But it is almost as if you are making out / describing the current lowstakes environment to be unbeatable? If that's your opinion (?), or if you think a high stakes only environment will be much more beatable, then fair enough. But I've beaten the current lowstakes environment handily for 14 years (although admittedly getting more and more difficult, and conditions are unarguably getting worse), so perhaps why I'm a little more wary of risking the status quo of eliminating the lowstakes games.

I also disagree somewhat if you think crowded games are keeping some real fish out. I think (?) you're making it out like some random bros are heading out for a Friday night at the casino and our ready to gamble it up at any game available (including poker), but of course then can't get on a poker table during the busy times. You're right in that there is no way they're just showing up and going to be able to get on a table that night (I'm in complete agreement there). But I actually don't think this player exists. 99% of players who sit at poker tables are week-in week-out regs; the random bro just out on a Friday night with his buddies getting drunk and wanting to sit down at a poker table to play some cards is a unicorn / myth. So while the lack of tables in a venue definitely cuts down on fostering a great overall poker environment (including table selection), I actually think it has very little affect on who shows up at the table (as you're just switching out one run-of-the-mill reg for another).

GimoG

Doesn't the poker experience across time and other cities (kind of) disprove this? Poker tables have toughened everywhere, but in many other places they're filled with recs even now. Many of Vancouver's tables also used to be filled with recs but are not any more.

So the recs are clearly not unicorns. They exist in most other poker cities and they used to exist abundantly here.

I agree with Carnivore. Vancouver's horrible wait times are the main/only plausible explanation for 20% of recs quitting poker in other cities, but 95% of recs quitting poker in Vancouver.

It really depends on how you define "recs". I know when I first joined the LLSNL forum a ~decade ago, the mod there was attempting to come up with a term for the people he played with. He wasn't really playing with pros (even though we all know people who fit this category, even at the lowly 1/3 NL live level). But he wasn't really sitting with drunk Friday night clueless gambloors either. He came up with a term CRC for "competitive recreational cardplayer", but you can come up with any term you like. The bottom line is that 99% of the players at your table have poker as their number one hobby and it is something they do week-in week-out (and sometimes even day-in day-out). It doesn't make them pros, and it doesn't even make them winners (most players have to be losers due to rake). But it also doesn't make them "recs" in the may the poker myth would have you believe (the out-of-towner conventioneer sitting down at a table for the first time, the clueless businessman with his tie undone and a drink in hand, the bro out with his buddies chasing women on a Friday night, etc.). I'll admit that I don't have a huge amount of experience elsewhere, but in the little experience I do have, it's the same everywhere nowadays in this regards.

Obviously having limited tables on a Fri/Sat night doesn't help the situation. But I don't think raising the stakes does either.

GimoG

I agree that 80% or so of the players are exactly the competitive recs that you describe. And of those players, I think 80% or so would be fine with the 1/3 100-400 tables all being bumped up to 2/5 200-500. Some might ***** a little, but then they'd still buy in and play just as many hours. Some would welcome the change, and some might see the benefits after a short period of being grumpy. The ones who would quit because of this increase are exactly the players that the poker room would benefit from weeding out.

Those unicorn players do exist, but they all walk by in the evenings, especially on weekends, see the long waiting lists, and go blow their money elsewhere. Most of us, whether pro or competitive reg, started out as these unicorns once upon a time. Those unicorns become tomorrow's weaker regs. But not if they don't get in the game.

This is exactly it. All this talk about regs & fish & # tables is all jibber jabber. You cannot expect a healthy economic industry if the regulator refuses to implement the conditions for that sectors success. This is true fairly uniformly across Canada, with Quebec & Alberta as possible exceptions.

I'm from Toronto, and words cannot accurately reflect how saddened I am that the Ontario gov't decided to patronize your wonderful export, Great Canadian Gaming, to run most of Ontario's casinos.

Sigh.

So long as the minimum BI is reasonable (which $200 in your 2/5 example would be since a huge percentage of 1/3 NL players already BI for that amount) then I would agree that most would probably stick around. But I would still be a little worried about the bigger game having the danger of slaughtering sheep instead of sheering them.

I think it will be very interesting to see what happens (with regards to stakes, rake, tables, #ofchairs, etc.) when all the dust settles and we eventually get back to playing... hopefully (???) sometime in 2021? As one who has done just fine in the previous environment, I'm a little less willing to have the boat rocked, but I have a strange feeling the boat will be rocked.

Gboredoutofmy****ingmindG

If you really want to see gaming take off in a huge way support UBI. If you just want to decrease nits then go to a timed rake but that might bankrupt GGeek, lol(I'm sure he would adapt - the sleeper must awaken).

The players who buy In for $100 at a time surely aren't players you are getting a large portion of your profits from. $200 min is an absolute must.

