What about killing 1/3 and changing the 1/2 buy ins to ~$80-300?

Thanks for the feedback, Scott. Incidentally-- and I've almost been afraid to mention this for fear of jinxing us back to the Arctic-- the temperature in the room has actually been pretty comfortable lately. To be able to sit there, no sweatshirt or jacket, no shivering, no frostbite, and just be able to enjoy and focus on the game, has been great. Yeah, the 2 and 3 rows are still a bit cool and breezy, but it's definitely better than it was. If the a/c issue is finally fixed, we thank you. (And if we're just riding a lucky a/c streak, let's hope it continues!)

Also, if offering food in the high-limit area is not going to happen, how about increasing the comps for those games? (I was going to say just offer a $X voucher per session to each player to use for a meal, but instantly realized there would definitely be people who would just buy in there to get a free lunch and then rack up after they ate.) Thanks again.

I think the only reasonably adjustment short term is to raise the 1/2NL max to 200. The max is then 5x of the min buy,the same as 2/5NL.Leave the 1/3NL as is and see what happens.From a business perspective you cannot just double the price of admission(min buy in) without reducing your customers.Besides $40 is 20 times the BB,same as 2/5NL.

Scott, thanks for the reply concerning a 1-2 bigger buy in. I don't know if adding a 1-1 is a great idea but the 1-2 would be a better game if it was a $200 max buy in. Id even be satisfied if it was $40 - $200 and I don't think the short stacks care if others have more money. That would also allow the $1-3 to still play if players want, I just don't see how there could be any negative effect caused from this.

Thanks for your consideration, maybe a few 2+2ers could meet with management for a meeting and feed back

yes, please change the max buy in 1/2nl to $200 please. $40-$200 would be perfect.

also i do not like the new felts, too flashy. but new chairs would also be nice.

20*5=100. Minbuy for 2/5 is $200, last time I checked.

I don't comment on specifics of games offered, etc., simply because, as the above threads show, there are people who come down on each side, and that's why I think a lot of this discussion is pointless.

HR is a business and I've got to think that that if they are rational (assuming that for the moment) they are offering the games that they think will draw the most customers, taking everything into account. They could be wrong, but that's what they think currently. Yes, there are 10 people on here that think the 1/2 cap should change, or that game should have this rule on straddles, or running it twice, etc., but there are 10 others on the opposite side.

While there are a fair number of people on this board who "know" what they are talking about, what you have to keep in mind is that I think what they are saying (without trying to put words in their mouths) is that "this is how it's done in many other rooms" or "this is how it's done in established rooms and this is what real players expect".

While that is likely true, it doesn't mean that HR should do the same. It doesn't mean that they should do differently either. It just means that reasonable minds can differ on what makes the most sense (remembering that "sense" for us means making the most money, whereas "sense" for HR means separating most of us from most of our money).

That's fine. They are a business and that's why they exist. I think if we all backed up for a second and recognized that we have divergent interests, we would at least stop talking over each other and also avoid a bunch of "do this"/"no do that" posts that really aren't going to get us anywhere.

Since Scott is here, I think we can tell him the things that we know (and HR should recognize) will be beneficial to all (fixing wait times, temperature, food service, chairs, etc.). But, short of taking a vote of all the players in the room to decide what games to spread, I can't see how we should expect HR to change something because, of 30 people who read a message board, 17 of them think it should change.

If we do expect that, I'd be willing to lay good odds on many of us being disappointed and therefore giving up on pointing out or working to fix the remaining items that would make it a "better" room for all involved.

(Then again, there's always the chance that I'm just full of poop)

All of the above post shows proof in it's entirety that this management team has little knowledge of the poker world as a business.

I really have not been one to call out other rooms unless it's clear they're doing things that are A) bad for the customers, & B) bad for the games, in turn bad for the customers.

Sadly, this place qualifies in both regards. Four or five simple things could make a world of difference and smash the competition. But just a couple things done wrong can kill the room.

I've been on both sides of this business on/off or associated through family since 1974 as a teenager. Both limit and no limit, when NL was practically unheard of being played anywhere other than during wsop. A complete rethinking of this rooms strategy is in order imho.

Best wishes.

Sorry, but I have to disagree completely with you on this one. Ultimately, any business wants to do stuff that makes customers happy, and thus brings in more business. So customer feedback is usually sought after by good companies. And customers rarely all agree on anything.

But if you look at these posts, for example, the one issue everyone agrees on is that the buy in for the 1/2 nl should NOT remain at $100. Not one single person has suggested it should stay as is. At a minimum, everyone thinks it should go to $200. But the Hard Rock has refused to do this. Why?

It's because when NL was first offered in FL, it came with a $100 buyin limit. So even though that meant the games had a buy in that was far smaller in relation to blind structure than anywhere on earth, but especially to Vegas, the place with the most experience attracting poker customers. But they had no choice.

