I don't know what the OP is talking about as far as Burger King at the Rio costing $20 for a burger. I think the Burger King there (or "Whopper Bar") is a little more expensive than a typical Burger King, but it isn't more that $8-9 for a value meal, and I think cheese is like 50c extra.

Also, the OP is complaining about limited game selection at 75 o8 and 50 stud8. Where else do you ever find these games? I think the Rio has the best game selection for the games if only because it is the only place in the country where they are being spread. Did you try playing something like 20-40 o8? For the week I was there, this was being spread at 3 or 4 tables every night.

The time charge isn't going to make much of a difference in this case. A 75/150 player who gets up and walks over a few bucks an hour is someone who's going to find another reason to walk, anyway.

Technically correct is the best kind of correct.

But he's winning more pots, so paying less per pot.

If one player at the table is a mark, it makes sense that the winning player doesn't make it an issue. It makes no sense for the winning player to draw attention to it and give the losing player another reason to feel uncomfortable. The winning player does whatever he can to ensure that the losing player feels like he's getting a fair deal.

Yes, I agree with you. I also see the short must-move tables get breaks on time. It's just when there's a sense of entitlement attached to it where the floor can bristle a bit.

I don't disagree that there are problems here. But taking this few buck an hour issue and turning it into the cause on which you fall on your sword doesn't really come off very well. It looks like a sense of entitlement, and it gives the impression that if it wasn't this, it'd be something else. Which it very well may be, again I don't really disagree with the overall points. I just think this isn't the best issue to use since they do give breaks on time all the time, and short-handed time IS a break on time already. Per pot, per half hour, per everything, the table is paying far less. It's technically correct because it IS correct.

so you had a bad experience at one hotel/casino. Walk out the front door and go next door. LOL I dont understand, why suffer at the same place?

Ill be damned if I went to Vegas and only went into one casino. $50 for a burger thats insane, Ill take my chances at a supermarket and knocking on a random door. or going to Panda Express

personally, I wouldnt eat a greasy dripping burger at a poker table, or anything else. I just think its kinda rude and gross.

I know the reason OP continued to play at the RIO. Its because that's where the games he wanted to play were.

If you want to $1-$2 NL then you can go to any other casino. If you want to play $75-$150 O8 its going to be the RIO or the Bellagio (and I have no idea what they are spreading commonly at the B).

The table pays a rate for the half hour. This is the agreement between the players and the casino. Sometimes everybody pays, sometimes it's a time pot, sometimes someone volunteers. When the game is short, the remaining players get a break on this agreement. And sometimes they get even more of a break. I don't really see why that's ridiculous, sorry.

LOL I went out for the WSOP and played only 1 sesh at the RIO, ITS GARBAGE! Next time play cash elsewhere, The Venetian is great!

So you're saying that as players leave, everyone's time goes up to cover the missing players, so OP's normal rate should have been $36 per down headsup? Name casinos where this is the standard.

No, I'm saying that reduced rake is built into the time structure.

It's a minor issue. We agree on most points ITT.

It's not a minor issue. Time is $8 per down, per player. You are trying to make it something it isn't by asserting that since the casino makes less per down when the game is short, that somehow the players, who are paying the same $8 per down, are paying less.

I suppose you think a hotel charging $200 a night during a busy weekend is cutting a break to its patrons if they charge $200 when they have 500 vacancies because they are making $100,000 less for the night?

They are probably paying less per hand.

Paying .1 big bets / hour in rake heads-up just doesnt seem that unreasonable to me. How much would you pay for the equivalent number of heads-up hands playing 75/150 o8 at an online site, where people always say the rake is much lower than playing live?

That has nothing to do with anything. If it did, at least one floor guy would have made a mention of this at some point in my life. They don't, because it's a half-hour charge and has nothing to do with hands. The times the police are called in (or whatever situation arises that allows for few hands to be played) no one gets a rebate.

****, I once paid full time charge and 4 guys got moved to the main game, breaking the must move after one hand. The rake wasn't even dropped yet, and the floor refused to give any of the time back.

Do you guys even play time games? I mean, I've never heard such statements from mid-high stakes players before.

I am having a hard time following this argument, but it's not clear to me whether either of you have said, or are claiming, that rooms often offer a reduced time rate when the game is short.

As an example, in my casino, the 15-30 LHE game is $6/hh time. But if it's 6 players or less, we only get charged $3/hh.

Apologies if this isn't what you guys were arguing about, but as I said, I had a hard time following.

Yeah, breaks are often given in time-rake games. I don't think we disagree as much as it seems we disagree.

To be clear, I agree there are problems, and I agree that more breaks should be given. I disagree that no breaks are ever given, because I see it all the time. Were I in charge of a mid-high stakes room, the players would be treated like kings, because I do sympathize with most of the gripes. But I'm not in charge.