Side ramble: I've often wondered how poker games would be if they were run a little bit more like table games, meaning that if you don't bet anything, you don't get cards. In other words, something like a $5 ante game. Yes, this would be a large increase in stakes, so you could use a smaller ante to think about this if you prefer. Most casual players really wouldnt think much of tossing in a chip every hand, they often limp anyways. But think how much quicker and action packed games would be if everybody had to get their $5 chip out there if they wanted cards. No $5 chip out front, then your dealt out. Boom, 40-50 bucks in the pot to start every hand, action will be wild, max rake will happen every hand. The casino, the action players, and the pros will all be happy. The buzzkill nits and budget players won't be. Win/win. I know it's crazy, but I wonder if a structure of this style might be in pokers future somewhere along the line somewhere so that every pot gets max raked.

You can't be dealt cards at a blackjack table without betting at least $10 at Parq, and many tables were $25 (if my numbers are correct, I'm not a table games guy). 1/3 and 1/2 full ring poker are so cheap per round compared to table games it's a nits dream. Nits and budget players are not the casinos friend here. They create very low rake and cheapen the atmosphere.

What? 2/5 games + ante are a sure way to kill poker in Vancouver. That's essentially at least a 10/20 game. No way that's sustainable. Even in the states 10/20 games are usually the largest public offering game.

Guarantee there won't ever be more than 1 table running, if at all. you are really overestimating the amount of action plaeyrs willing to play a game in stakes that high. Probably would be like 8 pros and 1 fish in a game like that.

Would the dealer wait for each ante to be placed... or would the dealer just deal to those players who are quick enough to get the ante out there?

Players are bad enough with blinds... imagine having to do it every hand?

I would guess there would be MANY hands with only 5 or 6 players dealt in ... or hands per hour would drop dramatically (which would lower house rake).

It's just a theory about how poker could evolve or could have evolved more like table games. You can substitute a $1 or $2 ante if you prefer.

People are taking the suggestion too literally. But 2 blind NL games full of tight players often create a lack of rake One time I suffered through 30 minutes at a tight 1/3 table in Vegas where a dealer dealt his entire down without dealing a single flop. Therefore no take was collected. Tight play all around a table leads to very little rake, and the casino, instead of raising the max rake, should change the structure of the game to instigate more action, if NLHE is to continue being a prominent game.

And in such an ante game, players would be skipped over quickly if they don't get their ante in. They'd get their act together quickly.

But I think you are underestimating how many action players are driven away by the cheeseburger stakes environment and the wait list and atmosphere it creates.

The 5/T game at villa barely runs and only runs when there's the 2 fish that play on weekends.

If you're suggesting equivalent 10/20 games are the minimum, poker will literally die in Vancouver.

There's a reason why nearly every casino has their lowest buy in stakes at 1/2 or 1/3. You set the financial and mental barrier too high, there are never going to be new players in the ecosystem. Seeing half a paycheck for the minimum buyin just for them to slowly bleed it away and have no chance of winning against regs is not the way to attract fish to the tables. I'd much rather have them buy in for $100 and have them punt it off and then reload for another $100 and so on..

Speaking of action players, there are always tons of it at cascades or the plo game at parq.

Ive played plenty in all those games over the last 4-5 years, and the action was steadily drying up. Not enough tables and too long of wait lists. Home games stealing the action players at all locations. Poker no longer being on TV all the time didn't help either, as televised poker inspires casual recs to come play. Parq plo games can be atrocoiusly nitty, and cascades is infested with table change lists(not to mention it's a terrible environment to spend your time in full of slot machine sounds). You can find profitable games in Van and make money, but we all know it's been getting worse. 2018-2019 brought the rebirth of 2/5 at Parq and the increased number of tables did give us some hope though. At least some positives were happening.

@KookyStrength. You're able to name *one* poker room that has/had good NLH action and even that is in decline. Then, while the Vancouver poker scene continues its obvious long-term trend toward death, you're scared that raising minimum stakes might actually worsen that trend and don't think it's worth trying.

Is that right?


This strikes me as incredibly paranoid about some players disappearing if stakes are raised while radically underestimating the kind of action players that will play/return if wait lists are shorter.

The notion that there aren't enough people with money to donate at a poker table is nonsense. Such donors exist in every wealthy city in the developed world and play everywhere at all stakes if they can get a seat easily. They used to play in Vancouver. Most don't any more.

Watch the first two hands in this vlog. Note the narrator doesn't seem that surprised by the action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSewZZZOrNY

One player like this in Vancouver and there would be 20 people on a wait list to transfer to that table. But the table in this video is shorthanded!

Obviously, not every poker vlog has a deep stacked philanthropist-level whale playing at a half-empty table.

But let's say raising the stakes and shortening wait lists brings one action player a tenth that juicy while convincing 20 short stackers to watch Netflix at home instead of at the poker table. This is a WONDERFUL trade, don't you think?

Ultimately, what would happen if minimum stakes were raised in Vancouver? That's an empirical issue and we'd have to raise the stakes to find out for sure. But anything seems better than current trends and if raising the stakes does accelerate Vancouver's poker demise, it is an easily correctable error.

eh? folks change tables there a lot? what of it?

Cascades is like this.

A fish gets sent to a table. 14 regs start waving their arms and yelling to the pitboss 'table change!!!'

IIRC Cascades was not always like this.

