One of the events at the Borgata Spring Poker Open is a "Seniors" Event for players who are 50+. I'd be interested in any observations about this kind of event from those who have played in one. Is there any material difference in the general skill level or playing style of the field as compared to other low-stakes MTTs with buy-ins in the $200-$500 range?

I’m going generalize here, but from my experience in Senior events …
• There is less raising pre-flop – more limping – so, you see more flops
• There’s more “nitnesses”, less 4-bets for example, and for those who try 4-bet, they’ll find little to no action
• Slightly slower games … but much, much less “Hollywooding” for the non-existing cameras
• Seniors like to have a good time, not there to just win money, and they have better stories, know better jokes and thus are more enjoyable to be around
• And finally, Seniors take showers, shave, put on deodorant, brush their teeth and actually wear clothes that are appropriate for being in public

I also believe that there are very few 50+ players trying to make a living at poker, so they are there to play poker, have a good time and just maybe win a few bucks. Also, due to their more stable financial situation they are not as upset over losing the few hundred bucks buy-in as some of the younger players, so no rants when they get “rivered”, just a couple of handshakes around and “that’s poker.”

BTW you will occasionally run into some grumpy old men (and women) who are just as annoying as the youngsters, but I have found that generally the senior set is better behaved than the younger group which is why I love Senior events (plus it’s nice to talk to someone who actually remembers the 70's and didn’t read about it in a history book! )

I played the seniors event in the fall at Borgata . Before that time i never played a tournament with a buy in more than $200. This one was $340 . Price is kinda steep I got lucky and hit a few big pots early on and preserved it by picking spots and playing nit. as tournaments progressed i realized i had to make some moves or blinds and ante would eat me up and chances of cashing would be slim . I think it was around dinner time or shortly after that i doubled up and managed to slip into the money during the latter stages of the event. Still short stacked i managed a min cash but if i waited maybe one or two more hands i might have moved up a spot in prize money . I ran into a few grumpy ones but everyone else seemed ok . Not as soft as it may seem Some of those old dudes 65 and up know how to mix it up but as night wears down they get tired and want to go home. As far as overall endurance if favors the newly turned 50 yr olds because they are still considered spring chickens over the super seniors Overall it was ok but $340 is $100 more than your average senior event buy in

This is very insightful, thank you. Looking forward to turning 50... 19 more years baby...

FYP

I have played a few seniors events at the Borgota. My observations:
- Players are somewhat older than normal tournaments.

OK. just kidding. The game is much more passive, especially early on. If you play a LAG game you will get some dirty looks. But you will be very successful.

Lots of trapping. Limp re-raise all-in pre-flop with AA. etc.

The Borgota doesn't restrict entries to seniors. So sometimes you get a few internet wizards who are young and they destroy the field. I prefer the Senior tourneys at Foxwoods (which also doesn't restrict but times their other events better).

I find senior events to be gold mines and have started going to Las Vegas for the $1,000 senior event. Turns out there are senior events at most major card rooms in Vegas in the week before and after... The events are stellar.

Just like the Senior Golf Tour (whatever it's called now) the opportunities are 'better' in these events .. for now. Even players who were 35 in 2003 for Moneymaker aren't playing in these events as of yet.

I agree with the rest of the folks here that you can really run into some strong competition, but for the most part it will be limp/trapping and lots of over-valuing hands on the Flop. "Go-away" bets will abound and full doses of head shaking when someone actually played 2 cards below 7 at the same time!! GL

I might take the other side of this argument that Senior Tourneys are "easier".

They certainly can be, but I have found them to be very different from typical $500-level tournies (most of the regional series based events seem to put the seniors tournies in the 350-500 range, right? I know WSOP is different...

I've played in a few (yea, I qualify), but I certainly don't focus on them.

What I've found is that (again, compared to similar sized tournies)

there is more nittiness for sure
more calling/limping for sure
far less 3/4 betting for sure
far more check raising with an I have it hand.
a higher percentage overall that "they have it" in these fields. less bluffing after a c-bet (which seems to play standard in these fields). I've adjusted for expected higher showdown value hands in this field.

Further, I bet all my draws in these tournies, given the higher propensity to fold. Seniors hate being check-raised, as previously pointed out, that's a very familiar trapping play in these events. I think check-raising is considered high art in these events.

Lastly, seniors will hang around and fold at the end, they don't fire multi bullets on avg and therefore are less comfortable making all-in call decisions w/o big hands.

I had a totally different take on the title "Senior Events". I have them often. Certainly not limited to a poker game either.

So I finally took the plunge and played in Sunday's Senior Event at the Borgata Spring Open. I have to say that the descriptions in the posts made in reply to my OP were spot on. This was, by far, one of the softest tournaments in which I have ever played. It did not end well for me, but I would absolutely play in one again and hope for just a little more cooperation from the cards.

