Possible. I live 100miles away. Although I have a friend that plays 5/10, lives same distance, and he lost his free rooms for a little while last year.

They may run credit reports. They may look at income. They may look at what other casinos are offering you. They may look at the tournament wins you have vs loss. There does appear to be more in the decision than simply points earned.

Who knows. Ship it for now...sure this won't last forever.

Do they have the authority to look at this stuff? I never gave consent, and im not applying for a job there.....so i dont see why/how they could/would look at personal finances of their customers.

I have no knowledge that they do.

I am just suggesting I expect a large casino to deploy every tactic possible to identify opportunities.

This is absolutely true, particularly for the low roller.

No they do not. I doubt they do this.

You have no idea how much this tilts me. Why wont they just be straight ****ing forward with how they determine who gets what!??!?!?!??!?!?!!!!??????

I dont see how the black card is redundant as it gets you double points. They add up a hell of alot quicker

He said he only goes 2-5 times/month. So stating he doesn't have a black card was redundant, since you can't get it going that infrequently.

Was redundant because there is no way I could be a black card playing 2-5 times a month.

fwiw i play 1-2 times a week and live close but i play long sessions
my guess is woods throws me the occassional room offer because they dont want to kill the donkey that stays late even when i have a room i stay and play long sessions

Then you probably have a decent daily average, which helps contribute to room offers.

Question about 2-5 strategy as it particularly applies to Foxwoods:

How much should you buy in for? I always buy-in for $500, and add to stack any time below $400. The biggest problem I have with the game is the number of coinflips the low max buy-in creates. Example: Dealt AK on button. Raise to $15, one caller, action to button. Button makes it $40. BB calls, and 2 others call the $25 more. (Seems standard in that game to me.) Flop A93 Rainbow. Checks to button, button bets two thirds pot..$110. One caller, (the guy who initially raised to $15). 7 on turn...still rainbow. Here is where the low buyin is an issue. There is $382 in the pot. Check to button. Button can either check and let a lower Ace get a free chance to take lead, (or a disgusting straight to catch), or they can bet. I more often than not am definitely betting here. (Unless other player is a guy who would never call $110 on flop with just a pair, but there are plenty in that game that will.) So if the button bets, in my opinion its almost going to turn into an all-in. Bet too small and you almost induce the other player to leading out big regardless of river. If you bet half the pot, you certainly have to go for last $160 on river for a $1082 pot. If you bet all-in, well obviously you are all-in.

So the options on the turn appear to be hope to check it down, or eventually get it all in. All-in with top pair isn't the worst thing in that game, but it is frustrating the buy-in amount limits plays available on turn and river. This is just my opinion, but the number of all-ins at the 2-5 seem to support it. It's not just from loose or bad players.

So recently I have wondered if it makes sense to just buy in for $200? Get in same spot without needing to pay $340 more to see if pair is good? Sure I could just lower bet amounts, but if I did that I may as well go to $1/2 for expected value. I could also go to Mohegan, but my earlier posts today make it clear why Foxwoods is a better value for me.

Any thoughts? I know this borders real close to a strategy discussion that could go elsewhere, but it also really directly applies to one of the more popular games at woods.

I'll allow it. Responses should stick to the question though (what's the most appropriate buy-in and why). Don't critique his example hand.

The problem with buying in for 200 is that if you win you will eventually be at a 500~ish stack and be facing the same problem... imo it would be better for you to develop a strategy revolving around buying in for the max...

I agree tho 500 max totally sucks I wish they'd change it to 800 like mohegan but they claim it disrupts the 5/10+ games

Agree on all points. I doubt it could change at this point. I was thinking maybe just offer a table of deep $800 buyin on weekends, but I don't think they could manage it. They have enough trouble managing must moves in the 2/5.

I personally don't mind buying in 100 BBs deep and if they switched to 800, then I'd rather just play 5/10 and buy in for $1000. So I'm with Foxwoods in this respect and I'm sure I'm not the only one that thinks like I do regarding the buy in. Kind of goes against the thought of the buy in hurting the 5/10 game. But this is my line of thought..

