The comps are pretty good IMO, though I'm no expert. I also think the food choices at the Shoe beat Live by miles.

The promotions aren't terrible either. The progressive bad beat is a nice little compensation and when they were doing splash pots (not football pots just regular splash pots) the game got really wild. They don't have great promos EVERY month but neither does Live!. You just have to watch both and pick the best choice for the time.

Rapini, seriously. you are incorrect, comps are a subset of promotions. I would bet that the budget is titled, promotions, and then the subsets are those I copied, plus whatever else the op gets, that I do not see on bravo.

I would be interested to know more about what the op was talking about.

I get 1.25/hr for my small amount of play at ML. I suspect next year, I will get the next level of comps per hour at ML.

Maybe we are dealing with a difference of definitions.

To me:

Promotions: High hand, BBJ, Splash pots. Paid for out of the player funded Jackpot drop. Joe Blow walking off the street can win won on his first hand ever at the casino.

Comps: Rooms, food, free play, comp dollars to be spent in shops or restaurants. Paid out of poker room operating expenses, not the Jackpot drop. The more you play, the more you get. Joe Blow playing one round of Poker gets zilch.

Regardless of the semantics, I think the point is that what you copied in your response is itself a very small subset of the benefits of playing at Horseshoe.

This is correct.

squares and rectangles are different
squares are a subset of rectangles
therefore, squares = rectangles

It doesn't work that way.

A poker room could have good promotions but bad comps. Sands PA comes to mind. A poker room could have good comps but bad promotions. Borgata comes to mind.

It's 100% official 3/24-4/5/2015 @HorseshoeBmore $150 buyin $500k Guarantee. $100k + @WSOP ME seat to the winner.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AnthonyCh...08142634856448

Just showed up to start pink heads up. They tell us they're going to charge us full time. Ok, guess we're going home. ???

I can confirm that this happened. I don't run a poker room so I don't know quite how business decisions get made, but if people showed up and wanted to give me money with the potential of encouraging other people to come give me money, I would try to encourage that. I know from talking to people that play this game that they look at Bravo and are much more likely to come out if they see that it's actually running.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using 2+2 Forums

Exactly what do you think they should charge ?

Half time? We normally get that at 5 players or less.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using 2+2 Forums

Which is?

How much is the House going to collect per hour from two guys?

Casinos usually charge half rake short-handed in the hopes that it will keep the game going long enough to fill up. It's kind of understandable that they wouldn't want to open up a new table heads-up at 1am if they can only collect $10/hour from the whole table. That game is not likely to fill or even stick around long.

Precisely.

Lots of dealers from up the street might want to play when they get off at 2. And most casinos are happy to open a game heads up and charge half time because it's better than not having a game open and making nothing. Half of something is still more than all of nothing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using 2+2 Forums

This +1million

Also curious to anyone who's informed: for pink chip horse, is paying time a better value, or I standard rake typically "cheaper?"

My impression is that if the table is full and you are playing one of the slower games (especially Stud 8), time and rake are pretty equivalent. If the table is at all shorthanded, time is much cheaper.

I'm of the belief that paying time is a much much better value over the long run than taking rake. Even when there is a slower dealer, time is still a better option. I'm hopeful that the people at the table who are constantly complaining about the time charge stop because one of the floor people said if if they keep getting complaints it will change to rake

As long as they can get at least the number of hands per down as there are players, I can't see how anyone prefers rake. That's just mathematically unfathomable.

What mix is being played right now in the pink chip game?


Sent from my SM-N910V using 2+2 Forums

You might still prefer rake if you are playing significantly tighter than the average player at the table.

Thanks. That's kinda what I figured but wanted to be sure, as other players have insisted that rake was better.

I guess the only downside is If you can't seem to win a pot, paying the extra "tax" may seem a bit annoying, but that's poker I guess.

I am also a pretty big fan of the "time pot" or "1/2 time pot" where the first 2 pot-winners of each dealer will pay the time from that pot. Everyone has to agree though, and usually there's "that one guy/gal" who won't take one for the team.

Do they usually offer half time shorthanded? Most places don't afaik because you're automatically getting more hands per time charge anyway.

Even if you play tight (I am usually very tight) I think time is still better especially for pink game at the shoe:

Assume an average of 10 hands per down: 10 percent rake capped at $6.00. 9 handed. If pots get to 60.00 most of the time 6.00 comes off per hand or $60.00 per down (four big bets or eight small bets per down). If the pots are less than sixty dollars on average per down say 40 dollars on average per down (2.66 big bets per hand). That is less than the price per down in time ( 45.00 or three big bets.... However this is still no good for the player.

Consider that your win rate is 1 big bet / hour averaged over many hands. If you pay time that is 2/3 of a big bet per hour. If you pay rake at the "loose" 60.00 pot game that's 4/5th of a big bet per hour .... 2/15 of a big bet more than for time. So the loose game is a no brainer. Add in that more money that you could be winning is coming off the table it is even more compelling .

Now, consider the tight game. Assuming you can win at these games, which is doubtful to begin with, you need to be ante / blind stealing and bluffing / semi bluffing weak players with a fairly high frequency to come up with that 1 big bet per hour. Means you need to win a lot of small pots: now YOU will be paying a disproportionally high amount of the rake yourself... Often at full 10 %. Good luck coming up with 1 big bet per hour after the rake doing that.

So in the loose 60.00 game (which actually, you'd probably need a good deal of small pot grabbing to come up with a winning rate) it is obvious that time is better.

In the super nitty game you're going to need to take down a lot of pots and end up paying more than you fair share of the rake, which is even worse.

Now in the crazy action game where 150 pots are common and you wait to pick your spots. Say you win one pot an hour on avstage.... at a rake game you do pay less. But more money per hour comes off the table (120 per hour rake vs 90 time). That's two more big bets per hour that you can't win.

Given these scenarios, all things equal, time is clearly better. Even if you bide your time and wait long periods to win the loose fish will run out of money faster.

Yes they do. I believe it starts at 5 handed for the pink chip game.