Despite the descriptions posted above, I was still a little surprised to see how passively most players at the table played. Even as the blinds progressed, limping in was still the preferred method to open the pot. Limp-calling was almost as prevalent, and there were some players who were simply unable to fold pre-flop once they had limped regardless of factors like their position, the amount of the raise, their cards, or the identity of the raiser.

The passivity continued with their post-flop play. There were several players who would stubbornly hang in whenever connecting with the board.

One guy would have rather have had his AARP privileges revoked for life than fold a pair. On one hand, he called down a significant river bet with a middle pair on a board that had four-to-a-straight and three-to-flush. It was not a soul read, although he correctly picked off a bluff. His reasoning, though, was that the bettor had to be taught a lesson because the bettor opened too many pots for a raise. The bettor was far from a LAG -- like pretty much everyone else at the table, he was pretty tight -- but if he decided to open or enter a limped pot in position, the bettor would open for a raise. Since one of those open raises had turned out to be KQs, the calling station concluded that the bettor was a maniac who could not possibly have any one of the 60 or so hand combinations that would beat middle pair. Surprisingly, he was right.

Generally, players were friendlier and more good natured than many tournaments in which I played. Also, generally, there were few hard decisions post-flops. These players would neither play their draws fast, nor slow-play their made hands. They were relatively easy to read and to make good decisions against, but there was always less fold equity than you might otherwise figure regardless of board texture. These players did not like to fold, and so lots of hands went to show down. For the most part, you needed to make some hands to maintain your stack and stay ahead of the blinds because you could not count on getting folds by applying pressure.

I'll definitely give this tournament another shot when the Summer Open rolls through Atlantic City. It was a fun day, even if it turned out to be a disappointing one for me.

Here's a photo from early in the day. I wasn't involved in the hand. I'm the guy on the far right with the gray/red shirt.

Player 1 on the left opened for like a 10bb raise. Player 2 on his immediate left 3-bet, and a third player flatted the 3-bet. Player 1 then jammed, Player 2 called, and the third-player folded QQ face up.

Player 1 had AA, and Player 2 had KK. Player 2 spiked a set of Kings on the turn, but Player 1 survived when he spiked an Ace on the river for a better set.

Played my first Seniors event at MD. Live WPT Deepstack last week ($240). Previous posters give a good picture. Had one obnoxious geezer who was pretending like he didn't know how to play tournaments (it was obvious he actually did know). The absolute best thing IMHO about this event was not a hoodie or a pair of sunglasses in sight (although one guy did call me an idiot for shoving my pair/open end straight draw against his AA and hitting the straight on the river)! I went down to 3 tables but didn't make the $$.

AW

I deal a bunch of these and here is what I've noticed.

Players get there EARLY. It's not uncommon for me to go to the table 30 minutes before start to set up and have 3+ players already there.

There's not much 2.5x or 3x raising going on. Most hands are limped or if there is a raise it's 8x or more.

There will usually be one person at the table who only comes to the casino once a year for that one tournament and really does not know how the game works. Sometimes they're only there because their spouse or friend talked them into it. Last year I spent several minutes explaining how the button and blinds worked to a guy before the start of a $1k seniors event.

Mixed in with the nits will often be one guy who simply does not give a F about the money and is there to steal a bunch of pots and goof around. They don't seem to be motivated by winning, I think it's more about getting reactions out of people.

Then there are the regular players who know what they're doing but have to adapt to the odd play around them. If they can make it through the first 4 hours they're in great shape to run deep.

Most senior events are 50+

Super Seniors WSOP is 65+

That has to be the most ignorant reply ever. Life is going to come at you fast enough.

Thanks for clarifying that, Buzz Killington.

The Seniors Event returned to the Borgata yesterday as part of the Summer Open, and I took my second stab at it. Once again, I found the event to be much more enjoyable than a traditional tournament. The players were far more relaxed and friendly, and there was lots of good-natured bantering. As a bonus, I finished well, too, placing 13th out of 185 runners. I'm a little disappointed that I didn't make the final table, but all in all, it was a good day.

There was one very controversial situation and ruling at one of my tables that involved someone who went on to finish very high up in the final results. Three players were contesting a raised pot. After the flop, Seat 3 bet, and then Seat 5 pushed out a huge stack. I couldn't hear if he said anything while doing so. Seat 10 then shoved behind almost immediately.

Sometime during all of this, the dealer threw out the "All In" button in front of Seat 5. Seat 5 didn't say anything. He just let the button sit there in front of him.

Meanwhile, Seat 3 went into the tank for a few minutes. Seat 3 eventually folded, and then Seat 5 still remained silent.

