The tables don't have cupholders???

to the posters who feel that the straddles make the games play tighter - where have you experienced this??

We are talking specifically about how it makes the blinds play tighter. They won't limp/complete with hands they would've normally limped or raised with. To put it bluntly, it removes an element of skill/edge from the game. It blasts the pot so people are tighter preflop and the effective stacks are smaller. Nothing wrong with an UTG straddle.

They don't have built in cup holders but do have individual cup holders that you have to request or grab one from the little serving tables.

The ones that you can wedge under the rail? Ugh I hate those. They take up room on the table, and often allows cards to slide under the rail.

As someone who plans to put in high volume here, count me as one more player strongly opposed to the MS straddle in NLHE.

That's the one and cards have been sliding under many times already. They need to do something about cards keep sliding under the felt.

Recovering from a long weekend at the casino. My impressions so far -- love the place, including the poker room. Sure, there are some issues that need to be worked out, including drink service and the line at the cage to cash out; but all-in-all, a great room. The giant bravo board for the waitlist is fantastic. And, text messages will eventually improve the system as well.

My biggest issue was not poker related. it was getting home at the end of the night. While there is apparently a designated Uber pick up by the second floor valet, no drivers are aware of it; and, if they are, they basically could not access it due to gridlock in the valet circle. Friday night, my driver ended up in the parking garage. It took 25 minutes (and a walk across the entire casino) to find her. Saturday night, I NEVER found my driver. Spent 10 minutes on the phone with him before my battery died and I had to go in and recharge it at a slot machine. Ended up getting lucky and hopping in an empty cab (good timing), which cost me $30 instead of Uber's $8 to get home. Spending 40 minutes trying to catch a ride at 4:00am is not fun, and I hope they work the kinks out. Almost makes me not want to go back this weekend. Almost.

Johnny, great job so far.

An experience I had with the one-chip all-in rule:

I announce “all-in” and throw the two chips I have in my hand into the middle. The dealer announces all-in. The player left to act (who is sitting directly next to me) tosses two chips in the middle. I cover the player by a large amount, so I move a stack forward to make the pot right. The dealer asks the calling player to push his chips forward, but he says he never said “all-in” and thought he was only calling the two chips. The floor is called and they say this is not a one-chip all-in room, and you must physically push all of the chips forward, so he gave the option to the other player to forfeit the two chips and fold, or go ahead and call the all-in.

This would be evidence to suggest that one-chip call is not always being enforced as binding.

To be clear, it's the MS straddle (or button straddle to be even more specific) that I and others have an issue with. I have played with a button straddle and in my experience, it makes the blinds play much tighter than the traditional UTG straddle. This is due to the fact that the entire table, including the straddler, will act after them. Thus the play tighter and enter less pots than the without a straddle or with an UTG straddle. I have no issue with the more traditional UTG straddle. Again, just my experience. I plan to play a high volume here as it is MUCH closer to my house than any other casino. So I hope for no MS straddle in NLHE.

I've heard this complaint before. In my experience the complainers usually are nits who don't straddle themselves. Action players generally enjoy being able to button straddle and they don't mind when someone else straddles on the button.

Similarly, most action players like getting the money in the middle and shorter effective stacks help that along.

Went twice over the weekend and played mostly 1/3 nl

Impressions :
Pros
- Room is brightly lit and feels roomy
- Dealers were mostly competent with a few inexperienced ones. Will improve with time
- sign up with the giant screen by brush is a breeze. Friendly folks at the brush both times
- comfortable chairs
- USB ports under each seat
- seats were comfortably spaced out

Cons
- No clear table signage.
- Cannot table change easily. Tried to table change away from a full 2/5 table after I was seated a few mins and was told no?? Settled for a 1/3 table instead. Not sure what's going on & their rules for table change. Managed to get to another 2/5 table after a bit. But confusing process
- Dealers seem indecisive at times. Letting the inmates run the asylum so to speak. Again will get better with time & experience
- Cards going under the felt cover is a nuisance. Probably due to the cup holders as someone mentioned
- a bit confusing about where to go when called. Do we get escorted all the time or do they just point us to the table? Especially when there is no table signage

---

Beautiful property - let's hope it is well maintained and they work out the kinks systematically.

Claiming that button straddles do not hurt the blinds indicates you don't understand how position works in poker. Obviously, if you are forced to act first in a hand where you would otherwise be allowed to act last, that it harmful. Basically, the blinds are forced to fold almost everything, often hands where they would otherwise be able to check. This is what makes the button straddle both unfair to the blinds and tighter.

I believe that a fair poker game should allow each player the opportunity to play in each position an equal number of times. This is not true if some players are straddling the button; the players in the blinds must play out of position more often than the players who are in the blinds when the button is not straddling. And they change the blinds' position of action with respect to -all- players in the game, not just the straddler.

Note that I am not complaining that the button straddles create -more- action. I think they create less action. They do make the game larger, but they also make the game shallower and tighter, meaning there is less "action" in the form of meaningful decisions.

