i've been playing at the aria this week and think it's softer than the commerce 5/10 has been the past 2 months

ya the commerce game will be tougher than normal for at least 6 months. after that it should even out and prob be tougher overall but not sure if tougher than vegas 5-10.

Why for six months
Don't get it

the 500nl at commerce will be tougher overall because it recently moved to the top section. therefore more hi-limit regs will venture over (more like step over) and less rec players who jump between 400 and 500 will play 500. however i say ~6 months because i figure thats a fair amount of time where ppl get over this change to where the 500nl will be less tough than it is now but probably tougher overall than when it was over in the main room.

oh by aria i meant venetian, and by this week i meant m-w

I'll have to disagree with the 500nl getting better. The $300/$500 game is gaining popularity. Many players will just stay there and not move over to the hotel side to play the 500nl.

Also many of the players who used to play 500nl only are switching to the 600nl.

I just don't see the 500nl as a whole getting better. In my recent experience finding a juicy 500nl is far and between now (your best bet will be late at night where more players are chasing big losses). 600nl seems to be the game that gained the most from the 500nl moving to the hotel side.

everything you said just went to further my point.

-as 300/500 gains popularity less ppl will go to hotel side to play 500nl - which is part of the reason why i said 500nl will be "overall" tougher

- many of the 500nl players only are switching to the 600nl - yes and in 6 months once they go broke they will go back to the 500nl

- 500nl isn't getting better. i said it will be overall tougher once it all evens out but for at least in the short term it will be tougher than it really should be.

I hate the Commerce but here tonight to watch UFC($10 charge) and play some horribly structured 1/3 or 2/5 NLH.

I had a chicken burrito for dinner, wanna combine blogs?

What is the rake for 300-500nl? 500nl? and 600nl?

300-500nl= $5 plus $1 jackpot drop= $6 per hand that sees the flop ($2 if no flop)
500nl= $5 plus $1 jackpot drop= $6 per hand that sees the flop ($1 if no flop)
600nl= timed rake: $10 per player every 30 minutes

^WOW! That's insane amount of rake!! How can u even beat that game? What ever happened to "no flop, no drop?"

Pretty much unbeatable.

Really?

Ya, everyone's solid too

Not from my experience. Given it was just a couple of sessions, but the games were pretty soft. Obv the problem is the rake and bi structure isn't great. If they made it 300-1k it would be a much better game.

He was kidding.

I agree rake is a killer. If you are a rec player it doesn't hurt as much. But if you are a reg it adds up pretty quick. If a reg tracked how much total rake they paid a year they would be sick.

I guess there is a reason why most people say only 10 to 20% of NL poker players are long term winners. If there was no rake I'd imagine 30 to 40% would be long term winners or at least break even.

Rake + Tips = 50k/year

How's that for trading fees?

Cheaper than a seat on the CBOE/CBOT but humans don't trade anymore obv.

Lol come to the mid west we are running 7 rake per hand

cause you know, the cost of business is so much higher in the widest compared to LA.... Seriously? WTF.

I think the real numbers (which are relatively easy to extrapolate from online results / Table Ratings at comparably difficult limits, adjusted for rake), are far, far lower.

Simply put, the vast, vast majority of poker players, live and online, limit and no limit, are long term losers. A smaller group are either breakeven players or very small winners. The group that we would call "winners" in the sense of paying for expenses, making a living, being able to utilize poker income to pay for at least some living or discretionary expenses, is EXTREMELY small-- probably somewhere between 1 and 5 percent of players.

And while rake certainly has something to do with that, it is not the main cause. The main cause is simply that the poker economy requires, and would require even with a smaller rake, numerous losing players to finance the winnings of each winning player. The basic reason for this is because if it were just a single player financing the winnings of each winner, those players would tend to quit playing as the losses mounted. What you need is not one big loser but a whole bunch of smaller losers to pay for each winning player who lose enough that when aggregated can pay for the winning player while not losing so much that they stop playing the game. And then you add the rake onto that and you need a bunch more of those smaller losers to pay the rake.

This fact is built into the economics of poker, is not fully understood by most players (even though it can be readily determined by examining databases of online play), and is the fundamental reason why very few players at any limit are significant long-term winners.

Commerce's drop sucks (though at higher limits it becomes comparable in percentage terms to online rakes). But in a fantasy hypothetical world where Commerce got rid of the drop, the vast, vast majority of players would still never be significant winners. They would just lose a bit less.

If huge expenses kept people from pursuing their hobbies, then golf courses, ski resorts, and marinas could not exist. Such things do exist.

A typical losing poker player's losses really are comparable to what an avid golfer pays in greens fees and equipment. Poker as a hobby is downright cheap compared to boating.

Are the dailies @ Commerce getting any runners (obv when nothing else is going on)? Those are fun sometimes; people have no idea what the f they're doing and beats abound. Small stacks mean quick gains or busts, so you can play cash if busted pretty quickly...

Thanks for any insight, gl all
T.