Go back 10 years and there was crazy action at every table. I don't remember hordes switching, because they just didn't need to.

Well I'm talking about the 'present' state of poker, which pretty much means we're talking about 2019.

Nothing is how it was before. In 2015 edgewater plo there were fish punting big buy ins left and right, now you frequently see tables with 80-100% nits.

lol

Yes, my last post was a badly worded attempt to agree with you. My point was that Cascades used to have plenty of action players to go around. It doesn't any more for all the reasons already mentioned.

Ever since 2005, Poker has been on an obvious long-term trend towards death. This is not specific to just a Vancouver problem. Every city is facing the same problem, there are less and less recs playing at the higher limits 5/T and above.

Now you're saying instead of fixing the problem and trying to make the games more accessible for the new players to come, you're saying "let's accelerate the process by bumping up the minimum stakes 3-fold and pricing out all the potential newcomers, current fish, and weak regs".

Is that right?

All you're doing is filtering out the fish and weak regs (who are long term losers) and you're just going to have 1 table running, filled with 7-8 strong regs, with 1-2 fish. Eventually that fish is going to bust and then there's just going to be 7-8 regs softplaying each other waiting for the fish to come.

Does that actually seem like bringing poker back alive to you?

I'm sure casinos in Vancouver would love to make the minimum stakes for poker 5/T or 10/20 because they get to rake more in terms of dollar amounts, but I'm sure they've also realized of how it'd kill the game and the current minimal profits they're earning right now, would be gone. There must be a reason why they haven't implemented it. If you could think of the solution right to make more money for the casino while making the game more alive, they would've came up with it years ago.

You bring up the video of gameplay of a juicy game at the TCH. The TCH is probably the most well-known place for juicy cash games in the states right now.

However, if you compare AC or Vegas to '05, you'd realize that poker in general has been declining and both cities nowadays are a shadow of themselves.

The casino's need competition instead of the government managing the duopoly like a cartel and their own cash cow.

What a world where our government advertises gambling to us. I understand making it legal and regulated but they know some lives will be harmed through gambling addiction yet they advertise and let casino's have night clubs to get the young and bingo halls to get the old; as many addicts as possible. The government is not on our side.

No. It's not right. It's so wrong that I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or deliberately misinterpreting what I said or if I should take your word choice literally or not.

Where, for example, did I say I wanted to "accelerate" Vancouver's poker decline or price out "all potential newcomers, current fish, and weak regs"? Please quote the text for me if you can find it. Otherwise, I'll take your word as non-literal henceforth.

I'm pretty sure I said something to the effect of wanting to price out the 6 short-stacking Netflix watchers at Vancouver tables while having more seats open for action players who hate wait lists.

As for who else might be priced out [or be attracted to play by shorter wait lists], I said that knowing the impact on the player pool can only be settled empirically but it's an experiment worth trying because such policies are easily reversible.

You're the one who seems very confident in their forecast of how both the absolute numbers and ratios of fish / wealthy businessmen / newcomers / regs / nits / Netflix watchers / etc. would change.

As for poker dying everywhere, that is sad but true. It's dying a heck of a lot faster in Vancouver, though, and I think it's worth trying something new [that does not require major legislative/regulatory change] to fix that. Changing the stakes might be the only easy experiment available and its reversibility means virtually no risk.

Do you have a suggestion for a better experiment?


Again, I don't know how you can know the impact on profits. Perhaps poker table profits would go down, but those tables might be replaced by slot machines or baccarat tables - this is apparently a profit-increasing move since casinos have been making exactly these replacements.

And maybe higher stakes would kill a lot of the smaller games, but Netflix-based short stack games are not worth keeping alive, IMHO.


I mentioned in the last post that the video is an extreme example [I called the donor a "philanthropist-level whale"], but the basic point still stands. Action is vastly better, though still declining, in other cities. This is easily verifiable by playing in other cities, talking to people from there, or just searching on Google and YouTube for blogs/vlogs.

And the only plausible reason I can think of is that the major action players don't have to wait hours for a seat. If that's true, we should do what we can to make their wait shorter, even if it scares off a lot of a lot of other players.

There is a Bart Hanson hand analysis video in which he hears that a caller is from Vancouver and instantly says "Oh, I hear the poker scene in Vancouver is just really shitty [for all the obvious reasons]..." We have a reputation. If anybody can find that and post the link here, I'd appreciate it. :-)

So, do you still think that raising the minimum stakes for, say, 6 months at one casino, is not an experiment worth trying?

There is tons of money in Vancouver. The games can stand a higher "lowest limit" imo but the games have to be made more fun. Timed rake, ante's, bomb pots, short-handed tables are the way to go. Button straddling has been horrible imo, utg straddling is fine. BBJP's are probably bad as the nits come in to play when it gets big. High hand promo's are probably bad as they reward nittiness.

See, you think low stakes makes the game accessible. I think low stakes makes the game inaccessible by creating long wait lists with games full of low budget players creating an uninspiring atmosphere.

I've played all over the world, and in plenty of places where 2/5 or 3/5 is the minimum stake offered. Parq absolutely should be one of those places.