I definitely support (and have been advocating ) third man walking.

I can't imagine a place with really long wait lists not strictly enforcing a 3rd man walking rule.

Was at parx last night for the fourth time and first losing session. Could not getting nothing started and was getting run down all night long. But I will be back , I ain't scared. Does anyone know when parx will be serving alcohol 24 hours a day, I've never been there around 2am before but there was a mass exodus around that time and every table seemed like it was just regs.

Around 4 am we got a new player sat at our table and one of the regulars greets him by saying " welcome to the shark tank " I just loled and picked up

You regs crack me up in these threads. You are all so concerned about your health and comfort that you forget that whats ultimately best for you is to GET MORE FISH.

What do fish want?

no waiting lists - 10 vs. 9 has a huge impact on waiting lists, if you go to 9, youll have much longer wait lists, which means someone casually wanting to walk in and play might see a list 20 deep and say "F that im not waiting" and leave. meanwhile if tables stay 10 handed, that 20 person list is only 2-3 people and Fish has no problem hanging around for 10 mins.

to be able to smoke - get all whiny with being able to smoke at the bar and youll get less fish because smokers tend to get pissy when they cant easily get a light. ive been there multiple times all over the room and havent smelled a thing unless the guy next to me just finished smoking.

Its just ridiculous that everyone debates and bitches about such little issues not even realizing that they are driving away the casual players and thereby decreasing their win-rate. I dunno about you, but I'd rather win $15/hr and be a little cramped rather than win $10 an hour and be able to spread my legs lol. Do on a diet!

I could be wrong, but i dont thing this will be happening.... ever! It is pa state law to stop serving alcohol at 2am.

Correct. It is also that way in the Indian Reservations in CT.

However, there is a glimmer of hope for extended hours...

This bill is on again/off again in the PA legislature. It would permit sale of alcohol until 5AM.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...r=2206&pn=3147

sorry to derail the thread, but if that bill was passed would it just be for PA casinos? Or would it include all bars?

Floor last night after hearing me say that they might put in a bad beat jackpot:

"No plans for it soon. Earliest is next summer. Dropping $6 a hand takes too much money off the table and players go broke faster."

Awesome that they are thinking like that.

This would be a reversal of what Ari told me a while back.

There will be no BBJ at Parx [period]

I mean he basically said it wasn't happening. If it was it would be this summer at the earliest. I'd be down if they dropped the rake...

what is 3mw rule?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the idea of going to 9-handed tables would only be implemented once the expansion happens. Wait times shouldn't be much of a problem then. And I'm not so sure that having 10-handed tables reduces the wait time. I say this because, with 9-handed tables, we will have a better chance of keeping must-move games alive. With the must-moves in place, wait times should be reduced.

Different versions of the bill have it both ways. One way - casinos only. Another way - many bars.

OK - I could buy that. At least the extra $1 would go toward a lottery ticket, not just down the hole.

Edit: Nah - F-that. I so hate the very principle of the BBJ.

Third Man Walking

We changed the rule so anyone dealt in can call the clock.

We have no plans for a BBJ.

Also "We changed the rule so anyone dealt in can call the clock."

Great work again Ari. Every change you have made is showing why Parx is going to be the place to play poker.

400 players 10 handed = 40 games. 400 players 9 handed = 44 games.
$5 rake each hand and an average of 35 hands per hour = $175 per game. With the four extra games the house would rake $700 more per hour. If they could do this 7 days a week, 10 hours each day, 365 days a year the house would rake $2,555,000 more in a year (700x10x365). This is more money directly out of the players pockets. I can't see why anyone would want to play 9 handed in a raked game, except that they are too cramped. These numbers are hypothetical, but it's easy to see why the casino would prefer 9 handed games.

If this is right ? Im going to change my vote to keep it 10 handed.

Well, in theory, it "could" happen like this. We could also find Democrats & Republicans working together to make our country a better place... but, that's almost as much of a long-shot.

The "casino" is not forcing this down anyone's throat. The "casino" is asking the players which configuration they would prefer. The "casino" understands that happy players = more business = more profit.

There is no poker room on the planet that can keep 40+ tables going fully seated, for 10 hours/day, 7days/week, 365 days/year... and always draw maximum rake from averaging 35 hands/hour. The argument is waaaaay too slanted to the extreme. I have no inclination to redo the formula's with some "real world" numbers, however.

