Presumably they wouldnt if the cap on total number of tables was even lower. At some number of tables (below the current max number of tables), assuming they start with 100% pit tables, and start adding tables, the marginal utility of an added poker table is greater than the marginal utility of an added pit table. Only so many pit players.

San Jose card rooms (Bay 101 and Casino M8trix) are only allowed a max of 64 tables per card room. (As of the last 2020 ballot initiative.)

The HUGE majority of those tables are kept as pit games, and not poker. The poker lists are very large at night, so they could easily be poker tables if the rooms wanted them to be.

Hi entire:

I guess the key question is are all the tables full when they have the long lists for poker?

Best wishes,
Mason

Good question! I haven't played during prime time in a long time. (Pre-COVID.) I'll check when I can and report back. I'm also interested if they actually have 64 tables running total. So I'll do a count.

They dont have 64 tables, they got denied the increase of tables from 49 or so because of the California Gambling Commission saying they cant have more than 25% of the tables they had in 1996 (which was 40). Dumb rule if you ask me, but hey thats the government.

I went to Artichoke Joes when they could only open up to 25% capacity. There were two low limit poker tables and the rest were California games. Its more like 50/50 prior to Covid.

Damn! That sucks. I found some links about it:

https://www.casino.org/news/casino-m...ble-expansion/
https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/04/...lates-the-law/

It's really a shame. I think the horrendously long poker lists really prevent a ton of people from attempting to play there. If there were more tables and shorter lists, I believe the games would be even better.

What's their logic behind allowing more/less tables in a card room? Why does the cap exist in the first place? I don't get it.

Power

Del Lago in Waterloo, NY just increased their rake from 6+2 to 10+3.. so sad

I don't understand. BBJs are terrible for good NLHE players, who won't always play the suited connectors or small pairs to hit. BBJs are especially bad if there are limit games in the same pool.

They do appeal to our terrible opponents and induce them to play too loosely, so I don't worry too much about it.

We are hoping to see 6+2 by April of 2022. Since moving to Vegas as "fulltime residents" we spend more time here than back east.

Hopefully the expected increase in rake will move out 15-20% of the 2-5 and 1-3 "pros" who are so bad for the games out here...

Also with less poker rooms the casinos should be looking at the next rake increase sooner rather than latter.

^ Unironic more rake is better jfc

25 years ago we were $5 max on our low limit games (higher limits got time. Maybe 15 we went to 5+1 when we added the bbj. Probably less than 5 we went to 6+1.

Inflation is a thing people! If that's affecting your profit margins so much, move up in stakes or find softer games. I can guarantee you rakes won't drop. We had a petition signed by a couple hundred OMC rocks demanding the rake go lower, management tore it up and threw it out. Every single person who signed it still came in every day.

Guito,

Just because people continued to show up and play when the request for a rake reduction was refused doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. Example: Gas continues to go up because the distribution and price is predominately controlled by OPEC and people still buy it, doesn't make it right. I know today's business model is Greed is Good, but many times that is a short sighted perception. Poker in my opinion would be much better long term for the players and the owner/operators if they reduced the rake. I could go on and on, but I think everyone who plays professionally or regularly understands this. Just wish management would.

$5+2 is destroying cardrooms all across the country. Plenty of rooms have less than 10 tables running most hours of the day. These cardrooms managers are totally braindead! If they were running a funeral parlor, nobody would die!

Anyone with half a clue knows the optimal amount to charge is $4+1. Price X Quantity = Revenue. Quantity of low stakes no limit holdem players is diminishing by the day. $6 a hand up to $8 a hand was a 33% increase! Dumbest move ever.

$4 in 2010 when I started playing and everywhere was 4+1 is $5.02 today when adjusted for inflation. I know of one place that is still 4+1 (Harrahs Kansas City), but it's the second promo dollar (and in many places, the ~10% rake/management fee that comes with it) that should go.

The newly reopened Sahara in Vegas is $4 rake last I checked. I'm not sure if there's a promo drop.

How have you determined that $4+1 is optimal? Is it optimal in every room everywhere all the time? What does the fact that many rooms are running <10 tables most of the time? Do you have any data to support $4+1 would increase live tables by 25%? If true maybe $3+0 would be better. OTOH maybe $7+4 is better in some rooms at some times. Maybe we should switch every room at every time f day and all blinds to time rake. After all poker seems to be booming in TX.

So far Iall I see are claims with zero support. Plus there are plenty of places where the games are deep enough and games are soft enough a $5+2 rake can be beat even in a 1/3 game.

I understand you don't like it, but how do you know casinos number and their perspective on this? What if they realized their revenue per sq foot is too low at $4+$1 and it's just easier to fill the room with slots? A lot of poker rooms didn't even open after lockdown.

Also, for any raked game(up to $2/$5) more rake is definitely better. People who play it DGAF about rake or how it affects their winrate because they came there to gamble expecting to lose. Whether they lose 90% to other players and 10% to rake or 80% players; 20% rake makes no difference. They still pay cheaper to play opposed to pits or table games.
Anyone who thinks grinding 1/2 or 2/5 in 2021 already has way bigger problems than rake.

I agree with the rest of your post, but I'm really curious what words apparently got left out of this sentence. Anyone who thinks grinding those stakes is +EV? (It assuredly is.) Anyone who thinks it's so sensitive to the rake that $5+2 is unbeatable? (It's not.)

Enquiring minds want to know.

Grinding poker 2-3000hr/year is not a long term viable career, unless you have a fetish for becoming obese, diabetic and miserable in your mid 30s. If you beat 1/2 for 10BB/hour that is only $40k-$50k gross income with no benefits and a terrible lifestyle. 2/5 is a bit better, obviously, but it has it's downsides. Consistent 2/5 only runs in what, 8-10 major poker spots that are all located in HCOL, so you'll need to use most of your winnings for living expenses. And for how long can you do it for? 5 years? 10? It's already way worse compared to 10 years ago where the stakes were the same, so no inflation adjustments. Your win rate presumably stays the same - questionable with all the training sites and chart apps but lets say it does, while your living expenses skyrocket and rake almost doubles from $4 to $7 with BBJ that you never hit because unlike the guys that do hit, you have to fold 55 or J8s to a 3bet in order to remain a winning player.

It is +EV in a vacuum, you will always beat punters and droolers but at a cost of wasting your life.

Lol I know you work at a casino, but are they paying you to cape for the ridiculous rake too?

I mean he makes some good points. For most people, poker is ideal to supplement your income or as a profitable hobby vs. being a sole source of income (unless you already have substantial assets and your just trying to cover expenses or you have investment or other sources of income). Exception can be people who have a low cost of living or just love the lifestyle/freedom enough to make it worth it, are incredibly good players/game selective and/or excel at higher limits or tournaments, etc. The rake is high and the trend will continue to be up while stakes won’t grow quickly. So they are valid points (though many of us know them already).

You have a serious reading comprehension issue. Where do I advocate ANY position that is pro casino. I simply stated the claim that $4+1 was optimal was made weigh no support. Every room or casino is unique and as such its optimal rake is also likely unique.

Even the term optimal is not fully defined. Optimal for short term or long term? Is there a cost structure variance which means the rake rate should also vary?

I actually did not advocate ANY rake as good or bad. Maybe even lower than 4+1 is “optimal “

BTW I have not said I work in a casino and your assumption is very wrong. I have recently retired from a on engineering career. Iron it now and never have worked in or for a casino or card room. As I am retired literally no one pays me anything for my opinions currently.

If you would like rebut my comments with actual arguments feel free. However given I did not espouse any specific positions it would literally be impossible to disprove anything.