Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Live No-Limit Hold’em Cash Discussion of no-limit hold’em live cash games of all stakes.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-20-2016, 02:34 AM   #16901
bodybuilder32
old hand
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,423
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I agree with a lot of your points RP, but I don't 100% agree. If a fish gets stacked and loses $200-300 in one pot, then the rake taken from the casino will only be 7 dollars tops. But say the same fish loses 3 buy-ins of $100 each all spreading it among the 8 other abc players. Think of all the rake that was taken out by the casino before everyone was able to get the fishes money. No matter what way you slice it, the casino is getting a larger percentage of the player pool's money this way.

I am not blaming the casinos for doing this, but the customers are pretty dumb to not see that they are giving away their money to the rake. There are plenty of regs that could shot-take 2-5 but they are happy being small winners or break even at 1-2 rather than test to see if they could win more at 2-5. These are the players I'm talking about, not the welfare recipients. If they have side jobs, then they can replenish their losses and continue to sit in 2-5 the same way they sit in 1-2. If they are pros, then they are pretty sad to be grinding down the 1-2 player pool making a paltry living.

Last edited by bodybuilder32; 11-20-2016 at 02:43 AM.
bodybuilder32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2016, 10:25 AM   #16902
Garick
Oberbiergenießer
 
Garick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Do you even math, bruh?
Posts: 24,617
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
but the customers are pretty dumb to not see that they are giving away their money to the rake.
The customers being dumb is why we can still make money off the game. It's also why casinos make money.

And poker rooms have zero reason to be set up to cater to the small winning regs and try to make them bigger winning regs. They are (correctly) optimizing for their average customer, who is a long-term loser at low-stakes. Unlike Baccarat, the casino doesn't make any more money when the fish play bigger, as rake is largely the same and the casino doesn't get the money the fish loses, and as long as they lose slowly enough, the fish keep coming back.

Bottom line: It's nice to wish that the casinos would optimize the game for your/regs' personal winrate, but they never will.
Garick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2016, 12:30 PM   #16903
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,951
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
I agree with a lot of your points RP, but I don't 100% agree. If a fish gets stacked and loses $200-300 in one pot, then the rake taken from the casino will only be 7 dollars tops. But say the same fish loses 3 buy-ins of $100 each all spreading it among the 8 other abc players. Think of all the rake that was taken out by the casino before everyone was able to get the fishes money. No matter what way you slice it, the casino is getting a larger percentage of the player pool's money this way.
You completely missed my analogy that there are other sharks in the pool.

If the comparison is do I want $300 from said fish or $200 after rake? Of course the answer is $300.

But there are other winning players, and those guys by definition don't give back the money, just like house rake. So if that $300 money is lost to a winning player and there will be more of them (percentage wise) in a bigger game with smaller player pool, then that money is gone.

I rather that $300 gets spread out in a pool of losing players that will keep the game healthy and give me a chance to win it amongst everyone else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
I am not blaming the casinos for doing this, but the customers are pretty dumb to not see that they are giving away their money to the rake. There are plenty of regs that could shot-take 2-5 but they are happy being small winners or break even at 1-2 rather than test to see if they could win more at 2-5. These are the players I'm talking about, not the welfare recipients. If they have side jobs, then they can replenish their losses and continue to sit in 2-5 the same way they sit in 1-2. If they are pros, then they are pretty sad to be grinding down the 1-2 player pool making a paltry living.
You totally lost me here. Why would you want other winning players to win more?
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2016, 05:00 PM   #16904
volcano41
temp-banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 890
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Im moving up to 2/5 now, due to my paltry win rates.
volcano41 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2016, 05:27 PM   #16905
Dream Crusher
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Dream Crusher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Dallas
Posts: 15,670
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Just about anyone can win at poker over 140hrs. That's essentially 1 month of full time poker. That being said, most players are pretty clueless about which players are winners and which aren't.
Dream Crusher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2016, 05:27 PM   #16906
KatoKrazy
Pooh-Bah
 
KatoKrazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 4,226
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Good results, but just remember that almost anything can happen over 140 hours.
KatoKrazy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2016, 09:00 PM   #16907
bodybuilder32
old hand
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,423
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
You completely missed my analogy that there are other sharks in the pool.

If the comparison is do I want $300 from said fish or $200 after rake? Of course the answer is $300.

