I know the rule at Canterbury is no outside food allowed, but is this strictly enforced? I have a pretty restrictive diet due to health issues, and don't want to rely on the menu at the restaurant, so if I bring in say a modest sized tupperware container with a salad, am I likely to get in trouble? Is this common practice for canterbury players?

Why has there been no MSPT at Canterbury this year?

Is it the same reason the WPT and the WSOP circuit don't ever play at Canterbury (which is there are not any no-limit cash games at Canterbury by law and keeps Canterbury in the minor leagues)?

I can't find it, but I thought someone posted that MSPT pissed off CP by not bringing the promised number of dealers.

Interesting. Well that sucks. And Running Aces hasn't been running any big tournaments besides the one MSPT in March.

Your post strongly implies that you have knowledge that the WPT and WSOP have not happened at Canterbury BECAUSE of a lack of no limit cash games. Please share your evidence for this knowledge.

I am busted. I have no direct knowledge of no no-limit cash games as the reason for no WPT and no WSOP circuit tournaments at CP. I am repeating the observations made by others who are merely speculating. It would be great if either WPT or WSOP Circuit held a tournament at Canterbury.

Well, today MSPT just added a $570,000 guarantee series at Running Aces in December........so nothing at CP all year.

There is the Fall Classic coming up. It is a series of tournaments which will attract a lot of out-of-town poker players that we can exploit at the spread limit 2-100 game when they bust out of the tournaments.

I am the out-of-towner what will be busting the tournament lol. No cash games for me though!

If I can make it, I am planning to open myself up to exploitation in the 10-20 mix after busting out of a tournament.

I am not a frequent contributor on the forum, so I almost feel like it is time to shut up, but I got a little more to say. First the fall classic is Sept 29 thru Oct 9. The first event is a 2-player team event. It is a reunion where people show up that have not been around lately, and everyone celebrates with a drink while their teammate handles the poker playing. Canterbury thoughtfully provides a bar right by the poker tables. There is a mystery bounty tourney, a senior tourney, a ladies tourney, Omaha, horse, and just a lot of holdem. Leave the kids home unless they are 18 or older.

When the Fall Classic or other tournaments are in town, they will often run "Survivor Tournaments". These duplicate NL holdem. Buy ins can be 2500-5000, blinds flexible (1/2 for an hour and 2/2 for the second hour, or 2/5 into 5/5 or 5/10 into 10/10.

Buy in is +$40 for two hours of play

Is there anyway to convince Canterbury to go back to 9-handed? 8-handed decimates winrates.

How is that? A good player should win more when the game is shorter.

That's what people assume, but it's inaccurate in low stakes hold 'em...

...Let's say you win $15/hr 9 handed at 1-2 NL with $5 avg. rake per hand. This will put you in the top 1% of players. From the table above you see that 9 handed plays 33 hands per hour and takes $165/hr rake or 165/9=$18.33 per player. At 8 handed, the total rake is $180/8= $22.5 per player.

Winning $15/hr 9 handed at 33 hands per hour means you win 45.45 cents per hand. At 8 handed you will play 10% more hands so you will win 45.45cx36=$16.36 per hour. That is $1.36 higher. But your rake is 22.5-18.33= $4.17 higher. Thus, you will lose $2.81 more per hour net playing 8 handed vs 9 handed. That is a drop of -18.73% for a player making $15/hr 9 handed when he/she goes to 8 handed. Enjoy playing 18.73% more hours to make the same as you would 9 handed."


Personally, I live 15 minutes from Canterbury and 40 minutes from their competitor, but I usually make the 40 minute drive in order to avoid paying more money to play.

I'm conflicted on this. I like the extra elbow-room, but the tables get short-handed more easily.

Not all of us are that good.

Exactly. In short-handed games weaker players are exploited by both the casino and stronger players to a higher degree. Furthermore, the rake is devastating due to playing 5 or 6 handed so often.


But hey, the casino and (theoretically) a miniscule percentage of highly-skilled players make more in this format, so let's stick to it!

They will never, ever go back to none handed. More hands with fewer players equals more take.

I thought CP didn't even have NL games.

Anyway though, I think a winning player who can adjust should see his winrate go up at least enough to cover the rake. You make money with each decision you make, and more decisions per hour should be good for a winner. But I'm mostly a limit player and not that familiar with how NL dynamics change when short handed.

Also, if this significantly delays the next task rake increase, it may be a wash. With inflation as high as it is, you have to expect casinos to increase their take in some way.

They don't have NL, it's $2-$100 spread limit.

Oh, I didn't know they even had that - thought it was Running Aces for those games.

They would if poker players stopped patronizing the room. I have for the most part, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.

I follow CP and their competitor on Bravo. Their competitor generally has more spread limit players than CP. This was not the case prior to CP opting for 8-handed, and I think there's an obvious reason why.

No, same laws statewide in regards to betting limits. They run SL because NL is illegal.

To keep it brief, very few low stakes players have the skill to exploit a game to the degree necessary to offset the rake increase. Furthermore, on average players lose more, even if some outliers potentially win more. It's terrible for the customers.

BTW, short-handed games generally make low-stakes players play better, at least pre-flop. 9-handed one of their leaks is playing too loose pre-flop. This is negated short-handed as now you should play those weaker starting hands. Or, even if it is still the incorrect play, the margin of error is significantly slimmer.

I really don't want to keep harping on it, but another issue is players typically have a set limit they can lose, and because they lose faster 8-handed they play fewer hours. Low limit players also dislike when the game gets very short. Virtually all will play 8-handed, the overwhelming majority 7-handed, most 6-handed, but at 5 or fewer they're reluctant to play. 8-handed tables reach this threshold far more frequently than 9-handed tables do.


CP currently has 20 spread limit players (including those on the waiting list) in comparison to their competitors 48. Stark contrast to a few years prior, when they almost always had more SL players.

It couldn't be more obvious 8-handed is sucking the life out of their games.