No one is winning at 200nl on CoinPoker

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

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

https://pulvret.com/resources/coinraces-statistics/

Pulvret Poker

CoinRaces Statistics - Pulvret Poker

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.

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!

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.

Because this isn't news to anyone.

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.

(Disclosure: I work with gaming platform data and integrations, have no connection to CoinPoker, and am commenting only on the methodology.)

The dataset is interesting, but aggregate losses alone do not prove that nobody can win at this stake. In a cash-game player pool, the combined result must be negative before rewards because rake continuously removes money from the tables. The real question is how that loss is distributed and whether any players remain profitable after rake and rakeback.

A transparent analysis should show, for each player:

• number of observed hands and data coverage;
  
• table winnings before allocated rake;
  
• rake paid in bb/100;
  
• rakeback, promotions and other rewards converted to bb/100;
  
• final result after all rewards;
  
• confidence interval for the observed win rate.
  

The methodology also needs to explain whether every table and session was captured, how rake was allocated, whether aliases changed, and whether inactive or low-volume winners were excluded. Selecting only the highest-volume players can create survivorship or selection bias, while incomplete hand histories can distort both winnings and rake.

The most useful operator report would publish the total observed player result, total rake collected, rewards returned, effective rake by stake and game type, and the distribution of post-reward win rates. That would let players distinguish between normal variance, incomplete data and a rake structure that may genuinely make the games unsustainable.

Quit the AI talk buddy, wtf are you even saying. Because if you really think CP will publish a report like that you're out of your mind

Its not rocket science.

Rake should never be so high the top volume regs average a -7.43bb/100 lossrate. Period
Rakeback should be a bonus, not the biggest factor.
Money should be won at the tables because thats where you face (and hopefully outplay) your opponents.

If you set the rake so high that nobody is winning and make the system so opaque and arbitrary that nobody knows what their actual rakeback is or is supposed to be then you essentially can control the entire ecosystem by regulating the flows in and out through arbitrarily tweaking the opaque system

I think there's a lack of appreciation for how grim the life of a NL cash recreational is in 2026 and thereby the realities of the ecosystem. OF COURSE as poker purists we'd love to play a low rake low reward environment, but that's just not proven sustainable.

Have we seen the graphs of decently losing (or worse) NL recs recently? They're just double black diamonds straight down. With so few winning experiences and access to infinite other competing gambling alternatives at their fingertips sites have turned to "gamifying" the poker experience to keep the average rec coming back/making it more likely they retain them as a player.

I struggle to see how a low rake, low reward, largely vanilla site can compete for the lion's share of the market in 2026. If it could work, we'd have seen it by now!

Yep

The antes bleed them faster, too.