Find your game.
Find your people.
Find your place.
The trusted coordination layer for real-world play — games, people, venues and verified results in one network.
Booking is infrastructure.
Connection is the product.
We are not building venue software with a social tab. We are building the identity and trust layer that makes in-person play as easy as ordering a ride.
Universal, not single-sport
Game-agnostic architecture. One identity across ten launch games — pool, snooker, darts, chess, backgammon, table tennis, padel, pickleball and cards.
Verified real-world play
Check-ins, table QR, opponent confirmation and result verification turn play into durable reputation.
Venues as infrastructure
Cafés, bars, hotels and coworking spaces become gaming destinations with real utilisation and revenue.
Playing in person is unnecessarily hard
The desire to play is abundant. The coordination layer is fragmented — so intent leaks away at every hand-off.
Nine tools. No network.
Behaviour already exists — it is just scattered across apps that were never designed to get people playing together.
- Meetup
- Google Maps
- Venue websites
- Word of mouth
- Booking systems
- League software
- POS
- Specialist sports apps
- Online gaming
- Informal clubs
What. When.
Where. How.
Illustrative venue · London
Proposed feature. Match quality is shown as a qualitative indication; no validated fairness score exists yet.
One sentence in. A real game out.
“I want to play pool tonight, near me, competitive.” Everything after that is our job.
Declare intent
Game, time window, location radius and mode — three taps, no group chat.
Assemble the game
Compatible players by rating, handicap, reliability and schedule fit.
Secure the place
Table, board or court booked and paid inside the same flow.
Play & verify
Check in, play, confirm the result — ratings and reputation update.
Ten games. One player identity.
A deliberately small portfolio: every game is quick to start, playable in an ordinary venue, and produces a result two people can confirm on the spot.
Padel
Padel level
Venue infrastructure
Pickleball
Pickleball estimate
Venue infrastructure
Table Tennis
Table tennis estimate
Venue infrastructure
Pool
Rack strength
Venue infrastructure
Snooker
Local strength (experimental)
Venue infrastructure
Darts
Estimated 501 ability
Venue infrastructure
Chess
Chess Elo estimate
Meet Your Match kit
Backgammon
Backgammon estimate
Meet Your Match kit
Texas Hold'em
Tournament performance estimate
Meet Your Match kit
Gin Rummy
App-owned estimate
Meet Your Match kit
Why these ten
The set was selected for coordination economics, not for coverage. A game earns a place by being easy to start, easy to verify and easy to repeat.
Venue-native
Every game already lives in bars, cafés, clubs and racket centres. We add coordination, not a new building.
Confirmable results
Each produces a short, unambiguous outcome — sets, racks, frames, legs, a result or a match score — that an opponent can confirm in seconds.
Two-player floor
Eight of the ten start with two people. Liquidity is achievable in a single neighbourhood.
Spread of occasions
Racket, cue, precision, board and card. Daytime and late night, athletic and seated, indoor and out.
Rating-tractable
Each has either a native reference scale or a defensible app-owned one. Nothing here is unrateable in principle.
Portfolio effect
One player carries several of them. A padel player becomes a Tuesday darts player, then a Sunday chess player.
Skill, confidence, dependability
One player holds a separate skill estimate for each game. There is no universal skill number, and reliability never touches skill.
Skill estimate
A number, in each game's own units
One number per game, never a single universal ladder. Hidden until the third eligible confirmed match.
Rating confidence
A percentage, per game
How much evidence sits behind the estimate. What the percentage promises is still being calibrated.
Match reliability
Words only, one per profile
Turning up, not playing well. Five plain labels, shared across all ten games. It never moves a skill number.
What a skill number never means
It is not an official rating anywhere, not a percentile, and not transferable between games. Imported ratings keep the name of the system and the date they came from.
Only verified games count
A confirmed result feeds that game's estimate and nothing else. Handicapped games are recorded, shown, and deliberately excluded from the rated track.
Padel
Padel level · 0.5–7
Skill benchmark / native reference
Recreational padel levels (0.5–7.0), familiar units only
What we capture
Set scores, entered once, confirmed by the opposing side.
How the estimate updates
Each side's estimate is the pair's average; players move on the gap between the result and what was expected, faster while uncertain.