But there are other winning players, and those guys by definition don't give back the money, just like house rake. So if that $300 money is lost to a winning player and there will be more of them (percentage wise) in a bigger game with smaller player pool, then that money is gone.

I rather that $300 gets spread out in a pool of losing players that will keep the game healthy and give me a chance to win it amongst everyone else.



[B]You totally lost me here. Why would you want other winning players to win more?
RP, your argument that the casino makes no more in rake in a 10-25NL game compared to a 1-2 game is precisely why customers should want to play higher stakes. They are getting more value for their dollar. I understand that most of the recreational players don't know that.

As a customer, I want more players to play higher stakes so that game still remains an option. I know how to beat short-stacked 50BB 1-2 games and I can honestly tell you I would rather work at WalMart then play in that game.

You and other posters have made good points about keeping the games sustainable for the fish. I'm not sure anyone has addressed my question about why, people in general, are willing to gamble for less money today then they were 15, 20, 30 years ago. Adjusting for inflation, our dollar is worth less today then it was during that time, but it seems like people have not kept up with inflation. If you were a poker player in 2008 or 2009, then the 1-2 game was what the 2-5 game is today. All of us new players back in the day had to grab our balls and sit in wild, crazy loose games, but now people today are content with playing in smaller games. Why?

Your arguing that all of these break-even regs or slightly winning nits don't want to play 2-5 because of the "sharks", but I would argue that this is illogical. If they aren't making hardly any money from 1-2, and they have a job outside of poker that sustains their gambling budget then why not play higher? If you really hate the idea of losing a big pot so much and you just love giving your money to the rake, then why not just go play 4-8 limit?

If you are a pro that doesn't want to shot take at 2-5 because you have a tiny bankroll then you should just get a job and then play 2-5 exclusively.

The idea of grinding it up full-time at 1-2 to eventually shot take at 2-5 could take you years. If your goal is to stay at 1-2 forever, then why would you get into professional gambling to make 20-30k a year? With that kind of income and facotirng in life expenses, how much is your bankroll going to grow? 1-2k a year? Ofcourse, with inflation, this money will be worth even less in future years.

Look at poster mpthethybridge. He's probably got some posts in the stickies. Hes a very knowledgable player and was a coach for online poker back in the heyday. He became a full time live pro after black friday and was still playing 1-2 for 4 or 5 years due to running bad at the start. If it takes an online poker coach 4-5 years to run up a bankroll, that shows you how low your winrate is at that stake in the long run.

Long story short, 1-2NL is a waste of time unless you are playing the graveyard shift deep stack games. The more people realize that, the more there may be a larger market to play higher stakes. The 2-5 market is ok now in the large cities, but we will see 5 years from now. I'm not optimistic.

Last edited by bodybuilder32; 11-20-2016 at 09:19 PM. Reason: fixed quote
bodybuilder32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2016, 09:08 PM   #16908
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Cumulative inflation from 2008 until 2016 is only 12.3%. A 1/2 game is 2008 is nowhere near a 2/5 game today. That would be a 100-150% cumulative inflation rate.
MikeStarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2016, 09:14 PM   #16909
Garick
Oberbiergenießer
 
Garick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Do you even math, bruh?
Posts: 24,617
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
the casino makes no more in rake in a 10-25NL game compared to a 1-2 game is precisely why customers should want to play higher stakes. They are getting more value for their dollar. I understand that most of the recreational players don't care about that.
FYP

Quote:
As a customer, I want more players to play higher stakes so that game still remains an option.
We understand what you want, but the poker economy is not going to change in order to give you what you want.

Quote:
I'm not sure anyone has addressed my question about why, people in general, are willing to gamble for less money today then they were 15, 20, 30 years ago. Adjusting for inflation, our dollar is worth less today then it was during that time, but it seems like people have not kept up with inflation.
Market saturation. Gambling used to be a special occasion thing that you could only do when you traveled somewhere with a casino, for most.

Also, No-Limit was a huge aberration and people didn't realize how big the game was at first. A lot of the sheep got shorn during the poker boom.
Garick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2016, 10:53 PM   #16910
applesauce123
adept
 
applesauce123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 775
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
You and other posters have made good points about keeping the games sustainable for the fish. I'm not sure anyone has addressed my question about why, people in general, are willing to gamble for less money today then they were 15, 20, 30 years ago. Adjusting for inflation, our dollar is worth less today then it was during that time, but it seems like people have not kept up with inflation. If you were a poker player in 2008 or 2009, then the 1-2 game was what the 2-5 game is today. All of us new players back in the day had to grab our balls and sit in wild, crazy loose games, but now people today are content with playing in smaller games. Why?
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that 30 years ago most poker games were limit. So comparing games now to then is pretty pointless.
applesauce123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 12:52 AM   #16911
bodybuilder32
old hand
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,423
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garick View Post
FYP


We understand what you want, but the poker economy is not going to change in order to give you what you want.


Market saturation. Gambling used to be a special occasion thing that you could only do when you traveled somewhere with a casino, for most.

Also, No-Limit was a huge aberration and people didn't realize how big the game was at first. A lot of the sheep got shorn during the poker boom.
Thanks for the replies. These were considerations I didn't account for.
bodybuilder32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 01:13 AM   #16912
Angrist
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,884
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
I agree with your statements wholeheartedly. I am proposing that maybe, in 2017, we need to "up the ante" so to speak? If, at the very least, to adjust for inflation?
No. No we don't. Not when wages are stagnant and inflation continues, such that most middle class people actually make *less* money now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
If you look at the difference between what a WSOP main event buy-in was worth in the 1970's, to what it is worth today, the numbers are staggering.
Totally irrelevant for a LLSNL game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
Poker was a lot more a game of "balls" and grit then it was simply being about a game of patience and discipline and who can fold the most without tilting. I think the "high stakes" nature of poker was a significant factor in the poker boom (look at the main shows "high stakes poker, poker after dark, and all of the WSOP coverage). Live poker cash games simply isn't high stakes anymore, with pot sizes being too small, risk of losing too small (hey I cant lose my stack if I fold pre right?) All of this, plus the factors I mentioned in previous posts makes it difficult to attract new players (new fish, new money, new generation of gamblers)
If that's why you think poker boomed, you're wrong. Poker boomed because a moron named Moneymaker won the main event from a $40 satellite. Then there were a plethora of online games where players could get in for basically zero money. Not because the guy that's never played before felt like putting a grand on the table.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
Lastly, I disagree that you don't have to tighten up with short stack degens. You cant play suited connectors because they will go all in pre with A6o and small pocket pairs don't get odds to set mine. These guys are toast in a 9 handed table, but it forces you to have to make hands. So its you splitting his stack $100 7 ways between all the other players. When you factor in variance, card dead, hit and run, this just isn't a lot of EV at the end of the day.
This depends on the degen. The ones that are shipping with any A, or any K, or JTs, or any pair OTF, are easy to play against. You'll have to ride out some variance, yes. But you'll come out ahead. Especially if the moron stacks two other nit-morons first and then continues to GII because he doesn't know any better. Then most of the others play far too tight and limp-fold their money away. SS idiots are good for the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
How could a whale not find 2/5 more exciting? The sheer fact there is more money on the line makes it more exciting. This is why the rich flounders play the WSOP main event 10k buy-in and not the daily turbos.
Like I said, because they don't want to punt $1000+ in an hour. They want to play for a little while and have fun. Maybe your definition of "whale" is "idiot that drops $5k in a night", but that's just not the case in most LLSNL games (are you sure you're in the right forum??). There are levels of whale.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
The blind structure doesn't matter to me as much as the amount of $ that is in play. I would rather sit in a 1-2 game with 500-800 stacks around the table than a 2-5 game with 7 stacks of $300 or less. That's why I argue in favor of a mandatory 100BB buy in, but I know it will never happen so its not like I expect that kind of change.
That's true. But most players don't want to play that big. Period. Again, they want to have fun for an amount of money that makes sense to them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
What I would expect is that other players would naturally want to play for more money. I'm asking a serious question, "Why are there so many adult poker players that are willing to play a card game for $10 an hour or less?"
Well, you're wrong and they don't. They're also not playing to earn $10/hr. They either don't give a **** what they're making, and are concerned more about how much/little they're risking and losing, OR they think they're actually winning a hell of a lot more than $10/hr because they only remember the big wins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
I'm not talking about the delusional fish that desperately gamble hoping they go on a massive heater. I'm talking about 2+2 posters, lurkers, and other regs who have been around the game for a long time and have been through all the variance, the upswings and downswings.
I want to play the game where the fish are. Not the game that some poster *think* is theoretically better. But if you want to move up to where they respect your raises, shame I on't take your money, but good luck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
You missed my point about a guy bringing his gf to watch him play. There are millions of guys who play fantasy sports, tons of guys that major in business/ econ/statistic/ finance related majors, and many young viewers who find poker on TV or over youtube. This is a huge potential market that poker SHOULD, but isn't able to capture because of the atmosphere of live casino poker. The young male demographic is not going to sit in a poker room with 55 year olds who are sitting on $100 stacks and only playing premium hands. He is simply going to be bored with all of the small pots and the lack of excitement in the room.
No. Young people aren't playing because they're flat broke (and some ******* in the government decided that they should be forced to buy a product that they didn't want or need, at an insanely high price to subsidize old ****ers ready to die). If they had disposable income they *might* be interested in playing. But the casino environment isn't the primary problem. Also, the whole table isn't $100 stacks and premium hands. It's $50 stacks that are idiots and punting their chips, $100 stacks, and $200 stacks, and $400+ stacks that are bullying the table. There's a lot more variety than just short stacked nits.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
Once you have seen greener pastures, you can never really go down in stakes. I guess I was blessed/cursed to begin my poker career in deep stack gamboool style games played at strip mall card clubs. I was literally shocked when I travelled to other places in the country and saw how the 1-2 games appeared. It honestly didn't even feel like the same game.
So you have no experience with what you're talking about. That makes sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
If you look at what CA did, they basically made 1-2 a joke for targeted specifically for all of the slot machine players (100 MAX buyin LOL WTF). They basically make it to where anyone who was even halfway serious about making $ at poker had to play 5-5 (with a $300 mimimum buyin, rather than $200). I don't think it would be so bad to see this change adopted all over the country in order to adjust for inflation and as a rebranding effort to either get more people to put more $ on the line or to go to play slots and video poker instead.
[/QUOTE]

