Would it be best for poker in general if slow, bad, underperforming poker rooms be closed? Consolidation is best imho. Dead rooms, like Sahara in vegas, send a bad image to casual casino patrons.

Let the market decide. I remember a room at the back of a bar with old-style coke lamps over the table. It was otherwise a dark and dreary place. Long since closed.

Competition is good for the players. It keeps the Rakes and parking costs low. Only cost is certain games don't run as much because they don't have as large a player base. As a result you get certain rooms having certain games like one room will have a lot of PLO, another room will have high limit Omaha games, etc.

I understand that competition is good, and I would advocate for that, but many rooms do not provide competition but dilution so to speak. Like , Sahara poker room. They do not have any cash games 80% of the time and are lucky to get a quasi tourney twice a day. By quasi, I mean 1 table. Close that room and those meager amount of players would migrate to another room. I would rather have 5 busy rooms in vegas than 10 with 5 being barely viable.

You can't have it both ways, either they are 'low performing' or they 'dilute' the market. If only 8 players are there at a time, they aren't siphoning off much from the larger rooms.

Further, going to the casino with a top performing poker room isn't the only alternative if you shut down the low performers. Not playing poker at all is an alternative.

Go to poker atlas and read the reviews of markets with just one room. The rooms own poker in that market and they act like it.

Um, dilution is dilution no matter how small.

I would think for the majority of those players the decision is between playing poker at Sahara and not playing poker at all.

By closing those rooms you increase the number of players at other rooms but decrease the number of total players. I guess there are arguments for both sides.

Who is going to make the determinition to close an under-performing room?

The room itself has already made its decision. Whether it's profitable or a reasonable loss-leader, the casino wants to keep it open. I doubt the gaming commission would mandate rules for keeping a room open (or amend whatever rules they currently have in place).

I think it's unreasonable to expect a casino to close a room they want to keep open because it would be better for poker and ignore what they think is best for the casino.

If you look at Vegas, you still have a local Player base as well as some amount of Dealers that may want to play, but don't 'have' to play or want to wait to play. Smaller rooms offer an opportunity that would otherwise not be there. IMO

Obviously it comes down to the management and their opinion of the revenue v service provided and 'optimal' use of the floor space and staff.

You saw how Players were forced to make decisions when Planet Hollywood's room was shut down and to a lesser extent when Treasure Island closed their room.

There needs to be rooms 'open' where Players can go and not feel that the lists are impossible and all the tables are filled with sharks. Aria, Bellagio, Venetian and Wynn all have perceptions of 'serious' games. When I brought my wife to Vegas I couldn't go to any of those places since it was pretty late once we finished up 'our' schedule and she went back to the room. I didn't want to wait 'hours' to play.

You don't hear anyone talk about The Orleans being shark infested. Yes, it's a bigger room, but not everyone wants to go to a 'first class' room to play and this fits the bill for sure. I don't care if it's 'just' 1/3 NL, it feels different in different rooms and some Players don't want/need that 'big time' feel when they are playing poker. GL

Been to Bellagio and Wynn. Would hardly call the shark-infested.

I'm really not sure why the OP thinks that having less choice is good for players, if anything we need more rooms (re-)opening, not further closures, although I'm fully aware that in many places it's completely unrealistic to expect that to ever happen

Theres a couple casinos in in each province in Canada and a few casino owners across the entire country and what you get is the best poker room in the country having 16+2 rake for 2/5. Thinking you need less competition for better poker is an extreme lack of reality.

Vegas is unique in that even with about 15 poker rooms closing in the last 10 years, there's a couple left that could still close without hurting the competitive market at all. And by a couple, I mean the Sahara and the Westgate. The rest of the unnecessary rooms have all closed, and I'd say the loss of the Planet Hollywood room stands out the most to me as a room that was fun, busy, different, and a room that I would've liked to have seen survive.

And in Canada one could argue that the poker rooms in Alberta, that just recently raised rake from 5 to 7, benefit from competition. Playground has the high rake because it has no competition and is near a big city. I believe they also offer free food and drinks which is worth something, as well as hot waitresses and other perks.

Planet Hollywood has never been a room (at least in the past decade or so) but has rather been a poker area. They never had a wall-to-ceiling floor that separated them for other parts of the casino other than when they had their Goliath series in the summer upstairs.

Wall-to-ceiling floor or floor-to-ceiling wall?

By that measurement, most poker rooms in LV casinos aren't actually poker rooms. There's nothing floor to ceiling at Bellagio other than for Bobby's room for example.

I'd probably want to see what happens when Fontainebleu opens before thinking about closing Sahara and Westgate poker rooms.