First three games / placement
First three eligible confirmed unhandicapped matches are provisional; casual counts at lower weight.
Fair-match mechanism
Manual, mutually accepted allowance only. No verified rating-gap-to-points mapping exists, so none is offered.
Limitation / open decision
Starting levels per answer are unsettled, and the prototype bounds 0–7 rather than the intended 0.5 floor.
Pickleball
Pickleball estimate · 1–5.5
Skill benchmark / native reference
USA Pickleball skill-level vocabulary — as vocabulary only, not a calculation
What we capture
Game scores to 11, win by two; one entry, opponents confirm.
How the estimate updates
Side strength is the mean of the two estimates; the win chance comes from the difference, and everyone on a side moves by the same capped step.
First three games / placement
Four experience answers may seed hidden starting values (1.5 / 2.5 / 3.25 / 4.25); eligible casual placement counts at half weight.
Fair-match mechanism
Manual agreement only; handicapped games stay out of placement and public estimates.
Limitation / open decision
Fixed partners and improving players both degrade the estimate badly; a closed group of friends cannot be located on a public scale at all.
Table Tennis
Table tennis estimate · 100–2800
Skill benchmark / native reference
USATT rating points — a real published calculation, used as units only
What we capture
Best-of-five game scores; one entry, opponent confirms.
How the estimate updates
Winners never fall and losers never rise; a provisional player may be updated without a settled opponent moving.
First three games / placement
Four answers may seed 400 / 800 / 1200 / 1600 points (skip: 800); a dated existing rating can seed it instead with added uncertainty.
Fair-match mechanism
Manual points of start only. No fitted gap-to-points mapping is offered.
Limitation / open decision
Which federation benchmark a international launch should reference.
Pool
Rack strength · 0–1000
Skill benchmark / native reference
FargoRate-style logarithmic rack strength
What we capture
Discipline, rulebook version, table size, break policy, race target, final rack score and winner.
How the estimate updates
The outcome, not the margin, drives the skill update; the rack score validates completion and feeds an evidence count.
First three games / placement
Three answers may seed broad centres of 250 / 400 / 550 (skip: 400) with wide uncertainty. Design assumptions, not a published mapping.
Fair-match mechanism
Unequal races, agreed manually and kept entirely out of the rated track.
Limitation / open decision
How to anchor a local group to any external scale at all.
Snooker
Local strength (experimental) · -40–40
Skill benchmark / native reference
No universal amateur rating was established. Local league handicaps exist and are genuinely native.
What we capture
Frame results over best of 1 / 3 / 5; one entry, opponent confirms.
How the estimate updates
Each match counts once towards placement, not once per frame; handicapped frames are kept transactionally separate.
First three games / placement
Break bands map to cautious internal starting values (−12 / −6 / 0 / +6 / +12) for the prototype only; an imported league handicap stays contextual.
Fair-match mechanism
Manual point starts, shown before play. No automatic conversion from the model's units.
Limitation / open decision
Either anchor to a named league with agreed calibration, or approve an openly non-standard local scale.
Darts
Estimated 501 ability · 20–110
Skill benchmark / native reference
The three-dart average — a measured statistic, not an outcome
What we capture
Leg totals and winner; one entry, opponent confirms. A recorded average is a separate statistic.
How the estimate updates
Outcome only — no score-margin modifier, because that would add another uncalibrated parameter.
First three games / placement
Supply a recent 501 average with its source and date, or skip; a supplied seed is treated as noisy.
Fair-match mechanism
Manual start scores. A proportional 501-ratio formula was tested and is not launch-ready — finishing on a double has fixed difficulty.
Limitation / open decision
Whether an estimate in average units can be shown at all without measured darts thrown.
Chess
Chess Elo estimate · 100–3000
Skill benchmark / native reference
Elo points as a language, with Meet Your Match's own label
What we capture
Win, draw or loss with the category preset; opponent confirms.
How the estimate updates
Standard Elo-style movement inside a 100–3000 envelope, per time category.
First three games / placement
Have you completed games with a clock? Four answers, or supply an existing rating with its organisation, category and date.
Fair-match mechanism
Agreed time odds only, and those games stay social.
Limitation / open decision
Confidence semantics, and a fair comparison against Glicko-2, both unresolved.