This irks me, we all know the 2/5 game on Saturdays and Fridays run 7+. I understand not wanting to do a must move since they get all spread out. Under the arches, by the smoking doors (shouldn't be allowed to smoke in there anyways!!!!!!! That's the main reason why people ask for a table change away from the 90s) but why can't 2/5 get the whole row of tables in front of the cage and fifth street. They'll get filled eventually just keep the 1/2's off them and start opening tables under the arches for 1/2. This will allow the 2/5 to have a must move and not become a painful playing experience at 5:30-7:00pm every weekend because of people going upstairs to play in the 6pm daily.

Buy in for whatever you think is going to be most profitable at a given table. The correct amount will depend on your play-style as well as table conditions.

If there is one or more really bad players sitting real deep it is almost always best to buy in for the max, so you can give yourself a chance to build your stack and play a very large pot against them where they can possibly make a huge mistake. Also if you feel you are very skilled at deep stack poker and some of the otherwise solid regs don't play well deep then buy in for max.

However, even if you are very confident in your deep stack game it does not always mean buying in for max is your best option. I personally am pretty confident playing deep, but often do not buy in for the max when I am playing 5-10 or 10-20. One reason buying in short to start off can be a good idea is it gives you a chance to play for a few hours developing reads on the dynamics of the game and how other players are playing. Any hands you play these first few hours will involve easier decisions since your stack is shallower. Once you think you have a better feel for how a particular game is playing then you might decide to reload to full. A second reason I sometimes do not buy in for the maximum is sometimes other players in the game are not adjusting properly to short stacks. This could be for many reasons such as paying off a short stack all in too light, set-mining in 3 bet pots without proper odds, or two larger large stacks playing back at each other too light giving the short stack very profitable opportunities to get their money in.

Basically the best buy-in amount will depend not only on your play-style and ability to play deep, but also how the other players react to varying stack sizes.

The must move is a mystery. They only do it when all the tables are full, and cancel it when it when it will make one table short. Once they cancel it, it causes the floor to have manage locked empty seats and multiple transfer requests. Transfers are a problme for a few reasons IMO. #1. Leaving one 2/5 table with $1,000, and buying immediately to another $2/5 with $200. #2. Too many players jumping from table to table looking for better game. #3. Friends controling where they sit amongst 5 tables. #4. Allowing people to cancel their transfer request, yet remain at top of list for next option.

I think a well run must move would be great for the game. Less transfers. Less money leaving the game. And usually progression to table with more chips and action.

Good points. Thanks.

I don't have a problem with this. It's the same as a seat change button. If you have #1, a seat opens up, but you choose not to move to that seat, you don't have to give up the button. You maintain 1st option until you exercise it.

So my brother inlaw is turning 21 and him and his friends want to go to the woods about 12 people so need like 4 rooms called the bellisimo and they are booked best rate i can get at foxwoods is 369++ per room any suggestions?? Saturday 25th

Check out nearby motels. Comfort Inn in Mystic has rooms that night for $65. That was my go-to place before I got good status at FW.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/17...ffers-1168220/

check this link guys, thanks

AmericInn in Griswold is a nice option. It's closer to 395, and their current prices are $107 a night

About 15 mins from Foxwoods

http://www.americinn.com/hotels/CT/Griswold

Hyatt place near Mohegan had big rooms but I think their Sat rate may be high. I've stayed at that AmericInn and it is decent.

Let me rehash an incident that took place in a tournament. It is late in tourney 30 people left. I have around 85k blinds are 4k-8k. I am sitting in the 7 seat on the button. I have my headphones on it folds around to me, so I announce all in with A3. Both blinds fold, when I go to collect pot, dealer tells me the 4 seat moved all in before I did. Yet, he did not have chips out in front, nor an all in button. I know it's my job to realize what's going on, but I thought this was pretty terrible by the dealer not to throw the all in button out. Obviously I'm not over shipping with A3. Thoughts?