Quote:
Originally Posted by Dealer-Guy
So I guess all the rooms in Las Vegas, AC and Tunica who do not cap their buy in are dealing way fewer hands per hour, is that right?
You'd think they would realize that they are screwing themselves with this no cap stuff then and put caps on all their games. More hands dealt is what every room manager wants to have happen.
I didn't mean to imply the games go slower (if that was what you are saying).
What I was trying to get at is that it takes longer for someone to lose their share if they can't lose it all in one hand, so they stick around and play more hands over a longer period of time. Likewise some players are gonna quit if they win enough for the day, and they also will have to stick around longer to win that amount because the other players can't lose as quickly.
I think we have poasters here that work in the L.A. market with the extremely short stack fixed-buy games. Like 1/2 40 max, 2/3 100 max, and 5/10 400 max at Commerce. I believe that it is common knowledge that these games are structured this way specifically to grind out drop. But I am not in the industry and I can't cite any sources.
That being said, I regularly play in a 2/3 300 max ($5 drop on flop game) game. The Lake Elsinore Hotel always has the same exact game going except without any capped buy-in. In my statistically insignificant experience at LE, people buy in just about the same, usually 200-300, and the game has the same exact feel, stack wise. I think, and this is just my uninformed guess, that unless a room sets the cap very short (like LA), the difference is somewhat negligible to the players. The house bean-counters might still find that enough players stay a significant time longer in aggregate, AFAIK.
Granted, the idea of everyone sitting with about the same stack is good for the game. It is especially good for the image of the game in noobs imagination (LOL about bullying a table with a big stack in a cash game). Personally I prefer uncapped games.