Backgammon
Backgammon estimate · 0–3000
Skill benchmark / native reference
Match-length-aware backgammon Elo, published 1000-origin reference
What we capture
Match target and final match score; opponent confirms.
How the estimate updates
Winner gains the match length times their chance of losing; the loser loses the same amount. New estimates start at 1000.
First three games / placement
One answer about cube decisions, or a dated existing rating; first three matches provisional.
Fair-match mechanism
Manual starting-score allowance; those matches are excluded from the rating.
Limitation / open decision
Which reference scale an international launch should use.
Texas Hold'em
Tournament performance estimate · 21–79
Skill benchmark / native reference
None. Poker has no universal skill number to convert to.
What we capture
Finishing order for a six-player freezeout, adjudicated by the named event director.
How the estimate updates
Finishing order is converted into pairwise outcomes and each player's bounded estimate moves accordingly.
First three games / placement
A count of completed six-player freezeouts, an existing record, or a skip. Experience widens or narrows uncertainty; it never grants strength.
Fair-match mechanism
No rated handicap. Equal stacks; hosts may restrict entry to a skill band instead.
Limitation / open decision
Six-way confirmation, tie handling, and what the number may be called.
Gin Rummy
App-owned estimate · 400–1600
Skill benchmark / native reference
No governing-body opponent-adjusted scale was found.
What we capture
Winner and both final totals to at least 100; opponent confirms. Per-hand detail is optional.
How the estimate updates
One update per completed match; a hand is never rated as a separate match.
First three games / placement
Four experience answers may optionally seed 600 / 800 / 1000 / 1200 (skip: 800). Unvalidated conventions, openly labelled.
Fair-match mechanism
Points of start, flagged on the match and excluded from ratings.
Limitation / open decision
Whether an openly app-owned scale is acceptable at all.
One question in, three games to a real estimate
Placement asks at most one plain-language question per game, never a quiz.
Minimal self-assessment
One optional question, or an existing rating with its system name and date. Skipping is always allowed and simply widens uncertainty. Experience never grants strength.
Handicaps are agreed, not imposed
Every fair-match mechanism in the ten is manual and mutually accepted before play: points of start, unequal races, point starts, start scores, time odds. Nothing is applied automatically.
No fitted conversions yet
No verified mapping from a rating gap to a concrete allowance exists for any of the ten. Publishing one before real-match testing would be a claim we cannot support.
Honest by default · Snooker, darts, Texas Hold’em and Gin Rummy have no universal amateur rating, and the deck says so. Where a published system exists, we use its units as language and label the number as ours.
A loop that compounds, not a funnel that ends
Every completed game produces data, trust and relationships — the inputs that make the next game easier to create.
One person.
Many games.
Verified performance.
- Game-specific ratings and match history
- Opponents, venues and preferred times
- Reliability: attendance, cancellations, no-shows
- Communities joined and progression over time
“How good are you?”
“Can people rely on you?”
Separate skill estimates per game, in that game’s own units. Each carries its own confidence percentage, shown once calibrated — the values here are illustrative.
“Turns up and confirms”
Expressed in words only. It never moves a skill number and is never shown as a percentage.
Handicaps turn mismatches into real games
Without handicaps, only similar players can play. With them, almost any two players can have a competitive, meaningful match — which multiplies liquidity in every city.
Ratings are per-game and portable across venues. Handicap is applied at match creation and recorded with the verified result, so fairness is auditable.
Not anonymous matchmaking. A trust chain.
Strangers meet in physical space. The verification chain is what makes that comfortable — and what makes results worth something.
Verified results are the raw material of matchmaking, leagues and premium analytics. Trust is the asset competitors cannot copy quickly.
A venue does not have to be a sports facility
Underutilised hospitality space becomes productive gaming infrastructure — with demand delivered on the quiet nights.
Chess · Backgammon
Pool · Darts · Cards
Chess nights · Socials
Games room · Guest activity
Table tennis · Chess
Pool · Leagues
Every table and board gets a digital identity
Branded boards, clocks, dartboards, cues, scoreboards, table identifiers and venue signage make the network visible in the real world.
Communities form around games, places and habits
Weekly · one venue
Rotating across nearby venues
Café-based, casual
League format
Illustrative London community shapes. No communities exist yet and no membership numbers are claimed.
