If their winrate is under $10/hr, then they should definitely complain about a reduction in comps because that pretty much cuts their food budget in half!

If the fast food min wage rises to $15, would these $10 hourly players jump ship to the nearest McDonalds/Wendys?

No, because they hate the daily minimum wage grind of having to show up at a set time and leave at a set time every day and have to deal with idiot coworkers tell the same boring stories over and over.

So instead, they play poker for sub-minimum wage winnings, chasing promos with set start times and end times, stuck at the tables with idiots telling the same stories over and over.

They can take away our comps but they can't take away our freeeedooooommmmm

I think you're giving the nits way too much credit. I don't think many of them are winning even $5 an hour and I wouldn't be surprised if the overwhelming majority are losers. A lot of them flat out suck.

But I'll admit I don't play around 6am to 1pm so perhaps I'm underestimating the nits that play at those times but I doubt it.


Why is it good news? Because the nits who win will hate it? But won't they keep playing anyway? I don't think these nits are much different than the nits who play 2/4, 3/6 or 4/8 limit.

I remember someone once joking that there were about 7-8 full time grinders in his casino playing 4/8 omaha 8 or better, that the average age was 70 and the average winrate was -200 a day. I laughed because that didn't sound too far from the truth.

How many of these winning nits really exist? They're not out in force when I play. I don't chase promotions and don't play in the morning though but even at those times it's not like there are a huge number of games.

Depends on your definition of winning.

Venetian had the best comps at $2 and being able to use them for tournaments.

Isn't the rake at PH $5?

I think it is time that rooms do away with the 1/2 and 1/3 games and switch them all to 2/5. In todays world 2/5 should be the lowest level nl game offered.

Just like when casinos would spread 1/2 limit hold em, all those games are gone and 4/8 as god awful as it is is the lowest limit game USUALLY you will find around.

So do away with 1/2 1/3 nl games and make the lowest game 2/5. Good times.

I actually heard word that wynn is thinking of bumping rake to 5 bux

Yeah and there is an additional $1 drop for their jackpots so I'll take $4 rake and NO food comps over the $5+$1 rake unless the games are extremely different in quality.

MERDE!

Price of Poker is going up...

I mentioned this in another thread. Last night I heard 2 floors discussing how much the poker room has changed at the v (and not in a good way). This has been since Kathy is no longer room mgr and pit is "taking care" of running it. I have been gone for over a week and have only been back in action for the past 2 days. In that time I have also had multiple dealers expressing their concern for the new policies and the direction that the room is heading

quick edit

elimination of player boxes (no reason)
elimination of coffee bar (bull shyt "reason")
lowering of comps
comps actually expiring
no fiji water (no biggy but the casino still has it)

In Vegas you will see more 2/4 and 3/6 limit than 4/8 limit.

I think the nits would be more upset with being forced to play 2/5 than they would be if the rake at 1-2 was increased to $7. It reminds me of an explanation I heard from someone who plays 2/4 limit. He said he prefers 2/4 because he loses less money in that game.

i played w/a guy yesterday who said he got a letter from the V telling him that boxes will now only be available for hotel guests, and that he needs to clean his out.

Sad but true.

About the comp reduction: costs go up, prices must. I personally would prefer to see comps eliminated rather than see $5 per hand, but, meh.

Probably the Vegas low-stakes market is fairly efficient, so that it might actually not matter much where you play. If casinos take more per hand and give less, they'll drive the nits away, and the softness of the remaining player pool will make up for the increased cost.

Local grinders are very attuned to such things. I've been one for years and have spoken to many and we talk about what's going on where, with comps and rake and jackpots and freerolls, and what action the places are getting, and so on.

I think Troop once said in a video that he plays at PH rather than elsewhere because, to paraphrase, what the local nits don't realize is that the higher rake makes the games better. He's very wrong because actually the local nits are thinking of exactly things like that. They're nits. They're thinking of all the little things. I shouldn't say "they," I also think of all the little things. You shouldn't say "they" either; if you're reading this thread it's because you are thinking of the little things.

I think rake/comps/jackpot are a push after adjusting for nittery, and what really counts isn't casino selection, it's table selection within the casinos.

Don't forget the limited space for tournaments.
I wouldn't put much stock in what the nits think is profitable.

i see venetian TD tweeting that overlays nearly every daily tournament lately isn't going to help any if the room loses money through guarantees...they will end up reducing hourly like they have and probably up rake too to make up shortfalls

B

I don't get this attitude.
If you are on holiday and want to risk losing (say) 5 buy-ins, that's $2500 at 2/5. How much do you have to earn to think that's a comfortable amount of money to blow off?
Either that or you see yourself as a winning player - but you still need 5-6 losers at the table to fund that!


Maybe they could move to a time charge instead of rake?
Then stakes wouldn't matter.

You can buy in for $200 at 2/5. You don't have to buy in for $500 or more.

And the tourist will lose that $200 far faster than he would at 1/2.

The point that was sort of made earlier is a very good one- gamblers/tourists/rec players don't look at poker as how much they can win the way a pro or a winning reg would look at it. They look at it the same way they do blackjack, with the expectation of losing. This is why buy-in matters greatly to them (perhaps more than the blinds) but if they lose that money too quickly, they won't be back.

I'm curious as to what was their reason? That coffee bar barely took up any room.

Awesome, this just cracked me up

Yeah they will lose faster. I just don't think they would lose as fast as the other post was saying.

$200 is actually not much compared to what you can gamble in the pits though.

If you really want to weed out nits just make all the games shorthanded lol. It would be hilarious how upset they would get and I'm sure many would really stop playing.

Yeah this would never happen but it's still a funny idea.

IIRC, the Venetian is one of very few live poker rooms to have actually tried spreading shorthanded games. They didn't take off.