I play a lot of NLHE in SoCal and I go to Vegas once a month to change things up. In LA I play 2-5 and 5-10, and mostly 1-2 in Vegas because I REALLY like free drinks. Someone in another post asked about the 2/5 in Vegas vs. comparable games in CA. During the week there are probably more 2/5 games being played in SoCal than there are in vegas. Is that an incorrect assumption?

It has been my experience that the 1/2 players in Vegas, during the week, are mostly loose weak who buyin for the minimum I could be grossly mistaken, but it seems to me that SoCal is a better place to make money playing poker than Vegas. I learned to play in Bay 101 and The Garden City. I think that the action is better in California because the recreational players have, on average, more disposable income than recreational players in Vegas. The Bay Area and Garden City in particular is full of bad/rich players who are there for recreation. The Silicon Valley economy is very strong and full of mid-40's engineer types looking to relax and play poker; while Vegas seems to be full of old retired men looking to grind out Denny's/Depends money.

When the games get good in Vegas it is because there is someone from out of town, most likely from California. YEAH YEAH YEAH my sample field probably isn't large enough to justify my claims but my logic makes sense.

...start flaming now.

If it isn't generally accepted, there's certainly many on 2+2 who agree.

This is by far the largest demographic I've seen at Lucky Chances, and though it's been awhile since I've played in LA I remember similar things about Commerce. I also have absolutely no idea what they do during the day to get their money.

From what I have seen you get the asians that are splashy and then the guys that are overly loose because they are used to playing with the asian degens.

Everytime I have ever sat down and someone has mentioned they were from LA they have played far worse than the "vegas pros"(pros used lightly).

I agree with your premise but it feels incomplete.

I am the silicon valley tech guy with disposable income playing poker for relaxation demographic you describe and I play at Garden City. The thing is, I can instantly recognize fellow geeks, engineering types, high-tech people, etc. And there are a few of them at GC but not very many -- and not many of them are donators. Broad-brush, they are usually the tightest players there.

I think the two biggest demographics at Garden City are wild/loose asian degens (primarily vietnamese & filipino) and average (not loose) working-class white guys. Neither of these groups strike me as getting their cash from a high-tech job. Most of both groups are middle aged or older, not especially smart (compared to the average engineer), and I'd be hella surprised if 50% were college educated. In short, just not the type.

Maybe the overall economy puts some cash in their pockets (eg all boats are lifted by the tide) but is this secondary effect really what you had in mind?

All other demographics are a distant 3rd and beyond. Offhand the order (starting at 3rd place) is probably working-class asians, white degens, retirees, mexican & middle-eastern working class, ballas, techies, rich donators, ...

redundant imo

I think you are off on a couple of things...

1) LV is a small metropolitan center compared to SF Bay area or the LA basin. There are simply more people feeding the poker economy in CA resulting in more players in the games and more games to select from.

2) The LV scene ebbs and flows based on tourist population and poker event of the week. Your one week of hell could be next weeks gold mine. It just depends on what is going on.

You are right, there is way more poker money in CA. And other poster is right, a table full of engineers is not exactly where you'd prefer to play.

Now I am probably jinxing my next LV trip, but I play almost every weekend in LA and go to LV primarily for LHE 3-4 times per year. My record in LV for the last 8 trips is 7 wins versus 1 loss. I WISH my LA weekends had that kind of ratio at "home."

LA has more players - and they are "pushed" into poker because of the restrictions on the other ridiculous table games. So LA should always have more poker happening than in LV. BUt LV gets that tourist/conventioneer dump in that LA just doesn't get. My results are "anecdotal" evidence to confirm my opinion that games at lower limits are softer in LV than in LA.

I live in LA and there's some truth to this but it's important to remember that more visitors come to Vegas from SoCal than from anywhere else, and these tend to be the people with the most disposable income of all.

