On my last weekend trip, I'd say I played over 1/2 the time (and made the vast majority of my money) in games 4 handed or less at 30/60 and 40/80 limit or 10/20/20 NL.

So there is action.

It will destroy many tourists and weaker regs though. And will make seemingly smaller games much more profitable for good players.

There was no spike whatsoever here when the stay at home order was lifted and personal interactions went up by a factor of 2 to 5. Why would Vegas be different?

lol the norm for a few months, maybe, if it gets any appeal, which it wont.

ill just wait until the fall and play full ring 9-10 handed again, maybe even late summer.

.... Wait for it.

Id say Jan at best

It's been 17 days since the policy change increased interactions, and hospitalizations and deaths have both fallen in a straight line since then.

What exactly are you waiting for, and when do you predict it will happen?

SplawnDarts, would you please tell me where you got your data?

The site I use (coronavirusapi.com) does not present the same data as yours for Colorado. Thanks

It's from the official Colorado Dept. of Public Health website.

https://covid19.colorado.gov/covid-19-data

Go to Data, and the "Case Data" for deaths and "Hospital data" for hospitalizations.

There's a lot of nonsense 3rd party data out there - confusing case reported vs. case onset vs. death vs. death reported dates for example.

The death data lags somewhat (there will deaths added as far as a week back) but the hospital data is essentially real time. There was ZERO spike due to lifting the stay at home order.

It's also important to note that over 1/2 of CO's deaths have been in nursing homes/skilled care facilities.

I would estimate the mortality rate (as measured by deaths who test positive by PCR divided by the number of people who would test positive if given an antibody test) for those healthy enough to walk out their front door who then contract the disease at between 0.03% and 0.1%.

Same here, 4 handed poker isn't a permanent solution. Full ring will be back hopefully by the Fall. I can wait.

Hey, I would be delighted if what you report holds up over time .... actually absolutely elated.

https://covid19.colorado.gov/data/case-data

To what would you attribute the drop off, do you think the restrictions had an effect (positive or negative) of the rates of illness ?

Hope that Nevada shows similar trends as it loosens restrictions.

I've been watching Costa Rica as well, as of the other day they had 21 straight days of declines, with pretty strict controls. They have started to ease a bit. (I am interested in their experience because they also banned inbound US travel by non-residents as part of their prevention. I have an upcoming trip this summer.)

I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about it and talking to other people who've looked at it, and our conclusion is that if if you filter the data for things you can be reasonably sure are not garbage (death data and hospital bed data are good because it's easy to count corpses and butts in beds, well sampled studies etc.) then you still need two things that are not being widely discussed to make the data make sense:

1) A non-symptomatic case rate of between 97% and 98% (consistent with the NY, Chelsea and CA antibody studies)
2) A disease that has become less deadly and less likely to hospitalize you over time due to selection between strains (or perhaps some other mechanism or combination of mechanisms?).

Without either of those aspects, it's very hard to explain anything. With them, it's easy to see why things are tailing off, and it has little to do with public policy although it likely changed the time constants. But if we really have say 30% of the population already exposed including almost everyone that interacts with a lot of people (it was 30% in some urban areas a month ago) then there has to be uneven but substantial herd immunity at this point.

We were right to close down - the original CDC parameters of "spreads like the flu, 3% mortality" were terrifying. But it's not that bad and the most obvious reason is the number of asymptomatic cases. We're wrong not to change our policy more drastically in favor of the economy and having fun now that we know the mortality is almost two orders of magnitude lower than originally estimated.

Right now I'm thinking of the risk in the same terms as say participating in general aviation (100 hours of general aviation is a 0.1% death risk). It's concerning, it makes sense to pay attention to safety, but it's not such a huge risk that I'm going to worsen my life much to make it go away.

I guess none of you who are saying most are asymptomatic have families or loved ones you have regular contact with. I think it’s shortsighted to think of numero uno only.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion, but you're wrong. The reason the extremely high asymptomatic case rate is important is that it reduces by almost two orders of magnitude the risk mortality or serious illness of the disease.

And that reassessment of the risk in turn changes both the risks I'm willing to take, and the risks I'm willing to subject others (including my family members) to. And it should.

Ok, one last clarification .... are you saying in No. 1, that the general incidence of asymptomatic cases is 97% of overall known cases ? (Meaning that 97% of people known to have been infected are non-symptomatic ? )

[Of course your #2 could be a reason that your #1 is so high. God, I wish that correlation DID equate to causation, but I think so long as something walks like a duck I don't care why 97% of cases are also quacking like a duck, unless that is influenced by some action one could take ...... which circles back to social distancing and the degree of intense or repeated exposure, perhaps.)]

Your #1 broken down by age groups would be interesting, do vulnerable age groups show a similar incidence of being non-symptomatic...(fwiw, the Colorado data looks pretty complete for age group purposes.)

(By the way, now I'll never fly general aviation again, but have to ask .... since attempted takeoffs and landings are probably most problematic, how does a meaningful per flight hour rate get calculated? Also, I expect there are "single engine v. multi-engine differences. ?)

Not exactly. What I'm saying is that if you take a population of people P and count the number of known cases by means of PCR test - call that K. And then you sample P the way that was done in NY, Chelsea etc. and give the sample an antibody test and estimate the total number of cases T present in P. Depending on where you sample, it appears that T was in the range of 0.1 to 0.3 of P in urban areas, lower with lower density. That was a month ago - it's certainly higher now.

I'm calling (T-K) "asymptomatic" in the sense that they never had symptoms severe enough to convince anyone to give them a PCR test.

What I am saying is that (T-K)/T (aka the "asymptomatic rate") appears to be fairly constant and appears to be about 0.97 give or take.

Thanks. Shows why antibody testing of a general populationi"P" s a required basis for a sound public policy .....

Also, for a sample of 1, LabCorp is offering antibody tests, for anyone including asymptomatic people. .

Why would someone take such a test ? If you get tested and show antibodies it would be nice to donate plasma.

You guys are a bunch of dramatic doomsayers. Poker is not dead and the 4-handed mandate is only temporary for the first 2 months or so after re-opening. They will be back to 6 handed - 10 handed by August.

Minimum 100x buyin? The usual recommended number of buyins at no limit cash games is 25 - 40x and for limit its 1,000 big bets.

Where did you come up with the arbitrary 100 buyins?

Anyone risk averse enough to keep 100 buyins plus 6 months living expenses will end up being scared into just getting a job if they lose even 20 buyins.

Good questions. I think the FAA just counts engine hours. I don't know if they even have a way to count takeoffs and landings. I don't know any splits - I'd like to see drunk vs. sober for example.

It's interesting what is and isn't "that" dangerous - for example, it's only about 100,000 hours between fatal general aviation accidents, but about 1.5 million hours between hunting negligent shootings (I don't know what percent are fatal - presumably being shot at all sucks). But point being Bubba and his Bud Light and .30-06 have nothing on the goat rodeo going on down at the municipal airport.

lol no
I have well over 100 buy ins for my regular games
And i've lost 20 buys ins on multiple occasions

Not to say I won't play higher but outside of big tournament series the bigger games don't really run and when they do they're ego pissing contests 90 percent of the time

To be fair If i had less than 100 buy ins (but a lot more than 20) i'd still play these games

Don't you have a job though borg? I was speaking about someone that only has poker for income. Even if that is the case you would still be a huge outlier in terms of conservatism for most pure pros. And 20 PLO buyins don't count, would have to make it 40 if that's all the risk averse nit is playing, as he would understand it's about double the variance of NLHE.

Found this image online: