I guess using the promo fund to attract new players to the casino is better than letting it sit there

You can't dismiss the fact that rabbit hunting slows down the game by saying, "Nope, it doesn't." It's not an opinion. It's a fact. When you allow rabbit hunting, you're adding unnecessary steps to the game. I wasn't opening it up to subjective interpretation regarding whether the holdup is "significant," whether it's worth the wait, etc. You asked for a reason it's bad and I provided one.

Your argument appears to be that rabbit hunting is absolutely essential for mid-stakes draw games to run at all. As a practical matter, will these players immediately pick up and go to Gila River or Fort McDowell if CAZ decides that rabbit hunting is not an efficient use of dealers' and players' time? Will the other rooms even run these games?

I think your argument would be at least tenable if you phrased it as something like, "As a high-stakes player, I'd appreciate it if CAZ were to allow rabbit hunting at the high-stakes games because I think that recreational players enjoy it. Their enjoyment is worth the extra time it takes because the people who play high stakes aren't concerned with an efficient game."

It's not silly, it's the truth. The fact that they brought in someone from outside to run the poker room when a number of in house people applied for the job speaks volumes.

I think the argument is that allowing rabbit hunting could be essential for mid-high stakes mixed games to run. And to be transparent I don't play them at CAZ - prefer the spread limit games. But if the rec players want/need that, and the other regs don't care, what's the problem? If it slows the game down, so what?

What Ive seen happen( and is not the case for this recent change back that im aware of) is that as rules like like "no rabbit hunting are changed to accommodate higher stakes games, players in lower limit start to ask, well why not us?
Those players wont take into consideration different game different limit, different conditions or circumstance, they just now know...they allow rabbit hunting in top section. Now you have an entire contingent of players, the majority really, who now feel slighted that they don't get the same treatment.

They do already have lots of rules different between the high and low limit games at CAZ though. New deck requests, dealing in walkers, racks allowed on tables, etc. I think it would be much less confusing if the rule was consistent across the whole room, but seeing as it's not already, I don't think it would make it worse to have the rabbit hunting rule be different as well.

People doing it in CAZ mix games do it when the dealer is pushing/chopping the pot. You understand that an "unnecessary step" can take no time when done in parallel with required steps, don't you?

Even if a player does it when the dealer is ready to scoop the deck, it literally takes under two seconds. A player leans over table and lifts two cards to flash bottom of card, then releases. This is also happening after a 120-240 second draw game hand, so even in this rare circumstance it's not even noticeable

So again, it's not slowing the game at all.

And the house is running "efficient game" for us, not itself. it cares not a whit how many hands are dealt per hour as it's a time game. You understand we are the customers don't you, and that this is what customers want and enjoy, even more than the most perfectly efficient games. There are a small set of dealers the house still allows to deal our game despite slowing it far more than rabbit hunting, why does the house still allow that - which the players don't want, and ban the rabbit hunting they do?

And I never said it was essential to keep the game running, I said we have a small player pool and a game that doesn't always run, banning even a couple regs for this silly reason means the game runs less.

It actually speaks more to why the last guy left.

The tribe has no interest in how the floors make rulings, they only care that the drop is efficiently delivered into their coffers.

Even if it actually speaks more to why the last guy left, it doesn't explain why none of the in house people who applied for the job were passed over. Bottom line, none of them were qualified to run the poker room and we are much better off with the person they hired to run things.

I have semi-seriously considered entering the poker room management arena, but I know it is 90% politics and 10% knowledge, so I get sad and don't try.

This is a misleading argument called "appeal to authority". It's as wrong as me saying all Auburn grads are dumb.

Even if the new manager is better, and I've never said he isn't, doesn't make the old manager or floors bad, or every decision the new manager makes right.

The new guy is highly involved, he's observing on the floor regularly, and may have put in more hours his first few months than anyone. Those are things I like a lot about him. But I still disagree with a couple of his decisions.

Why would u say all Auburn grads are dumb??? As far as saying i'm "appealing to authority", you don't know me and i never blindly defer to authority. however, even an Auburn grad can see the new boss is better than the old boss and is running a much tighter ship which is better for the masses, although it may not suit you.