This change would be ******ed in most parts of the country, because we have rational max buy ins. So you *can* play $1/2 for decent stacks. But the idiots that really want to buy in short can, and then lose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
I agree with a lot of your points RP, but I don't 100% agree. If a fish gets stacked and loses $200-300 in one pot, then the rake taken from the casino will only be 7 dollars tops. But say the same fish loses 3 buy-ins of $100 each all spreading it among the 8 other abc players. Think of all the rake that was taken out by the casino before everyone was able to get the fishes money. No matter what way you slice it, the casino is getting a larger percentage of the player pool's money this way.
A fish barely even knows that the rake exists. I'd rather have the fish at the poker table paying 3x rake than sitting at the BJ or craps table giving all his money to the house.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
I am not blaming the casinos for doing this, but the customers are pretty dumb to not see that they are giving away their money to the rake. There are plenty of regs that could shot-take 2-5 but they are happy being small winners or break even at 1-2 rather than test to see if they could win more at 2-5. These are the players I'm talking about, not the welfare recipients. If they have side jobs, then they can replenish their losses and continue to sit in 2-5 the same way they sit in 1-2. If they are pros, then they are pretty sad to be grinding down the 1-2 player pool making a paltry living.
Again, no one cares about the rake. I look at the $2/5 game every time I walk into the room. Most of the time it's a bunch of wannabes that think they're hot **** and can "make more money at $2/5", but the $1/2 table next to them is filled with happy drunk donkeys. Where do you think you should sit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
RP, your argument that the casino makes no more in rake in a 10-25NL game compared to a 1-2 game is precisely why customers should want to play higher stakes. They are getting more value for their dollar. I understand that most of the recreational players don't know that.
See above. No player cares. And the house wants to see the opposite of what you're suggesting. So it'll never happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
As a customer, I want more players to play higher stakes so that game still remains an option. I know how to beat short-stacked 50BB 1-2 games and I can honestly tell you I would rather work at WalMart then play in that game.
The vast majority of players already have other jobs and are playing for fun. They don't want higher stakes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
You and other posters have made good points about keeping the games sustainable for the fish. I'm not sure anyone has addressed my question about why, people in general, are willing to gamble for less money today then they were 15, 20, 30 years ago. Adjusting for inflation, our dollar is worth less today then it was during that time, but it seems like people have not kept up with inflation. If you were a poker player in 2008 or 2009, then the 1-2 game was what the 2-5 game is today. All of us new players back in the day had to grab our balls and sit in wild, crazy loose games, but now people today are content with playing in smaller games. Why?
Have you paid attention the the economy? That's your answer.

And I *really* don't think a $1/2 in 2008 is a $2/5 today inflation-wise .

