Quote:
Originally Posted by tuffbeat
Middlebridge,
At $10 a hand, they are pricing almost everyone out. If you win say three hands an hour, that is $30 in rake. Compare it to the standard $5 a hand, or the time charge at most places (approximately $12-$14 an hour for PLO and red chip games) and it effectively costs each player $15-$16 an hour more to play. Imagine how many break even or small winners and/or losers (that are the bread and butter of poker rooms) will now over a short period of time notice how drastically worse their results are with no visible change other than this overbearing rake. People that play fulltime will now pay an extra $30,000-$36,000 yearly (2000 x $15 or $16-$18). Very few people (pros, recs, etc.) can withstand this, let alone prosper, and even those that can financially will certainly be put off by their drastically reduced results. This will have the effect of making the games much tougher, and lesser in number, which is bad for everyone, including casino management/ownership. It is very short sided by management in my opinion as in the long term they will lose many of their best customers, and the ones that replace them will have a short shelf life.
Tuffbeat
Don't get me wrong; a lower rake is better. That said rake will and should go up with the inflated dollar over time, just not that much hopefully. That said what has to go up are the blinds. I'm astonished that the clubs in New Hampshire and Foxwoods/Mohegan still have the small no limit game with $1/$2 blinds. The absolute minimum game should be have at least $1/$3 blinds. If Twin River ever re-opens I hope they make the small no limit game a $1/$3 blind blind game and the next up a $3/$5 blind game (or have two $5 blinds).
I did go to Encore earlier this week and the pots in PLO were huge most of the session. I think we got about 20 hands per hour (if that) and in a nine hour play I won about seven or eight pots booking a very small win. So the extra rake cost me about $35 or so for a great game. I straddled for $5 every time and didn't say no to the five or six bomb pots so I avoided looking like too much of an OMC/nit despite being very tight up front (and being an old man usually with a tea or coffee). All the 2/5 NL holdem games looked fairly nit/OMC free as did the 5/10 NL holdem. I'm solid but don't want to play with nits or buzz kills.
My observation is that in the game at Encore a lot of money leaves the table (with the rake and winners) but the action players (more than half the table) seem to have very deep pockets and don't blink at re-buying several times a session. Compare that with an early morning $1/2 hodem game at Foxwoods where the stacks seem like they are glued together and many pots don't even qualify for max $5 rake.
I used to often post on 2plus2 under another screen name before I took a nearly twelve year break from serious playing. I played in LA and nothing was worse than watching a full $5 plus $1 drop go down the hole on any flop (now more with another dollar doing down on the turn and/or river from what I hear). At least the Encore has a rake so the small pots don't get obliterated.
Rake is going to go up but game size and action has to increase with it.
- middlebridge
PS. At Foxwoods a while back I noticed a 20/40 stud game that looked pretty good. Back in the nineties I played 15/30 and 20/40 holdem and some stud same limits. A 20/40 stud game in 1995 would be just a little smaller than a 40/80 stud game today. So that 20/40 stud game really would be like a 10/20 stud game during the years I played limit which makes it small. In 1987 when I started playing poker my game was 5/10 holdem at The Bicycle Casino. The drop (taken in full on any flop) was IIRC $3 with a $1 jackpot drop, Stick $3 into an inflation calculator and it becomes just under $8 in today's dollars. So Encore's rake isn't as bad as it seems.
Last edited by middlebridge; 10-05-2022 at 06:18 PM.
Reason: remove double quote