In a roughly 2,000-word statement published on X, CoinPoker ambassador Patrick Leonard has criticised the state of online cash games, questioned his sponsor’s new rake structure and explained why he would not currently encourage people to play its cash tables.
However, his lengthy response leaves several important questions about the operator’s controversial changes unanswered.
The British professional, known online as Pads, was responding to criticism following CoinPoker’s decision to increase certain cash-game rake caps by as much as 233% and introduce rake on qualifying pots won before the flop. His response offers a detailed defence of the need to protect recreational players, but stops short of establishing whether the new charges are reasonable.
Leonard Admits He Wouldn’t Recommend CoinPoker Cash Games
Perhaps the most striking admission comes towards the end of Leonard’s statement, when he reflects on learning poker through cash games and moving up the stakes.
CoinPoker ambassador Leonard, a multiple COOP champion recalls wanting to follow in the footsteps of Tom Dwan, Phil Ivey and other high-stakes professionals. He describes cash games as the perfect environment for players motivated by improvement, much like someone climbing an online chess ranking.
But he no longer believes the environment offers that same experience.
Leonard explains that he once wished his mother would try poker, believing she could become a good player. Today, he says he would not recommend that she try grinding CoinPoker cash games. Importantly, he extends that reluctance to cash games elsewhere, arguing that predatory behaviour has damaged the wider industry. Leonard is not claiming CoinPoker is uniquely responsible for the problems affecting online cash poker, nor is he saying nobody should ever play there.
However, screenshots of an October 16 Discord discussion with high-stakes regulars show him taking a similarly critical position. He tells players that he would not currently promote CoinPoker’s cash games and would not encourage them to play there under the existing conditions.
It is an unusually candid position for a sponsored representative.
He Thinks CoinPoker’s Rake Is Too High
As Poker Type reported on October 18, CoinPoker has substantially increased some high-stakes rake caps while introducing charges on preflop three-bet pots that end without a flop.
At $25/$50, the maximum rake for pots involving three or four players increased from $12 to $40, representing a 233% rise. The cap for pots involving five or more players also climbed from $20 to $62.50. These are maximum charges rather than amounts automatically collected from every hand. Actual rake depends on pot sizes, table conditions and the applicable rules.
Leonard acknowledges that CoinPoker’s revised prices appear excessive, even after considering its new Battle Cap arrangements.
Those arrangements are an important part of his explanation. At qualifying heads-up tables, two players classified by CoinPoker as Battle Players can receive a substantially reduced rake cap. At $25/$50, that reduced cap is 0.25 big blinds, compared with the three-big-blind default when Battle Caps are inactive. He argues that some of the rake collected in games involving recreational VIP players is returned to those customers through rewards. In his view, those players are crucial to keeping expensive games running.
That is a reasonable explanation of the operator’s business model. It does not, however, establish that the new rake levels are necessary or fair.
The Problem With Predatory Cash-Game Players
A substantial part of Leonard’s statement concerns the behaviour of professionals who aggressively target weaker opponents. He describes an experiment in which he sat at cash-game tables across three operators, including CoinPoker, and saw other players take the remaining seats almost immediately. When he sat out, the other players reportedly did the same.
Leonard suspects this behaviour reflects the influence of seating scripts, datamining and other methods used to identify profitable opponents.
His concern is understandable. An operator that spends heavily attracting recreational customers has little incentive to watch them lose their entire bankroll to professionals before leaving the site.
He also makes an important distinction between ordinary winning players and those engaging in predatory practices. In fact, he strongly praises ethical high-stakes professionals for helping poker rooms identify cheats, improve software and investigate suspicious activity.
The problem is that his argument raises another question: if predatory behaviour is damaging the games, why should increasing rake be the preferred solution rather than improving security and enforcement?
Higher rake affects legitimate players too. Someone grinding without prohibited software or predatory seating tools may still face a higher cost because of the actions of others.
Pad’s experiment provides a useful personal observation, but it does not establish how widespread automated seating is or demonstrate that higher rake would reduce it.
Preflop Rake: More Action or Just More Revenue?
Leonard also addresses the introduction of rake in qualifying preflop three-bet pots.