I also don't object to UTG straddling, which although it makes the game shallower, does not force others to play tighter and does not unfairly change the order of action.

Finally, I should make it clear that I am not saying this because I am a nit. In fact, when a game allows button straddles, I almost always straddle the button because I believe it gives me an advantage. But just because I think something is advantageous to me does not mean I believe it is good for the health and fairness of the game.

my review:

pro-nice looking well lit room
chairs are great
I found the floor really nice and helpful, even though the were being run into the ground
nice selection of games
98% of dealers were squared away
was able to watch all the nfl games i wanted

cons- mixed drinks don't fit in the cup holders. drunks unite!
the cards, I can't win with 8,3off. I'm not that good. I blame the deck-mate Would like this fixed immediately.
On a serious note, my number one complaint was the number of complaints I heard. I swear to god I heard someone call the floor over with concerns over the carpet. When there gonna vacuum is so low on my list of things to care about. relax folks.

overall, congrats grooms. I think you have a winning situation on your hands.

I drive both Uber and Lyft. Lyft sent an email to all of its drivers with very clear instructions on where to pick up, where to drop off, and where to wait.

I did not get any such information from Uber.

As for the line at valet, I have not yet picked up at MGM, so can't comment...

I appreciate the snark, but it's ill-placed.

As you correctly stated, when there's a MS straddle available, non-nits will take advantage of it. Everyone has the opportunity to do it, so everyone has the same opportunity to play the same relative position as everyone else.

Reducing effective stack sizes tends to favor lesser-skilled players and increase variance, which I think is good for the health of the game as lesser-skilled players might see more wins or winning sessions in their long run this way.

The MS straddle is a market differentiator for MGMNH, so time will tell whether it's better than going without.

Agreed with some others, Mississippi straddles are bad news

Everyone does NOT have the choice to play the same relative position. Because whether or not you are forced to play out of position in the blinds is not up to you, it is up to the person who is on the button when you are in the blinds. Being able to straddle your own button does not make up for this disadvantage, unless everyone is straddling the button. It just disadvantages whoever happens to be in the blinds when you are on the button.

No your example is a standard gross misunderstanding ruling. If you had slid out enough to cover Villain and Villain threw in one chip they'd be asked to put out all their chips before the hand continued.

Has a certain MDL regular that goes by the name of a Roman emperor transitioned to MGM?

If there are players who wish to play with a disadvantage by not straddling, I'm OK with that. The point is they have the option to straddle, so it isn't a fairness issue.

To specify my point about fairness:
Lets say you are at a six-handed table, in seat 1. To evaluate the relative fairness of each seat, let's assign a point value to each position. Assuming that acting last is better, and thus acting first preflop is worth 1 point and acting last is 6 points.

Normally, each player would get 1+2+3+4+5+6=21 points of position per round.

But now let's say seats 5 and 6 only are straddling the button.
In the SB (button in 6), you now act first (1 point), instead of 2nd to last (5 points)
In the BB (button in 5), you now act second (2 points), instead of last (6 points)
You position is the same in all other hands, so you now have 1+2+3+4+1+2=13 points of position.

Let's compared this to seat 4, who has not chosen to straddle
This player acts 5th instead of 3rd when the button is in the 5 seat, and 4th instead of 2nd when the button is in the 6.
So the player in seat 4 now gets 1+4+5+4+5+6=25 points worth of position.

You claim is that you can even this up by straddling the button yourself.
By straddling the button, you now act last instead of 4th when on the button.
Thus, you get 1+2+3+6+1+2 = 15 points of position.
You are still much worse off than when no one was straddling the button, and you had 21 points of position.

The 4 seat actually benefits further from this, as he now acts 3rd in a position where he would otherwise act 1st.
So the 4-seat has now has 3+4+5+4+5+6=27 points of position.

So by straddling yourself, you are not able to make things fair for you. Your straddle (a) still makes you significantly worse off than if no one had straddled; (b) does nothing to resolve the relative inequality between you and seat 4; and (c) merely increases the overall inequality among the other players at the table.

So you can't make things fair for yourself merely by straddling, because straddling changes the relative position among players who are not the straddler. This is my biggest objection. (This is not true of UTG straddles!) The only way to make this fair is for no one to straddle or everyone to straddle.

Verbal is binding tho, no? He said all in when he threw the couple chips out there.

Then I'm fine with agreeing to disagree on whether that's a fairness issue.

Once again, I'm fine with people not button straddling if they wish to avail themselves of that disadvantage.

But choosing to button straddle (or not) yourself does NOT remove the disadvantage of other players choosing to button straddle (unless EVERYONE straddles). That's what I'm showing logically in my previous post, and I'd like to know what you disagree with in it. I'm not meaning to be snarky, but it really seems like you don't understand how position works in your argument.

Did he say it loud enough so everyone on the table could hear?

Was it reasonable to assume that the other player must have heard him and knew that the two chips represented all his remaining chips?