Is anyone interested in getting a low stakes mix going? I think 8/16 TOEBa would be good but am open to anything. Seems like a good opportunity to increase exposure & interest in non-holdem games and give dealers experience in mix without the pressure of higher stakes.

I'm fairly sure that the smallest mix that Caz will spread is 20/40 so that it can be timed.

I have to say that I largely agree with DesertCat about the new rules in place. Sucking the fun out of the games is not good for their longevity or strength. I understand the need for strict rules in the low limit jackpot games but fundamentally believe that the higher limit games should be allowed to run the way players want them to (within reason).

Lame. Thanks.

Because they went to Auburn? LOL, I keed, I keed.

Instead of making assertions that he's good/bad based on personal preference, let's do a list of changes under the new manager and argue whether they are good or bad. Here is my list sorted by how I regard them as positive or negative.

Positive Changes

1) Super Jackpot
I'm not a fan of super jackpots, seems too easy for money to leave room without being recycled through games, but there was too much money from low limit players piled up in that fund. It's good that he implemented an aggressive new program to try to do something about the fund.

Now I hear they might be pulling back on the super jackpot, if true that's also a positive. It says to me the manager saw a problem, tried a new marketing approach, got feedback that it wasn't working as well as they wanted, and is willing to admit it didn't work and do something else. That's good management, every marketing effort doesn't work, testing new ones is smart.

2) Pulling football tickets from high limit section
Time game players don't contribute to the pool, so they shouldn't get football tickets. This change hurt me, but clearly it's right.

3) Eliminating food vouchers

I just heard this yesterday, so may or may not be true, but the food vouchers are going away and you'll just get $1 per hour on your card to spend. If true I really like this, the hassle of printing and distributing food vouchers and having to get up from your game was far too much work for the room and players for the benefits.

The reason for comps is to induce more play, and the current system doesn't do this, you get same per hour of play no matter how much you play. But if they go to a direct pay for hours played system, it opens the door for accelerated rewards for high volume players, which I think is a great incentive for more play and reward for high volume players to increase room traffic.

Negative/Unclear
1) Changing to a custom kill for OE. It's really had a negative impact on other games because of confusion, players just don't accept that kills are being called correctly.

Last night a high stakes reg was berating a dealer I believe because of it. Dealer says "No kill", reg asks are you sure? He says I don't believe so, we recount, he's right, reg berates dealer for not being sure. Reg wins next hand, dealer says "Kill", he asks are you sure? Frustrated dealer says I believe so, we count, it's a kill, reg berates dealer again for not being "sure". Dealer did his job fine, reg was way out of line, but again it's also a symptom of more miscalled time pots lately.

I'm hoping they just pull the kill out of the OE, that will do more to keep the lower rolled players in the game and eliminate a whole bunch of angles the kill and the odd count kill requirements create.

2) Banning rabbit hunting/prop betting/touching other players cards

The banned behaviors can all be problems, but at higher stakes games almost never are. Also, Rabbit hunting & prop betting were never allowed, but previously higher stakes players didn't have to worry about being sent home over them.

I understand ban on prop betting, if their license is at risk from allowing widespread prop betting. Prop betting is just impossible to enforce, two players exchange money and house has no idea whether it's a loan/loan repayment, payment for services, or for a bet. But at least they can force players to be discreet.

I've said enough about rabbit hunting, it just seems like a big penalty for something that is zero problems in my games.

Touching other peoples cards - This is a good rule in itself, people should not touch your cards without permission, but if not applied intelligently can lead to terrible rulings. Before folding, I slide my hand over to guy next to me ( who is out of hand) to show my "big fold", does he get sent home for day? Do I?

Despite this rule, I constantly sweep other players hands into center of table because some refuse to push folded hands to dealer and the tables are huge, so dealers have trouble reaching them (it's a standard passive aggressive way to punish the dealer when you suck at poker). Will I be warned and forget because I've made such a habit of it that I'll be sent home. One OE regular has already refused to push someones folded cards to dealer when dealer asked him not wanting to fall afoul of this rule. I wish I could tell him he's being silly, but we won't know until we get a few weeks or months of experience with rulings.