He suggests that charging rake only when a flop is dealt can encourage aggressive preflop strategies, particularly three-betting rather than calling. In his view, a healthy cash-game environment should encourage players to see more flops and create more action.
There is strategic merit in that argument. Rake structures influence optimal decisions, and changing the cost of preflop aggression can affect how players construct their ranges. However, Leonard makes another important observation: he does not believe introducing preflop rake should simply mean charging players more overall. Instead, he argues that it should be incorporated into the existing pricing structure.
That leaves a significant question about CoinPoker’s implementation.
If the objective is to encourage more flops, could the operator have achieved that by redistributing its existing rake rather than adding another charge?
Leonard provides no calculation demonstrating why the new structure is preferable for players.
The Questions Leonard’s Statement Doesn’t Answer
For all the detail in his essay-length response, several of the most important questions remain unresolved.
These are not necessarily questions Leonard was personally asked and refused to answer. Some require financial information or player data that only CoinPoker can provide. Nevertheless, they are central to assessing his explanation.
| Question | What the statement establishes |
|---|---|
| Why was a 233% increase in certain rake caps necessary? | Leonard discusses recreational-player protection, but provides no calculation justifying that increase. |
| How much additional rake will the changes generate? | No figures are supplied for the operator’s expected additional revenue. |
| How much is returned to VIP players? | Leonard says a substantial proportion is redistributed, without providing verifiable amounts or percentages. |
| Are the games still beatable after rake and rewards? | No representative player results or net rake figures are presented. |
| Why introduce additional preflop rake instead of adjusting existing charges? | He argues against simply adding rake but does not establish why CoinPoker chose its approach. |
| Will CoinPoker reconsider the changes? | Leonard offers to communicate player concerns, but provides no confirmed commitment from management to revise the rules. |
One of these questions deserves particular attention.
In January 2026, CoinPoker publicly committed to maintaining games that would remain beatable for players. It also indicated that it would work with the community if its approach proved mistaken.
The October changes put that earlier commitment under renewed scrutiny.
A poker room can introduce higher headline rake and return substantial value through individual rewards. That is entirely possible. However, proving the overall games remain beatable requires more than describing how rewards are intended to work.
Players need to know what they are paying after those rewards, not just the maximum amount available to be deducted from a pot.
Is Leonard Defending CoinPoker or Its Players?
Leonard’s statement is not a straightforward defence of his sponsor. He acknowledges the concerns of high-stakes professionals, criticises aspects of the pricing and says he does not intend to promote cash games he would not play himself. He also explains that he has actively promoted PokerStars and GGPoker content despite those operators competing with CoinPoker. He rejects accusations that his sponsorship prevents him from acting in what he believes to be poker’s wider interests.
That is a fair argument to make. Representing an operator does not automatically invalidate someone’s opinions, particularly when those opinions include public criticism of the sponsor.
At the same time, Leonard devotes considerable attention to praising CoinPoker’s tournament offering. He highlights its structures, recreational-player participation, software improvements and promotional activity, explaining that these are products he genuinely enjoys playing.
In his statement, he effectively separates CoinPoker’s tournament business, which he enthusiastically supports, from its cash-game offering, which he currently does not feel comfortable recommending. Nevertheless, his commercial relationship remains relevant when assessing the argument, especially when much of his explanation concerns the operator’s need to protect its business.
Where Does CoinPoker Go From Here?
We believe Leonard deserves credit for engaging with affected players and publicly acknowledging problems with his sponsor’s cash games. His appreciation of high-stakes professionals and the difficulties facing recreational players adds something useful to a debate that has often become confrontational.
His X account, @padspoker, has long been a place where he discusses wider industry issues, and his latest statement continues that approach.
His argument for protecting recreational players is fair, not evidence that the chosen rake increases are proportionate. He has explained the existence of reduced Battle Caps, not demonstrated how frequently they apply or how much players pay after all rewards.
He has also expressed concern about the new charges without confirming whether CoinPoker intends to change them.
Right now, the central issue remains exactly where it was when the controversy began. Can regular players still beat CoinPoker’s cash games under the new structure, and can the operator demonstrate that with meaningful data? Until those questions are answered, the admission that one of CoinPoker’s own ambassadors would not currently recommend its cash games may carry more weight than the lengthy explanation surrounding it.