“I just want to play”
“Match me fairly”
Season-long structure
Event-based brackets
Direct player callouts
A coordination fee from every player, every game.
Each player pays their own fee for matchmaking and booking coordination. The central assumption is £4.50 per player per game; specific rates by game and city are still to be set. The venue sets and collects its own minimum spend directly.
- Each player must pay to confirm their own place
- Venue booking completes only when every required player has paid
Every financial figure in this deck comes from the coordination fee alone.
Every player pays. Then the venue is booked.
The service fee covers matchmaking and booking coordination. Anything the venue charges is separate. £4.50 is the direct sterling central assumption for London — per-game and per-city rates are still to be set.
A player takes a place. It is held, not confirmed.
Each player pays their own service fee — average £4.50, varying by game and city.
Until every required place is filled and paid, the venue booking shows as pending.
Roster full and all players paid — the venue booking is confirmed and check-in opens.
Every number ahead is an assumption
A planned one-year trial across two London locations. Actual traction has not been supplied or verified for this projection. The model assumes 2 planned London locations, each treated as a neighbourhood operating catchment rather than an individual venue, with 10,000 registrations and 30 target venues per area (20,000 registrations and 60 target venues overall). The figures describe what the model would produce if the assumptions held.
Two-area paid trial
Planning target
Participating venues by year end
Planning assumption
All-in, no validated breakdown
Coordination fee only
This is the planned two-location model: both neighbourhood operating catchments start together and registrations grow to 10,000 per area (20,000 overall) by Month 12, with 30 participating venues per area (60 overall) targeted by year end. Specific locations are not yet announced. Revenue is the coordination fee only. Venue minimum spend is set and collected by the venue directly and never enters platform revenue or cost. Subscriptions, sponsorship, equipment sales and other income are excluded from the forecast in this deck.
Payers × games × £4.50
Registrations grow evenly to 20,000 by Month 12 across the two planned London locations. Only the paying share and the games each payer plays change by scenario.
A low case, not a floor. Nothing establishes that participation cannot fall below this.
The central planning assumption. It is not an industry average and no comparable dataset supports it.
A sensitivity, not a dependable forecast. It assumes both high participation and high frequency while costs remain unchanged.
Formula: payers × games per payer × £4.50 average = monthly coordination revenue, using the exact £4.50 fee assumption and the unrounded converted cost base (£34,359.20 a month across both areas). An “appearance” is one player paying for one game. Underperforming is not a floor, Central is a planning assumption rather than an industry figure, and Strong is a sensitivity.
Central case reaches break-even in Month 11
Audience acquisition is gradual, with activity at 50% in Q1, 75% in Q2, then 100%. Costs stay flat at £103,078 a quarter.
| Quarter | Avg registered | Revenue | Cost | Operating result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 · 50% activity | 2,500 | £16,875 | £103,078 | (£86,203) |
| Q2 · 75% activity | 7,500 | £75,938 | £103,078 | (£27,140) |
| Q3 · 100% activity | 12,500 | £168,750 | £103,078 | £65,672 |
| Q4 · 100% activity | 17,500 | £236,250 | £103,078 | £133,172 |
| Year total | 10,000 | £497,813 | £412,310 | £85,502 |
The central case produces £497,813 revenue and £85,502 operating surplus before setup costs and tax.
The trial still needs opening cash
The central case has a positive operating result over 12 months, but reaches cumulative break-even only in Month 11. Setup and contingency are separate illustrative allowances.
| Funding component | Central | Underperforming |
|---|---|---|
| Peak operating cash deficit | £113,343 | £312,748 |
| Illustrative setup allowance | £50,000 | £50,000 |
| Contingency: 15% of annual operating costs | £61,847 | £61,847 |
| Provisional opening funding | £225,189 | £424,594 |
| Rounded planning envelope | £230,000 | £425,000 |
£497,813 revenue and £85,502 operating surplus before setup costs and tax.
No tax, financing, depreciation or capital expenditure. Funding must allow for setup, contingency, settlement timing and payment reserves.