BTW: When I was playing at Bellagio, I was texting someone, look up and the guy on my right has been replaced, and new player hasn't posted. I ask why isn't he posting and the reg who had been in that seat says "I'm letting him play for me, do you object". Of course I had no reason to object and I apologize and say, no it's fine (the reg was a pretty decent player so I'll take any random over him).

Overall I'm happy with the new guy. But I'm a poker player, so of course I'm going to bitch about things I think he could do better.

Again, a 20 OE without a kill is a start as it keeps the game closer in size to the 8-16. If you start the game in the morning try to get other players to agree to a no kill structure with Deuce to Seven, Badugi, or whatever you want to create a full mix game.

The rule we have always used is once games are agreed on, they can't be changed if 2 or more people object, so if you and another mix game player get the game started right, you should be able to play that mix until you leave without worrying it will revert to OE. And that rule should apply to adding the kill back.

In the higher stakes, we rarely have issues with stuff like this, people are usually accommodating and will play a game or two they don't like to compromise with you, and will keep kill out if it for same reason.

So the scenario is as follows:

All players except player A fold out.
Dealer pushes pot to player A.
WHILE dealer is pushing pot to player A, player B reaches into the dealer's area, pulls the first two cards off the stub, and then puts them back.

This was allowed in a casino!?
And none of the players in the game had a concern regarding deck integrity?

I never even insinuated that people should be banned for it immediately. If it happened in a game I was playing, I'd want the person who did it to be warned not to do it again.

The authoritative body(s) that govern the policies and procedures wont allow for games to be played the way players want them, if it conflicts with the rules and procedures that are agreed to and in place.

The original (rabbit hunting) rule was allowed with certain conditions. In 2-7 TD only, 75 and higher limit, players were not allowed to reach into the stub but could ask to see cards at the end of a hand.
Things quickly morphed into being allowed in 2-7 in the MIX to being allowed in the 40 MIX game, then to other draw games then into stud/8 and then flop games as long it was in the "mix" and even trying to rabbit hunt in the 20/40 OE game now.

Then players started reaching into the muck and also started getting up and walking around behind the dealer to reach into the stub.
it got messy.

On an overall level certain dealers try to hold the line on rules, because they are supposed to, but when they do they are then told "all the other dealers do it" , a partially true statement. While i cant speak for those who don't( its their choice to risk it), the fact of the matter is, the dealers who tow the line are actually doing their job, correctly.

Players have to understand the perspective, this is the dealers livelihood, they are obligated by a certain set of rules and regulations, it is unreasonable to fault or criticism them for following policy and procedure as outlined in their responsibilities.

Wow they do not make enough money off you now. Use your money for advertising.
OK you open your check book every month and write them a check to pay their advertising, please do not tell them it is ok to use mine.

More like they lift up 2 cards, they don't pull them out. There is no risk to deck integrity, they can't remove cards and the game is also auto shuffled. I've never seen any player ever complain about it or express any game integrity concern.

And my concern over the risk of banning wasn't because of anything you wrote, a floor told us it would go warning, then temp ban, then longer ban, etc.

DC, thanks for the clarification.

That sounds proper to me. If these players are smart people--and chances are that they are if they have that kind of money to gamble--they'll stop after a warning. So there's no significant risk of banning.

Couldn't they do what every other casino does and just raise the rake and run it at small stakes?

You are probably right, at least I hope so.

Today: CO raises in Deuce to Seven, SB/BB call, draws go 3-3-3, BB bets, CO calls, SB raises, BB 3b, CO calls, SB caps, both call.

SB pats, BB takes 1, CO takes 2, SB leads, BB raises, CO 3b, SB allin for 3b, BB 4b, CO just calls.

Allin thinks for long while before finally declaring pat, BB pat, CO pat, BB bets, CO raises, BB shows #2 trying to decide whether to call, allin rolls #4 not realizing hand not yet over.

Finally BB calls and CO shows #1.

BB, SB & Reg not in hand plead w/dealer "show us next card!'"

You confirmed it DC, people are dumb, even at the highest stakes.