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
Your arguing that all of these break-even regs or slightly winning nits don't want to play 2-5 because of the "sharks", but I would argue that this is illogical. If they aren't making hardly any money from 1-2, and they have a job outside of poker that sustains their gambling budget then why not play higher? If you really hate the idea of losing a big pot so much and you just love giving your money to the rake, then why not just go play 4-8 limit?
*You're

Have you met poker players? They want to play a stake that they're comfortable with, that they think they can beat, without dealing with a whole table of "thinking" or "serious" players. Why play $2/5 for nearly the same money with higher variance? If they're slightly losing players moving up hurts them, regardless of their ability to supplement from life income. If they're slightly winning we're back to the question of "where are the fish playing".

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
If you are a pro that doesn't want to shot take at 2-5 because you have a tiny bankroll then you should just get a job and then play 2-5 exclusively.

The idea of grinding it up full-time at 1-2 to eventually shot take at 2-5 could take you years. If your goal is to stay at 1-2 forever, then why would you get into professional gambling to make 20-30k a year? With that kind of income and facotirng in life expenses, how much is your bankroll going to grow? 1-2k a year? Ofcourse, with inflation, this money will be worth even less in future years.
99%+ of the players in the game aren't pros.

And a decent Rec player can put up $6k in a year without being a crusher. Then if they discount their losses as "run-bad" it's even easier to keep playing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodybuilder32 View Post
Look at poster mpthethybridge. He's probably got some posts in the stickies. Hes a very knowledgable player and was a coach for online poker back in the heyday. He became a full time live pro after black friday and was still playing 1-2 for 4 or 5 years due to running bad at the start. If it takes an online poker coach 4-5 years to run up a bankroll, that shows you how low your winrate is at that stake in the long run.

Long story short, 1-2NL is a waste of time unless you are playing the graveyard shift deep stack games. The more people realize that, the more there may be a larger market to play higher stakes. The 2-5 market is ok now in the large cities, but we will see 5 years from now. I'm not optimistic.
You really, *really* don't understand the reasons that people play poker. At all.
Angrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 04:08 AM   #16913
bodybuilder32
old hand
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,423
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Angrist,

Thanks for taking the time to reply point by point. I have made my argument so I will let others chime in on the topic if they like. I especially agree with your assessment about today's poor economy and how it affects the games.
bodybuilder32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 11:39 AM   #16914
Avaritia
Confirmed 2500 hour haver
 
Avaritia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,215
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

wrt rake, some of you guys have no idea how lucky we are. Casinos are basically sharing revenue with us. Do you know how insane that is?

If I ever worked for a casino the first thing I'd do is increase rake to $10. Nothing would change.

And if it did I'd be happy to get rid of that labor and put slots in its place.

We are so f***ing lucky rake is what it is...casinos owe us nothing.

wrt to why do people play high raked games? Have you met the human race? Why do casinos exist at all? People are idiots. The end.
Avaritia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 12:57 PM   #16915
YGOchamp
old hand
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,517
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

The existence of Australia's lolrake is proof that we should certainly be thankful that many rooms rake $4-6

Granted, casinos in the US are likely deterred due to more competition, but they could likely easily all collectively double the rake in any given area. If you think people will stop playing because of the rake increase, then you obviously have never witnessed people playing 2/4 limit, the definition of an unbeatable game
YGOchamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 01:50 PM   #16916
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,951
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I understand the glass half full mentality, but it's farfetched to suggest that players are "lucky" to be getting raked less than others.
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 02:00 PM   #16917
Angrist
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,884
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by YGOchamp View Post
If you think people will stop playing because of the rake increase, then you obviously have never witnessed people playing 2/4 limit, the definition of an unbeatable game
True. But those people aren't thinking about beating the game, or win-rates at all. They're sitting in the card room, getting "free" drinks, having fun, and sometimes grinding out their promo hours.
Angrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 02:24 PM   #16918
The Rumor
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
The Rumor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Wherever my loanshark isn't
Posts: 9,559
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angrist View Post
True. But those people aren't thinking about beating the game, or win-rates at all. They're sitting in the card room, getting "free" drinks, having fun, and sometimes grinding out their promo hours.
Think about why this might also apply to 1/2 NL

My main counter to Ava is that people go where the games are in most metro areas, and if there are multiple rooms where action can float between, you do have to avoid pissing off too many players.
The Rumor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 05:52 PM   #16919
YGOchamp
old hand
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,517
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
I understand the glass half full mentality, but it's farfetched to suggest that players are "lucky" to be getting raked less than others.
Why is it farfetched? It's very common for businesses to maximize profit, often at the expense of their customers.