7,636 paid appearances a month
£34,359 of monthly cost divided by the £4.50 central fee assumption, using the exact £4.50 fee assumption and the unrounded converted cost base (£34,359.20 a month across both areas). Everything else in the model is a route to this figure.
playing 4 games a month
playing 2 games a month
playing 6 games a month
per venue each month across 60 target venues
Monthly break-even is reached in Month 7 in the central trial, while cumulative operating break-even is reached in Month 11.
What each target venue would need to carry
Full-target monthly figures divided evenly across the 60 participating-venue target. This is platform revenue attributable to a venue — not what the venue earns.
| Scenario | Appearances / venue | Platform revenue / venue | Games / venue |
|---|---|---|---|
| Underperforming | 66.7 | £300 | 6.7 (illustrative) |
| Central | 333.3 | £1,500 | 33.3 (illustrative) |
| Strong | 800 | £3,600 | 80 (illustrative) |
The games-per-venue column assumes 10 players per game. The real portfolio is dominated by two- and four-player games, so that column is illustrative only — appearances are the unit to plan against.
Research examples record London pay-and-play football at Ealing, Lammas Park £8–9, Westway £10, Wembley, Ark £8.
- Research examples are contextual, not live quotes and not a true market average.
- Those prices bundle several elements — pitch hire, organisation, equipment — so they are not a direct benchmark for a standalone £4.50 coordination fee.
A test worth running, not proven
Once players have met each other once, they can arrange the next game between themselves and pay nothing.
The customer feels the coordination fee plus the venue minimum together. Total spend, not £4.50, sets willingness to pay.
Demand splits across venues, times and ten different games. Density in each slice is what fills a game, not headline registrations.
Cancellations, no-shows and refund handling all attack realised revenue per confirmed appearance.
Acquisition cost has not been separately estimated or validated within the £34,359 all-in monthly operating budget; additional pre-launch acquisition spending, if outside this allowance, must be funded separately.
£34,359 a month is a flat assumption. Support, staffing and payment processing fees all grow with volume.
- Venue cost exposure is limited — no venue hire, subsidy or minimum guarantee is assumed anywhere in this model.
- Venue incentives are aligned: the venue sets and collects its own minimum spend directly and keeps it.
- Repeat potential and local density — a payer who plays four times a month is worth far more than a single acquisition.
We sit where eight markets overlap
No single incumbent category owns the moment where a person decides to play in the real world. That intersection is the category we intend to define — an intent, not an established position.
We expect games to repeat weekly rather than act as one-off transactions. Repeat frequency is a beta KPI, not an observed result.
Most neighbourhoods appear to contain unused gaming capacity. Venue-level availability is still to be confirmed in the beta.
PLAY
We do not compete on number of games
Anyone can add a game. Our hypothesis is that trusted identity, fair matchmaking and a verified venue network are the harder things to build — and that is where we intend to compete.
- Playtomic
- Chess.com
- Lichess
- Game-specific platforms
- RacketPal
- Pulvi
- Gameli
- Meetup
- Operational tools
- No global player network
Density should make the product work better
The expected effect: each new player and venue should improve match quality for everyone already inside the network, and better quality should attract the next cohort. This is the hypothesis the beta is designed to test.
WHEEL
Start dense. Build city by city.
- Broad market, multi-game ecosystem
- Hypothesised network effects and repeat play
- Venue monetisation of idle capacity
- Persistent identity, rating + handicap
- Cold start; local density required
- Different rating systems per game
- Venue onboarding effort
- Trust, disputes and quality across games
- Demand for physical social experiences
- Hospitality and equipment partnerships
- Corporate events, tourism, expats
- Leagues, coaching, premium, expansion
- Multi-game competitors and specialists
- WhatsApp groups as free substitutes
- Liquidity gaps and rating manipulation
- No-shows and venue resistance
Verified games
successfully played
Not signups. Not listings. The only metric that proves the coordination layer works — and the one every revenue stream sits on top of.
One player, one game, one £4.50 coordination fee
Platform activity attributable to a venue — not venue earnings
Bars indicate relative emphasis in the metric framework — not reported performance.
The intended moat is trusted infrastructure for real-world play
Each layer is individually copyable. The hypothesis is that together — with density, trust and verified history — they become hard to displace. The planned two-location London trial is the test of whether that holds.
“I want to play.”
The platform finds the game, the people, the place and the time. People, games, venues, community and data become a single interoperable network.