything about bots for about 10 days. lol. I guess everyone knows about them or has developed incredible strategies against them. Or maybe nobody trusted me because my post count is low. Oh well.
What surprised me most here is that nobody asked anything about bots for about 10 days. lol. I guess everyone knows about them or has developed incredible strategies against them. Or maybe nobody trusted me because my post count is low. Oh well.
To be charitable, it seems most overlooked that part to focus on rake impact.
But you really do have to be constantly vigilant about this stuff in 2026, especially in sensitive, low WR environments like NL cash games.
A bunch've new accounts popped up at 100/200 in recent weeks and I submitted an email to Coin support raising my suspicions something fishy was up, potential bots. They emailed back a few days later saying they'd looked into it and confirmed that "...we have identified violations of our Terms and Conditions relating to prohibited software usage and unfair play. As a result, the accounts in question have been permanently banned from the platform."
I'm from Ontario and we've had a pretty big issue w/ bots on specifically GG there, have gotten decent about identifying them/their patterns. Obviously not going to be sharing these patterns publicly but feel free to DM your list of names!
What surprised me most here is that nobody asked anything about bots for about 10 days. lol. I guess everyone knows about them or has developed incredible strategies against them. Or maybe nobody trusted me because my post count is low. Oh well.
I believe you, but I kind of expect every site to have bots at this point. Would be interested to see who you think they are. Crispr? Apostle?
No, neither of those two are on the list. If by "apostle" you mean one ending in a number, then that's not a bot. Or it doesn't work like the bots I found in the pool. The other player's name is familiar, but it's not on my list. These players usually play between 2-5 tables; most don't have many hands. Some have probably been banned and haven't been around for a while, but there are new ones who play very few hands and then quit.
No, neither of those two are on the list. If by "apostle" you mean one ending in a number, then that's not a bot. Or it doesn't work like the bots I found in the pool. The other player's name is familiar, but it's not on my list. These players usually play between 2-5 tables; most don't have many hands. Some have probably been banned and haven't been around for a while, but the
Yeah, I was only wondering cause they're not listed on your high volume guys and I think they both should qualify for as much as they play(then again I'm not on the list and I should qualify), I think they're both winning, and apostle is one of the only guys I've seen with a straight up red line.
I'd be interested in learning more about how you identify bots, since that's gonna be a transferable skill to any site in 2026 and I have no idea how to do that, but am I shocked that there are bots on Coin? Not at all.
Apost seems like a good player, and yes, he's a redliner, but that's completely irrelevant to my bot data. Honestly, I have around 8-10 parameters for these bots, and 2-3 of them are extremely important. I even created an off-game program to understand them and automate some things. I feed the data into the program, and it shows me similar players, but it's currently in the testing phase, so I'm still manually checking them one by one. For me, having 1k data points for a player is enough to determine if they're a bot.