So then the law changes. But the HR is afraid that a group of their customers will leave if they don't offer a game that keeps the buy in max at $100. They are afraid of losing the "little guy". But rather than offer a "little guy" game like 1/1 with a 100 cap, they keep the 1/2nl cap at 100. And since people still play that, they don't want to change it. They refuse to look at other casinos that have run poker for years, and see that they all have at least a 200 buy in for 1/2nl.

And those are in markets like Vegas and Atlantic City, where there is a great amount of competition for the poker player's business. Yet even amongst all the competition, all the casinos still have at least a 200 buyin at 1/2nl. It's pretty obvious that if a casino in Vegas or AC believed that a 100 cap 1/2nl game would bring in more players, they would do it. In fact, they would jump on it. And yet none do.

Yet the THR stubbornly maintains it's "what the players want" when in fact they have done no polls, or market research to indicate that. They just believe that since people play it now, they must like the way it is and won't try and change it.

It would be simple to do a trial and offer a 1/2nl with a 100 cap AND one with a 200 cap, and see how the people respond to it. Just like companies display two versions of a website home page or banner, and see which one gets more hits. It's not really that hard to do, IF you are really interested in making the effort to determine what the customers want.

Don't assume just because the HR is a business that it is full of savvy business people that know what they are doing. It has taken over 2 ****ing years for them to make the room a comfortable temperature. It's been a constant complaint of everyone, regs and tourists alike, and yet nothing was done. So for 2 years they knew they had a situation that customers hated, and was causing people to leave early, and they didn't do anything about it.

That's how a business can roll when you are practically the only game in town.

Browser, I don 't think we are actually disagreeing all that much. My point was that having that discussion here is, most likely, meaningless. Posters on this board are most likely NOT a representative sample of the HR clientel, and certainly not of their 1/1 or 1/2 players. We are more educated of what is the "right" game, the "right" way to play, and the "right" way to run a room.

I would be all for them testing X game or Y game in the room to see what is more popular with the customer base as a whole, and that's really the way it should be done.

But when was the last time you spoke to someone at Derby playing 1/2 and they said they would have gone to HR but they didn't want to play with a stradle or a $100 buy in? I'd guess that's a very small pool of people who would make that distinction at that level.

But notice that you actually give the reason why they still offer this particular game: That this is how poker started out in FL and so they are scared to change it, etc. (Plus you point out that they have little competition here, which is another issue unto itself.)

So they have a reason for it being the way it is and they think in their business determination that this is the best way for them to operate. They could be right, they could be wrong. Clearly they have decided to take the "bird in the hand" position. Yes, they are refusing to look at other casinos in LV or AC, but they are doing that because Tampa is not a market like those.

Your last point is really the main one though - they are, essentially, a monopoly. While they (I assume) want to maximize revenue, they are still making about a million times more than they ever thought they would when they built this place and there was no poker and only slots or whatever it was, and so they are probably fairly content. Hence the inaction that you referenced.

They can change, but without a reason to....

You guys are pretty much saying the same thing with slightly different views, with the big picture view being what many have been saying for a while which is that THR's generally has a (non)customer driven philosophy as it relates to the poker room. THR is a virtual monopoly and they more or less do what they want with the poker room, regardless of player feedback (for the most part). With the old room manager leaving and Scott's presence here there may be some hope for positive changes, but as Abh states, without a reason to change (with the reason being increased competition) why change?

As for the 1/2 issue, it would be insanely simple to increase the max buy in to $200 while keeping the min. buy at $40. This would still allow all of the old man coffees to sit and wait for AA/KK with their min buy ins and the weekend warriors who are playing "slot" poker to gamble to their heart's content with their stacks of whites and purples. This minor change would still keep them all playing just as long as opposed to losing their money faster and would keep the rake train chugging along for THR's 1/2 games. It's hard to imagine anyone complaining about this overly simple yet pragmatic solution.

As one astute poster (I think it was WheatS who puts in a lot of hours and is very knowledgeable about the room) already mentioned there are a lot of players who sit down at 1/2 and "buy" in for $200 thinking that this is the max they can buy in for at that game. Of course all the THR has to do is ask the dealers who see this day in and day out, but why do this when you don't have to?

Abhorsen has made some great points. Why would we expect the Hard Rock to make fundamental changes to their 1/2 structure to appease the loud voices of 5 or 6 posters on twoplustwo if doing so risks undermining the rake donation of hundreds of recreational players? And why would they want to meet with two-plus-two posters for tips on how it is done in Vegas instead of soliciting input from random recreational players? If we must complain, why not harp on things that improve conditions for everyone: better chairs, decent hd tv’s instead of the current abominations, normal temperatures, replace lightbulbs that burn out in the seating displays, better system for waitlists, ongoing high-hand promotions, eliminate or greatly reduce the bad beat pool. I agree with Abhorsen, that’s where the focus should be.

I guess my math needs some work.

+1 on the chairs,not sure about the new felts yet.

Removing the straddle is a terrible idea that displays a fundamental failure to understand the game. We need more straddling, not less. The disruption from people acting out of turn is insignificant compared to the value it adds. Allow restraddles or larger sized straddles.

