$5/$10 used to be $6 across the board and then each property hiked it to $7. Bellagio $10/$20 was $7 and is now $9. Of course this is all happening in the context of rooms closing and the market consolidating in fewer hands.

What do you think of the increases? At what price point do you think the time becomes unbeatable?

We've only just begun to live
White lace and promises
A kiss for luck and we're on our way
(We've only begun)




This is just the start..It's a new era on the Strip. They won't stop anytime soon.

Is the market for 5/10 and 10/20 actually consolidating? As far as I know, all the poker rooms that have closed never spread games close to this high.

And I've never played 10/20 and only very rarely play 5/10. But it strikes me that anyone who would be driven away from these games by a small increase in rake are not going to be good for the game. And the beatability of a game at that level is much more determined by its player pool than its rake.

I'm not happy to see any increase in rake. But paying $7/hh at 5/10 doesn't seem unreasonable considering the typical rake in most games in most markets. In many US markets now, the rake is $7 per HAND even at 1/2.

Yep, that's what it is ($5+$2) in every single casino in South Florida. Even with the increase to $9 mentioned by the OP for the Bellagio $10/$20, that's still less than 1BB per hour. Surely, he can't be serious about questioning whether the game is beatable at that rate.

Nm

I was in Vegas during wsop 2015 then not again until a few months ago.during that time 5/10 nl went from 6 to 7 as did Aria's 2/5 plo.

However time isn't the problem

3-5 years ago for example Bellagio 5/10 nl was a really good game often.now it's a worthless bag of **** most of the time.

Youre going to have a hard time finding a 5-10 NL Holdem anywhere that stays good for more than a few years..Even the vast majority of 2-5 level games around the country are now a bag of **** 80 to 90% of the time

Sure but as winrates go down due to better competition at these stakes then time becomes more of a factor. How many BB are you making per hour in that "worthless bag of ****" game? What we know for sure is that you're paying 1.4BB per hour in time.

I dunno there are people that beat 5-10 NL in LA and the rakes there a very high.

that's my point. in live 5/10 games rake shouldn't really be a factor in where you play unless the rake is just absurd.i dont care about the rake being a dollar higher. i care about going to the bellagio and the only person not wearing headphones is the dealer.

Someone ought to open up a website and you could call it something like, I don't know, say, Two Plus Two, where every Tom, Dick and Mary is teaching everyone else on the planet all of the finer point nuances of the game.

It'll be great for the action.

Come to L.A. Seriously. Just when you think you'd get tired of great action, you just don't!

I'm sorry. Most easy money in poker is gone and it will only get "worse". Even live poker's no longer a good avenue for those in pursuit of "the easy buck". It's not 2003. And I personally I like that. Weeds out opportunists and wannabes and only those who truly have passion for the game or a non-poker source of income/assets stick around. In the end it will be a chess-like community of nerds who love the game at everything above $1/$2 live and micros online. And that's really how it should be. And there will be plenty of headphones And this whole ****ing pop culture obsession with poker will dissipate. Is there a lot of wannabe chess players? Nope. Not very sexy. And believe it or not poker will go the same way eventually. And you won't have all these frustrated talentless wannabes because poker won't even be considered that cool anymore.

There's no doubt education is the #1 culprit in games getting "worse". It's ridiculous how education vendors can even try to deny this. Yet.. they do

Ya I would have no prob going back to the 1980's or 1990's type environments (minus the smoke)..A few years ago I gave up NL Holdem and switched back to PLO live (and other forms of poker)..Best big move I've made since the early 2,000's when I switched back to NL Hold em and went online

(Hope I'm not getting trolled here.)

I don't think that's correct at all. The vast majority of people in card rooms don't read poker books or take advantage of other resources to try to improve their game.

Games getting worse is more a reflection of the poker "fad" fading, and (in the US) the majority of the population not having as much disposable income.

I would even argue that for the people who do attempt to improve their game, that it's not easy. A lot of people will read poker books, attempt to make changes, but fall back into old habits. Most people can't fathom what the "long run" really is. The correct decisions are deceptively hard to identify, which makes it harder for people to improve.

It's hard for most people to be good.it is not hard for most people to learn to tighten up a lot and lose way less money.

Zackly. People are getting better over time because they have more experience, even if they don't "try" to get better.

This is true of 'the majority of people in card rooms". But I don't think it is true among the majority of the regular players at 5/10 and 10/20 in Vegas.

Sorry, I wasn't paying enough attention to the specific thread I'm in. Yes, you're right. What I said applies more in general, and not to those limits. (Actually, I have no experience at those limits, so I'm going to take your word for it.). My bad.

Nah, everyone is solid now in LA. I had a player in LA check behind on the river with aces full! He was scared because there were 4 diamonds on the board!!!

7 bucks a down for 5/10 at Bellagio is a reasonable price. Considering they've only raised rake once over the last decade in the game. Commerce doesn't do time rake at 5/10 and they'll drop 7 bucks if there's a flop.

So for years and years the public is literally bombarded with info on how to play better and you're telling us it's had no impact. Patently ridiculous. And if your theory were true there would simply be fewer games - they would not be tougher than in the past - and we all know they are much tougher than 2003. Recreational players would not routinely be throwing around strategy lingo that was virtually unheard in the past.

This line of thinking really shows some kind of lack of appreciation for human IQ. Like "I can learn to play good cards like QQ and TT" but Joe Blow.... well.. that's just too complicated for him and he hates money. So there is NO way he can learn that by doing a simple Google search. Well guess... what now when 80% of Joe Blows are all tight preflop - what did just happen to your winrate? Cut by 2/3 or so.

This may be true, but there are advantages to the new fish being tight players. This leads to a sustainable, lower variance win rate for the advanced players. The tight fish will be able to fill up seats, keep the games running, and are more than exploitable enough to steal pots from. There will be less nights where you walk out the casino up 400BB's, stacking people left and right, but you can slowly and predictably grind your stack up.

Also, there's no shame in beating up the 2/5 and 1/3 games, especially if your objective is to make money. It won't be enough to make you rich, but it's easily enough to make a living.

No. making a lot less money is not an advantage.