Quote:
Originally Posted by -THEWETWET-
2 5 is fine with 100% I doubt any 2 5 reg wants the game capped (and I am not referring to you guys who are taking shots) ,I sure dont ,always nice to play deep if fish runs hot .we better get the money before they walk out of the poker room because the pit isnt worried about long term sustainability. 2 5 is drying up fast already not ever going to be much bigger games except for special occcasions or when organized which has nothing to do with 2 5 100%. Cap the 1 2 at 200 and force people who want to gamble bigger to move up and maybe we will see better than a 10 to 1 ratio on 1 2 to 2 5 games running. Would be gross if casio made 2 5 500 cap rake already sucks and ask any regs if they think there will be bigger games that end up running regularly, not a chance
So you're saying that we should keep the 100% rule at 2/5, skinning all of our fish (forgive the mixed metaphor) instead of sheering them over and over again, and the justification for doing this is that the pit will get them if we don't?
I think your argument makes a big assumption about poker fish being degen pit gamblers.
Take a long term look at your plan (over 1 year) and compare that to what you already know to be true: the casino has been open 3 months, and already in that time you've seen "2/5 is drying up fast" --- if you continue to kill the fish at the same rate, whom will you be playing against next year? 2/5 will be reduced to pro grinders, and at worst good recreational players with the very occasional fish. Not a game that you're going to want to play in, regardless of the uncapped-ness (sure it's a word) of the game.
I will say that putting a cap on the 1/2 game would be good for the 2/5 & higher games, b/c if you table select now you can play 1/2 with stacks over $1000 so there's not as much incentive for players to play at the higher limits.
Still, though, if you're being honest with yourself I think you'll agree that the 100% rule, while GREAT for the here & now, could be the reason that the poker room goes belly up down the road. I'm not saying I know for sure what the future holds (maybe the advent of tournaments will be a boon for the room, bringing in a whole slew of new players and will offset some of the concerns that the 100% rule brings to the long term sustainability of the room), but on a theoretical level, the 100% rule is bad for the room long-term.
Please don't take that as my personal preference -- I've enjoyed the deeper 2-5 games -- but I'm also concerned where the game will be long-term with that rule in place. My only bias comes from wanting a constant 2/5 game that is beatable, and if you take the fish out of the game, it becomes harder to beat. I'm not like you (I assume), where I'm depending on the room for my livelihood, so extracting every single dollar I can right now isn't my biggest concern.