1/1 is a terrible idea I think most of us agree so I won't go into detail on it. it's clear we also agree the 1/3 doesn't run often enough so it wouldn't hurt to get rid of it, so I won't get into detail on that one either.

the 1/2 however could be changed to make us 2plus2ers happier w/out disturbing the rec player. the $80-$300 BI suggestion is too big. it would def scare away some of the customers by doubling the min BI overnight. also, with stacks so deep, the fish will go broke too fast. I believe $60 to $200 buy ins will do the trick. playing 100 bb deep will satisfy the more serious customer, but will not scare away the rec player because whoever showed up to the poker to buy in with two 20 dollar bills, will also be willing to take out 3 $20s or an extra 4 red chips.

wrt the Mississippi straddle, it should be left as it is now. one way to keep customers happy is by letting them do w/e they want. having the option to straddle whenever they want is one way to empower the player w/ freedom. and we shouldn't worry too much about the out-of-turn action it creates every now and then because usually the players who act out of turn are fishy anyways.

wrt to the promos, having a monthly promo that only lasts 4 days is terrible. def get rid of "Wednesday only" type promos. they do not make anyone happy. I do agree however, that promos that require certain amount of hours over a certain number of days/weeks is not the best option. it is best for us the regs, but if we want rec players to show up every day, we need every day promos. fish play poker for the opportunity to get lucky that day. to win something THAT DAY. so let's give them that. high hand promos are great to bring players into the room any given day. give em (and us) $$$ for high hand every hour or half hour, $$$ random drawings by seat or table or spinning a freakin wheel, have a $5k or $1k super-mini BBJ where the qualifier is not so far-fetched (like Aces full w/ only one card needed in ur hand). and of course make sure to promote it well so that everyone finds out. i'd rather increase my winrate by having the room full of weak players chasing jackpots, than accumulate long hours for a gas card. plus, we spend a lot of time in the room so we're gonna hit some of those "small" jackpots occasionally anyway.


I have opinions on other important matters but i'll save those for my next post. i'm glad we have a poker room rep here. hopefully he doesn't vanish like the last one and hopefully we're able to make a positive difference through this thread.

I was thinking about the fact that effective stacks are cut in half once the big blind is doubled from a straddle, thus restricting the amount of post-flop play (which I thought was where good players have the biggest edge, but apparently I'm wrong). I was also thinking that anyone who wants to straddle could still do it, but from out of position. Then the edge that better players lose from stacks being shallower can at least be compensated by the fact that they can play the hand in position when the straddler calls a raise, instead of being perpetually OOP vs. button straddlers.

Yes, I understand it's beneficial to have people putting extra money in blind preflop. And those gamblers will be just as happy to do it UTG, so let 'em. I just don't happen to have a big hand and/or hit the flop every time I raise, so I prefer a little more room to maneuver post-flop.

That's what I was thinking when I said I'd prefer to do away with the Mississippi. Apologies for my fundamental failure to understand the game.

How's the action been lately? Thinking of coming down for a few days to enjoy some sun and poker.

This is not likely to happen but there is something else in mind regarding Bravo rewards. I'm sorry I cannot tell you more than that right now.

Requests for new chairs have been noted. I will certainly let you know if I have an update.

Several of you have brought up the BBJ. There are many things we are taking a fresh look at, this is definitely included.

There are no plans to change the straddle rules at this time.

Recreational players are still going to be recreational players... they will still be around if the games get changed. It's not as if some guy that loves playing poker at the hard rock while retired is never going to come back because the miniimum buyin got raised to $100 at 1-2. The status norm at the hard rock is ridiculous with how shallow the games run vs almost every other poker room in the country. With a short period of time I'm sure the room wouldn't miss a beat.

At first, some players might be turned off by the fact that they can no longer buy into the most popular poker game in the room for $40 - but eventually a $100 buyin at 1-2 would become standard and acceptable to most 1-2 recreational players. In the very short term there might be some 1-2 regulars that shy away, but in the long run it would make the games a million times better and would definitely be a long term gain in terms of profit for the hard rock.

Poker is not meant to be played so ridiculously shallow - the Hard Rock should suck it up in the short term and raise their limits - the only reason the $40-$100 buyin range exists is because of the legal limits that used to be imposed - without such legal limits the game buyin should be laughed at - as it usually is by most players.

Min buy in of $100 just is not going to happen

Its the summer,which is the slowest time of the year at the THR.You get 6 or 7 2/5NL tables on fri/sat night at peak times over 8 to 10 during the rest of the year.

Scott,

Would you be open to discussion about ways to promote the high-stakes games in person?

Cross post from William Mason from HHR regarding the 10MM guarantee satellites:

+2

Raising the min buyin would affect some recreational players. A lot more than raising max to $200 or even $150. If you are buying in for $40 it matters little if the other stacks are $100 or $200. Let the shorties play short stacked and let others buy in for a reasonable max.