Middle-aged and older Asian degens? They get their money from their families. The same is true of the younger guys, although in a different way. The older guys live with kids, who often earn good livings as middle managers or VP's, and the same for their spouse. The younger guys (40 and under) often live there as well, and drive hand me down cars. As a result, they have very low expenses, and a lot of disposable income even with a fairly modest job. I know of several co-workers and friends that lived in this sort of arrangement.

LOL- I wasn't trying to play the RACE CARD in the Garden City example. I used the "40 year old engineer" as an example of someone who may not be playing super serious poker and may have some cash to spare. All of my poker experience at Garden City is an 8-16 half kill and below, and some spread limit. I was really not trying to offend anyone but the old salts in Vegas; my apologies to the poker playing engineer's of San Jose.

It is good point that the populations of LA and SF are much greater than that of Vegas.

The reason I posted this "theory" is that I was considering moving to Vegas to play full time (its cards or law school). I am trying to get a feel for the 5-10 nl games in vegas because I know that they can be crushed in here in LA. However, the cost of living in LA is much much higher than in LV.

I definitely was not offended (was someone offended? I missed it), I thought it was an interesting theory.

Unless you really dislike your home, why not do the same in California? Sure, cost of living is greater, but your "salary" (winrate) likely is too.

I guess that's what you were trying to determine. I don't have first-hand experience, but everything I've ever heard indicates LA mid-stakes games are much softer than same stakes in Vegas.

I'm sure a baseball team that plays .875 ball over eight games wishes it would hold up, too. Your sample is so absurdly small, and your "record" so unsustainable, that you'd be crazy to draw inferences from it.

A complete quote without editing would have been much more fair to me and my original post. I did state that my evidence was "anecdotal." You cut that part out. And since a person can't make hundreds or thousands of individual trips to LV in a short enough period of time, anecdotal evidence will be as good as it gets. I disclosed the small sample number. What else would have have me do? Others have mentioned before that sample size objections are overused. I think your comment and intentional editing is a clear example of that overuse.

I have sustained a .750 winrate over one trillion visits to Las Vegas (750 billion wins, 250 billion losses), but I'm sure someone will say my sample size is too small.

Your sample size is fine, but the games have changed since then.

I suggest Law School

Difference between the economics of recreational players in Las Vegas and recreational players in Commerce, the Bike, HP, HG, is this: Disposable dollar for disposable dollar, more money is available in the LA cardrooms than in Las Vegas, simply because in Vegas the money is subjected to an invisible rake: travel and hotel expenses.

And don't forget that LA is, and always has been, the poker capital of the world. There was a time when there were more tables at the Commerce alone than in the entire city of Las Vegas, and more in LA County than in all of Nevada. Probably not true any more since the boom got going, but there still is more poker in LA than there is anywhere else.

I currently live in Australia and when i visit my brother in L.A. i am in shock at how much money flows thru the card rooms in Cali better yet with the cost of housing in L.A. I would love to know how people can afford to play

6:1--1/2 dozen.
Like another poster said, a lame weekend in Vegas could be a goldmine next depending on the right crop of out of towners. From my experience though the "regs" in vegas are terrible.
In the general scheme of things I think the players in LA are bad, but so many games below 10/20NL seem to be capped, there might be more money to be won in vegas in NL games due to no caps/higher max buy-ins for games under 10/20NL.
LHE I can't speak for.
Population wise, there is obv a much larger poker playing rotating population in LA just b/c of the sheer size and vastness of the basin.

As far as where does the usual terrible fish get his money from in LA; well the other day at a large cardroom the guy next to me went busto. He said lock the seat up, and as I went to my car to get my phone, I saw him selling Louis Vuitton bags and Cartier watch knockoffs out of the trunk of his car lol.

Say "hi" to the Iceman for me next time!

"while Vegas seems to be full of old retired men looking to grind out Denny's/Depends money."

I lol'd.... but yeah, I agree, in part. I don't think the Cali games are softer.. but there is a greater % of regulars at your table at any given time and I think over the long term the game is easier to master and therefore seems "softer".

I play at HG and Commerce and it's 90-95% Asian fwiw.