With the action seemingly complete because of the two apparent all ins, the players were then supposed to turn up their cards because it was a tournament. Seat 10 immediately turned over a set. Seat 5 then claimed he never went all in, and he never called. He claimed the All In button in front of him was the dealer's fault, and he shouldn't have had to correct her because it would have supposedly revealed the strength of his hand. He claimed he now had the right to fold.

When the floor came over, the dealer admitted that she may have made a mistake, and the floor allowed Seat 5 to fold.

I thought it was a pretty crappy ruling, and I thought what Seat 5 did was pretty shady. The button was clearly in front of him, and the other two players in the hand clearly thought that there were two all ins (watching from Seat 9, so did I). Seat 10 showed his hand because he thought all the action was complete. I was actually surprised that Seat 5 was allowed to fold after all of that.

It was definitely a turning point because a call would have crippled Seat 5. Seat 5 not only avoided that fate, but as I mentioned, he went on to finish in the top 5.

I think there's a strong argument to rule player 5 all-in if he had reasonable time to stop the dealer when she asked players to turn over their cards. Other than that, it sounds like an angle, but apparently he didn't do anything to make the dealer or anyone else believe he went all-in and the dealer is at fault for putting out the all-in button. Of course he is supposed to correct her but I don't think that's a strong enough reason to rule him all-in.

I guess that's what the floor felt.

By the way, I'm not sure why my post showed up twice in this thread. Post #17 is a more accurate description of what happened. The post that immediately followed was my original post, which I tried to edit to state some of the details more clearly. I've asked the Mods to delete it. I apologize for any confusion.

I would rule him all in. "Having to correct the dealer would reveal the strength of my hand" is:

* Not true
* Not relevant in general
* Not relevant in this case even if true, since he was going to fold to S10's shove anyway. What difference does it make to his own equity to give that tell off earlier by revealing he was weak? Which, once again, it doesn't really do.

Once he sees it and doesn't stop the action, and lets other people act as if he were all-in, he is all-in. Once he lets the opponent show his hand after the dealer asks them to turn 'em over, he is extra all-in.

I am not a fan of holding people to actions that they didn't intend, but I am a fan of having players protect their actions. This player tried to freeroll, and the floor let him.

If these are available ...

1) So the large stack was supposed to be a call or raise?

2) If raise (or min-raise) was Seat 5 required to complete before getting his change?

3) If silent, then you may have a 50% rule situation, yes?

4) Once action was 'returned' to Seat 5 he should've corrected the All-In button immediately instead of 'tanking'/delaying which prompted Seat 10 to reveal his cards. With Seat 10 all-in there is no reason to 'protect' the strength/weakness of his hand anymore.

I guess Seat 10 learned to wait until the first all-in shows his cards, eh? GL

The button is the same as the dealer saying "Player's all in". Player has to correct the dealer ASAP. If a player makes a bet and dealer says "raise to one mirrion" and the player only bet a thousand, is it okay to let that go because player shouldn't have to fix the dealer's "mistake"?

With a raise and fold behind him, I would think that the Floor could've used 'Significant Action' against Seat 5 somehow. I guess it doesn't technically apply since action had passed Seat 5 and SA applies when a player must stop action in order to act, which Seat 5 had already done by pushing out the large stack.

Basically if Seat 5 still had chips behind, then the 'big' stack is probably considered a raise (50% rule) and if he was silent (What did the dealer say about that?) then there really was no basis for the AI button.

As stated above, I think it's a pretty crappy 'delay' once action returned to Seat 5 but there may be nothing to do about it. GL

TDA 'General Concepts' Item 2 .. Players are responsible to speak up if they see a mistake. Seat 5 knew of the mistake and stayed silent by admission. Gotta be something here ... GL

This is also another reason why you should never be able to put out a different amount of chips than your actual bet (i.e. "for the cameras" type stuff). It causes expectations for the bet amount to be ambiguous.

In this case, player 5 put out a "large stack" of chips, but clearly not all his chips. The dealer seems to believe he said all-in, and gave him the all-in plaque. If the dealer had also insisted that he put all his chips in at that time, the issue would have been resolved instantly, one way or another.

Instead, play is allowed to proceed with some (but not all) chips bet, but ambiguously an all-in marker in front of him. All later actors now have to try to divine what the bet amount was between those two options. When action gets back to the player he now has to argue about whether or not he has to commit chips to the pot that he didn't himself commit.

All caused by this dumb idea that you can make one bet verbally while putting in a different amount of chips. Stop allowing this idiocy.*

* A one-chip call of someone else's bet to close the action is about the only time that this behavior might be tolerated because it is usually, but not always, unambiguous, and can speed the game up if the caller is the winner of the hand.