Games are pretty much uniformly horrible and nit filled. Can't speak for California. But there is much better action in the south than there is in Vegas--Florida, Mississippi Gulf Coast, Lake Charles, LA.

The last couple of times I played in Lake Charles, there wasn't a single 2/5 game in town. Maybe Lauberge gets some on the weekends or on a couple evenings during the week and I had bad timing, but there's no way to compare that to Vegas where you find 2/5 games 24/7.

The games in Vegas are probably the worst you'll find anywhere. Nits chasing comps fill the games moreso than anywhere else you'll ever play.

Games are great in Maryland and I've heard great things about Florida

NL Hold em = everything poker on 2+2.

.the PLO games in Vegas are decent to great at times..Especially the bigger PLO action..Ive found the NL games to be ok ..Defintiely the small games are beatable.Look at the drop in California..Nobody has a chance there.

.NL hold em in general is pretty much stale everywhere out West..A year and a half a go I switched back to the other forms of poker and found the games as good as ever

2-5 is almost constant at L'Auberge. Last time I played there I caught a 2-5 game at 9 am on a Friday morning. Besides, the 1-3 uncapped games in Lake Charles at Nugget, L'Auberge and Coushatta are better and deeper games than Vegas 2-5s.

I wouldn't argue that, players are horrible there and not nearly as nitty as most people in Vegas. That said, the worst players are usually not that deep. I can't (or don't want to) really understand most players, but that's not a problem since I can listen to music or read.
We are talking about Louisiana and Mississippi here, two of the poorest states in the US. You might be able to buy a mobile home in the Lake Charles area for not much more than a month on the Strip costs you. Florida is obv. different.

If sin in your thing, New Orleans is right up there.

For 1-2 and 1-3 I think it is close, especially if you take advantage of promos, for 2-5 almost anywhere else is better except New Jersey.

This is just incorrect.

Vegas is set up that way on purpose. They make tons of money by being able to support games 24/7 -- the house does not care who's in the game. And games always run, because there's always tourists. In order for those games to run, they need to create an incentive -- low rake and good comps. Are they "good games"? No, not at all. But they run, and they run all the time. If they increased the rake then they'd lose their most loyal customers (the nit grinders) who likely make up a good chunk of the low stakes population.

^Actually Venetian just did a promo that is attractive to local nits and will be doing it again in April.

Nit pick: $8.25 an hour -- plus you are paying George who is sitting on break and Mabel who is sitting at a dead spread. Plus the employer's share of various taxes.

Again, incorrect information. If you have proof that any LV casino is paying any employee less than the state minimum ($8.25 an hour, $7.25 in the rare case where there are benefits) ... please state which casino.

And you forgot to subtract any comps and 'free drinks'.

I was using examples from casinos in other states. My assumption was wrong then, I didn't know they actually paid minimum wage.

It is indeed a nitpick though, the numbers for how many tables/hours were extremely rough, so even at $110/hour per table and then a net extra... $30-50/hour for the floor and those on break, you're still looking at a similar figure.

The point was its extremely silly to suggest poker rooms are expensive to run and that they make very little money. They might make very little comparatively, but they are absolutely cost effective.

Most poker tables in Vegas only have 1 or 2 tourists on them. Many have none.

That's the myth of Vegas poker, that you're playing with tourists. You hardly ever are anymore. Even at 1/2.

you also assumed max rake every hand that is not correct. maybe in a limit game u often achieve max rake. but big bet games often do not achieve max rake. also shorthanded games, reduced rake. And for las vegas i think 30 hands an hour might be a tad on the high side. Las Vegas dealers are some of the worst I have seen.

And many daytime games average about 1 flop for ever 5 or 6 hands because its nit city. And many evening games aren't much better.

@TS2 and Carnivore

Thats a fair point, though I imagine there's max rake more often than not. wrt flop per hands -- if thats actually the case that the hands arent getting to the flop then theres def going to be more than 30/hr so its more about the ratio of flops seen/hour

These points are not moot by any means, but like I said the figures I was giving for the amount of tables and how many hours were likely very conservative and obv they were super rough estimates.

My point about the rooms profitably remains the same.

edit: @Kingspew

I already admitted I was wrong on multiple assumptions (I never claimed they were facts fwiw). Though it doesn't affect my overall point.

Not to mention how I approach arguments is dramatically different, I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong and I embrace new perspectives that seem correct/logical. Not that you care since your comment was an attempt to troll me but ill reply anyway

Your point may apply to some very large rooms in the USA. The room I play in loses money every month. EVERY. (I am privy to this information).

And I indeed attempted to troll someone that blocks someone for posting factless...when indeed your 'facts' are from thin air as well.

Do you mean they lose money after fancy accounting tricks like "paying" the F&B department like 8 bucks for every comped drink?

The casinos I go to, Mohegan primarily and Foxwoods. The poker rooms are maybe <2% of the total gaming floor. I find it hard to believe they are losing in anyway..

They got a conversion out of me for a couple years. I also have never met a person at the poker table who only plays poker.

This (+ low cost of living in Vegas being another reason) is Vegas poker summed up perfectly.

No casino in Vegas makes "tons of money" from their poker rooms. The best poker rooms might breakeven. Most rooms are just amenities that costs money, not make money.

It's horribly naive to think that casinos are raking in the money from $4 max rake while paying for the floors, dealers, free drinks, food comps, rent, and the lights. Like I said, the best rooms are breakeven, most rooms can barely get a table running while they have dealers and floors waiting for hours on end and costing the casino salary money.

I am not going to say I never play anything else but it is close. I used to play BJ but I have played that twice in8+ years. I never played any of the carnival table games; not even once. It has been 15+ years since I played craps. As to slots I will play the occasional FREE or compd tournament. And rarely my wife will tell me to hit the button to change to machines luck.

So in 8+ years I have spent probably less than $250 on everything other than poker combined. And I am in casinos 3+ times per week on average. I can and have literally spent hours in casinos that don't even have poker not spending a dime.

YGO there are numerous costs you missed. Try taxes, mgmt, insurance, marketing, etc. But even more important is opportunity cost. Even if a room is profitable, but converting that space and other resources to some other use improves to overall casino bottom line, that room will be closed in a heartbeat or at least as soon as that is realized. Poker rooms are generally a drain on the casino but they serve a purpose...think about me and my wife.

Internal cost allocation is GAAP, not fancy.

If a casino outsourced F&B, the poker room had to pay them for drinks. So charging them internally is the right thing to do. The only question is if they charge the same amount a customer at the bar would have to pay or accruing cost or anything in between.