But, the point is well taken - even if the example is not accurately describing the real-world potential.

There have been innumerable discussions & debates over "who actually pays the rake" - I do not want to start that up here, in this thread. But, let's just assume for a moment, that it's just "money out of everyone's pocket".

The more significant contribution to a (good) player's P&L is, the dynamic of the game, that will be created by the number of players dealt in. That has been discussed in previous posts, here in this thread and also in the strategy forums.

The rake, as it comes directly out of your pocket, or expressed as "money off the table" - is trivial, compared to this, when comparing 9 v. 10 player tables.

You should base any decision about what you'd prefer, based on your overall assessment of: a) the type of game dynamic you would rather play, b) your ability to adapt to changing game conditions c) your understanding about the difference in value between a made-hand and a draw, based on real and implied odds and lastly (but not the least), your game selection ability - you're gonna need this one.

The rake differential is so far down the list, it's almost a rounding error, compared to these.

[QUOTE=IFSATG;23377581]
There is no poker room on the planet that can keep 40+ tables going fully seated, for 10 hours/day, 7days/week, 365 days/year... and always draw maximum rake from averaging 35 hands/hour.
QUOTE]

The numbers are just an example, but even two extra games at less than maximun rake every day would make a million dollars a year in rake.

nine handed is better for everyone

The rake is high on my list when selecting games to play. It is the reason I will not play 2-4, 3-6, or 4-8 limit or 1-2 NL. 10 handed vs 9 handed is a 10% difference, that is not trivial. 9 handed will not change the dynamic of the game and it will be the same players, they will just be paying more rake. Although they might have more leg room.

They will also win more pots. You need to consider this when you consider the higher percentage of time you pay the rake.

As for more tables meaning more rake collected, this is true (though as mentioned it is mitigated at a winning player level by winning more pots), and the effect of taking more money out of the poker community (much like a BBJ) is one that should be considered/investigated.

It's worth noting that it actually becomes less important once the tables are all filled, because when all available tables are occupied, the rake collected is the same regardless of whether they are 9 or 10 handed. At that point, the issue becomes one of wait lists.

It is true that you will win more pots 9 handed. If you play heads up you will win a lot more pots, you will also pay so much rake as to make it unprofitable, unless the rake is lower. More pots does not always mean more profit. Losing players win more pots than winning players because they play more hands, of course they also lose morre pots.

If the room expands to 60 table it will rarely be full and 9 handed games will mean more rake collected. In time games it will mean less rake collected, but they are a small percentage of the games.

Stop focusing on how much money the house makes, based on the rake of x-players/table and concentrate on how much money you make, playing in the dynamic of the game.

FWIW, the incremental rake not $1M, trust me. You are not taking into consideration the avg drop/time/table. Nor are you factoring in the avg # of tables running, over a full year. It's actually more complicated than that, too.

You might not play (or shouldn't play) those games because you can't beat the rake in general (2/4 and 3/6). At 4-8 and above, you can beat the game. I know many people who consistently beat 1/2NL for $10+/hr. But, NL is a different dynamic and does not suffer anywhere near as much as limit games, based on # of players - as you can manipulate the price in that game.

It's not a 10% difference, BTW. You have to factor the number of hands you are involved in, pots won and avg pot size. The effect of rake in a 9 v. 10 handed game is not contributing to the toughness around beating the game.

Exactly!

Yep - although, when you analyze how much of that ""community" money would end up in your stack, that's pretty low, in general. Not many of us play 7X24X365. It has an effect, just not as great as some rake-focused thinking would have you believe.

Absolutely true!!!

Wait lists aside - the issue is the value of hands. You have to adapt to the # of players dealt in, since this affects which hands you can (should) play profitably... again - a limit concern much more than a NL concern.


We're getting way OT here... so I'll end with this:
My point continues to be, if Parx goes 9 handed (in limit games), I will not be able to extract maximum profit as much as I may like, due to the fact that the real possibility exists, that the game may be too short (at times) to play the hands that afford the the greatest profit potential. It has virtually nothing to do with the rake structure, including the small amount of money "out of the community" - based on my (or anyone's) annual playing habits.

I don't give a rats-ass what they do with NL, because: a) I don't play NL and b) 9 v. 10 handed is significantly less relevant at NL.

For limit players, I strongly urge you all to understand this concept. dinesh, I know you get it