Look at what Pokerstars has been doing over the years.
YGOchamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 05:53 PM   #16920
YGOchamp
old hand
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,517
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angrist View Post
True. But those people aren't thinking about beating the game, or win-rates at all. They're sitting in the card room, getting "free" drinks, having fun, and sometimes grinding out their promo hours.
Right...

The only people who will get pissed off are grinders. Do you think casinos care if all the pro's leave and let the fish pass money back and forth until it eventually all goes to the house?
YGOchamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 06:23 PM   #16921
Richard Parker
banned
 
Richard Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Right Side of Variance
Posts: 13,951
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by YGOchamp View Post
Why is it farfetched? It's very common for businesses to maximize profit, often at the expense of their customers.



Look at what Pokerstars has been doing over the years.

Ya, but how is anyone lucky? It's like all of us are lucky because we didn't die of horrific car accident.
Richard Parker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 08:48 PM   #16922
Dream Crusher
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Dream Crusher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Dallas
Posts: 15,670
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by YGOchamp View Post
Granted, casinos in the US are likely deterred due to more competition, but they could likely easily all collectively double the rake in any given area. If you think people will stop playing because of the rake increase, then you obviously have never witnessed people playing 2/4 limit, the definition of an unbeatable game
I've witnessed a lot of poker being played and yet have never witnessed people playing 2/4 limit. That in itself is quite telling. Your example to showcase that people don't mind paying high rake is a game that is largely dead throughout the US.
Dream Crusher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 08:51 PM   #16923
johnny_on_the_spot
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
johnny_on_the_spot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: S-Mart
Posts: 10,927
*** Official Winrates, bankrolls, and finances ***

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dream Crusher View Post
I've witnessed a lot of poker being played and yet have never witnessed people playing 2/4 limit. That in itself is quite telling. Your example to showcase that people don't mind paying high rake is a game that is largely dead throughout the US.

Right now at Borgata there is a 2/4 limit game going (bare in mind it's Monday night and only 16 games are going, normally they are 40+ with multiple 2-4 tables)

johnny_on_the_spot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 09:00 PM   #16924
cAmmAndo
The Situation
 
cAmmAndo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Philly
Posts: 4,712
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by YGOchamp View Post
Right...



The only people who will get pissed off are grinders. Do you think casinos care if all the pro's leave and let the fish pass money back and forth until it eventually all goes to the house?

Yes they would care.

1) Regs are a very necessary part of the ecosystem in a room. Without them games don't go at off peak times and less games go all the time. Regs are defacto props.

2) the mere presence of additional players (the regs) increases the rake. It's easy to see if you consider a time game. If 30% of the room stopped playing the room rakes 30% less time collection. it's less direct but in raked games less regs means less games or short handed games which create less pots that reach the rake cap.

So to say the casino doesn't care about the regs/grinders as a collective is not or at least should not be correct.

However the regs/grinders need fish to sustain them and the fish come to the poker room for poker so long as the room can be counted on to have games running. So the winning regs need the poker room too. somewhere exists some sort of equilibrium between maximized rake and player rake tolerance beyond which, purely from a market standpoint, the reg would become incentivized to quit or go elsewhere. Surely if rake was increased to 100% for example.

But beyond market forces there are gaming regulations which at least in my area make rake increases difficult and certainly ensure rake remains less than what would likely threaten that equilibrium.
cAmmAndo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2016, 09:08 PM   #16925
johnny_on_the_spot
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
johnny_on_the_spot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: S-Mart
Posts: 10,927
*** Official Winrates, bankrolls, and finances ***

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dream Crusher View Post
<scrubbed sarcastic post>


Never said any of that, you said specifically you've never witnessed a 2/4 game and the 1st casino I opened on bravo has one running. Obv it's not a big draw, just like most limit games now a days, but they still do exist. Just looking at a few other casinos, MDL has a 4/8, Foxwoods has (2) 2/4, Sands PA has a 3/6. I haven't run the numbers, but 4/8 is probably barely beatable and 3/6 might not be

Last edited by Garick; 11-21-2016 at 10:09 PM. Reason: re-read thread rules, plox
johnny_on_the_spot is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive