I guess it's nice to have a discussion, but this question is really an empirical one. you won't know what happens until you try it.

Three questions I have that MGM did not know the answer to when I called and asked:

1. What will the rake be? Will they be raking in fifty cent increments?

2. Can bets be made in fifty cent increments?

3. Will it be a blue chip or red chip game (i.e. when someone buys in for $50, will they get all blue (50 blue chips) or will they get 10 red chips?

The person I spoke to did not know the answer to the above, and said to check back on monday, when this game starts spreading.

In a more normal economic climate my instinct would be that this idea is terrible.

As a stopgap in times like these though... I'm not so sure.

Well, if it leads to more dealers, then it helps dealers as a whole, but this isn't factoring hourly wage into effect.

If 10 dealers are making $20 an hour (40 hours a week) on the old system, and 15 dealers are making $16 an hour (40 hours a week) on the new system, then all the dealers are individually less happy, even if there are more of them. I doubt dealers are looking enough into a potential long-term effect, where more players in several years will tip more at higher stakes.

Also, I dispute that this will bring in more recreational players, simply because the buy-in for 1/2 is $40 min. The new minimum buy-in is $20 for .5/1. While I agree that many new players are terrified of losing $100, and this may deter new players at other casinos like Bally's, the low minimum buy-in at MGM lead to a lot of new players trying 1/2. I don't think the new system will encourage even more newbies to come, it will just cause them to drop in stakes.

I don't think it would hurt the casino, it would hurt the 1/2 game.
I never seen a .50/1 NL game but I have seen a .50/1 Limit game at Miccosukee in the Florida Everglades (Far West Miami). They also rake .50 every $5 on that game using the .50 chip
I could see a 1/1 NL, why bother getting .50 chips or half dollars on the table.

I'll give it a whirl. I generally play the smaller limit games, and have always been somewhat interested in learning no-limit, because I have heard (and sometimes seen) how bad some of the players are. What's prevented me from doing so is the fact that I can potentially lose $200 or more on a single hand (running into a set, or whatever), and my bankroll isn't big enough where I can really justify that. But $50 or $100? That's different. I know most people think that $1-2 is small, but if I'm sitting there with say $300 in front of me and I'm in a hand with someone who has me covered, that really doesn't feel like low-limit poker to me.

So like I said, I'll probably play at least few times just to check out the game and see how it goes. And once I become comfortable playing no-limit (if that ever happens), then perhaps I'll try some $1-2. And you know what? There are probably many others like me. So I think the "experiment" is more likely to work than fail. We'll see.

I'm a 50NL online player, and I just booked a weekend at the MGM last week without knowing this. I've played a lot of $1/$2 live in LA, but it's still a little above my BR. Looking forward to .50/$1 there, as it will be much closer to what I'm used to playing, I'll be able to play my game much better.

Cool, where else could you come in behind the button, sit through 8 hands, order two drinks and not spend a dime? Cool!

Actually I guess you could sit in for 8 hands in a lot of limits and get your free drinks. So it could be 2 drinks for $1.50 every 10 hands. Sounds like a great drinking game!

And they'll all be on welfare, because $4/down doesn't pay the rent.

q/q

This is exactly why limit is a *far* better entry-level game. What's the difference between getting stacked once for $100 vs getting stacked twice for $50? Weak players simply get more play for their money at limit. That means a better experience and better long-term return traffic. Save NL for tournaments, where it belongs.

Because it busts the fish out far too quickly, and they ultimately stop playing. That's why NL stakes keep slipping lower and lower and lower, while limit stakes are actually edging higher.

Lol kid.

I've been in the business a long time, long enough to see beyond the end of my nose. You don't steer your customer base off a cliff and then pray to the market gods to save you. Actions have consequences, and a smart businessman needs to consider the long-term impact of his decisions on the health and viability of his player base. Busting all your weak players out in a few years is *bad business*, regardless of whether you blame "the market" or the tooth fairy.

No, there isn't. Seriously.

And that was a very, very, very good thing.


q/q

The market actually determines the game. The Mirage tried to hold on to limit games to the exclusion of no-limit and didn't do so well.

No Limit is here to stay. When limit was the only game around years ago, every game had someone saying, "You wouldn't have called that in no-limit."

Fewer novices (fish) nowadays because everyone has access to on-line poker or lives within a hour of a poker room.

The game now is no-limit. Pot-limit seems to be making inroads in some markets, especially Europe. Limit just doesn't have the excitement that no-limit does for novices.

Every low limit game still has someone who does this.

This argument is flawed. Fish aren't forced to play NL at gunpoint. They have the option of playing limit and many of them do.

There is a certain arrogance in your statement, that without smart people like you to protect the fish, they will just bust out never to return???

Your logic is flawed here. If the entire table is full of fish, then they will simply slosh money back and forth amongst each other just like they do at the limit games. The only thing that would differ is the rate of money sloshing back and forth on a per bet basis.

You are treating NL like some sort of 'evil' that fish need to be protected from. Again, that arrogance of you know best. Seriously, do you fear sharks will come sit down at a $0.50/$1 NL table and eating all the fish?

What is to prevent sharks from doing this at 2-4 Limit?

Again, how does giving your customers what they want a 'bad thing' in business.

The difference is entertainment value. No Limit is 'sexier' than limit, players see it on TV and they want to be just like the TV pro poker stars. Again, seems like you are trying to be 'smarter' than the market. Who gives a crap. If the poker populations 'wants' it, then GIVE IT TO THEM.

As for better long term return traffic. I think that is a fallacy and would think NL generates the same or even more because that is what the public wants.

As with anything, there are pros and cons.

One con against 1/2NL is that you can bust out in 5 minutes.
One pro for 1/2NL is that you can make a $1000 in an hour or two of run good.

Again, seems like you are trying to 'dictate' what people 'should' want as opposed to just being observant and 'responding' to the market.

I have absolutely no idea how you arrive at the point that low limit no limit like 1/2NL, 2/5NL, and 5/10NL is a bad thing????

If the customers want it, and come to the casino for it, then how is it a bad thing?

FWIW, I have experience in Strategic Planning, New Product Development, and Program Management. I'm overly familiar with Old Crusty Business Veterans (OCBV) who have been 'doing this for years' and know everything there is to know about 'the business'.

And then you propose a new idea to them and they give you a million reasons why it just won't work.

Even when customers beg and scream for it, the OCBVs know best.

Then the competition anticipates market demand and gives the customers what they want, and the OCBV scramble to play catch up or sometimes just live in denail.

This really is no different. Especially in a market as diverse as Vegas, you have to carve out as much market share and differentiation as possible.

Another point is that online poker is changing the face of live poker. MILLIONS of people are playing micros no limit. So how could you not adjust to that fact???

I'm going to be staying at MGM for 10 days in mid-March, with a few friends joining for most of that time. A few thoughts on the new small stakes NL game at MGM:

1. As someone who plays 1/2 and 2/5 (or 10/20 limit, in the rare cases that's available), I do worry a little bit about the impact the new game will have on 1/2. I doubt there will be much migration of players from the new game to 1/2, so the real question is how much migration there will be from 1/2 to the new game. At first blush, it seems there will be quite a bit.

2. That said, the friends who are joining me in Vegas are elated to hear about this game. None are serious poker players, and only one of the five plays online at all. Most would not play in the 1/2 much if at all. Now, however, they'll be sitting in the small game, guns blazing. Their dollars--previously unavailable to be won by others due to their reluctance re: 1/2--will now be available to people willing to put up with the micro-stakes. The MGM, of course, will get a big share of those dollars too.

3. I'll try to post some observations during/after the trip. I agree this is largely an empirical question.

Amazing narrowmindedness here.

It isn't that complicated. This is a game for those who just got "poker lessons." It's designed for them to have an intro game, and as such, is a great idea. We need fresh blood. Always.

If it fails--if there just isn't enough demand--then, wtf diff did it make?

But if it succeeds, then it's good for the house. Anyone who wants to play 1/2 still can. This just lets some newbies get more bang for their buck. That's a good thing. It makes the room more attractive for wife and GF parking, too.

I understand that 1/2 nits are worried, but who cares? If the 1/2 nits leave, the 1/2 games will be better; if the 1/2 games get better, the nits will return.

And dealers aren't going anywhere, and even if they do, there is NEVER a shortage of good dealers (when you come across a room with poor dealers, it's because management doesn't care or isn't able to judge, not because there aren't good dealers looking for work).

For a bunch of gamblers you guys are amazingly afraid to see a chance taken.

Yeah, actually there is. The top 5% -- the game-builders, the ones that really *make* a room work -- they don't hang around for $4/down. They find better jobs, because they're good, they're connected, and they *can*.

For $4/down, you get the C-list.

q/q

sounds good, K. curious to hear your take, and definitely your friends' take
(their reaction so far may be a clue....?)
have a great trip

My favorite Cardroom in Vienna introduced 1€/1€ (buy in 20-100€) 2 months ago. Until then the smallest stakes nlh game was 1€/2€ (buy in 50-200€)

A typical friday until last December looked like this:
6 tables 1/2€ No Limit Holdem
1 tables 2/5€ No Limit Holdem
1 Omaha Table 2€ Blinds

And since the new small stakes game it really is like this:
3 tables 1/1€ No Limit Holdem
3 tables 1/2€ No Limit Holdem
1 table 2/5
1 table Omaha

I am really pissed, because it's hard enough to beat the rake in 1/2 games here in Europe. It's IMPOSSIBLE at 1/1. And every thinking player stayed at 1/2 and the bad players moved to 1/1.

In fact it ruined the game here; Dealer are pissed because they can't get enough tips at the 1/1 tables.

It's the second cardroom in Austria to move down in stakes. The first one who did this now has 50c/50c tables running, and on weekdays you can't find a 1/2 there.

I know the Vegas card rooms, I was there the last two summers, and I really can't get it with the .5/1$ tables. There are enough costumers to sit down with 100 in a decent 1/2$ game.

Why don't card room offer this tables just one day a week as promotion for new players?



@QuadsOverQuads
I agree with everything you said about the Limit / No Limit Discussion. I think younger players don't know why Limit Poker was introduced decades ago. Bad Players had the possibility to stay at the tables their entire lives. In No Limit they get slaughtered.

I really hope that Omaha will become the next big live thing. I can see making bad players thinking they can draw out on everyone in Omaha like they believed in Limit Games. And I can see the variance making suckers believe they are winning players. In No Limit Holdem I saw players loosing 10.000€ in one month at 1/2€ and never coming back to the tables after the shock

I don't get what everyone's so worried about. This is a $50 max buy-in game. It is for beginners. It is for people who want to play NL on a 2-4 limit budget. Any player that was happy to buy in for $100+ at 1/2 isn't suddenly going to switch to the 0.5/1. And there are going to be plenty who will play at these lowest stakes who would never play poker otherwise.

Has Flamingo poker room lost all it's 1-2NL business because Bill's offers 0.5/1NL ??? Of course not. And Bill's is a full buy-in game. And it's probably less of a walk from Flamingo to Bill's than it is from one side of the MGM poker room to the other.

You really think the downs are going to be that far below 1/2 NL downs? No one lined up for 1-5 spread limit stud as a dealer, but it wasnt that different in BI level from 20-50. Sure some cheapskates toked a quarter now and then, but it was a down. I think people are right, microstakes players are the next market slice the casinos want. The dealer crowd should STFU or watch them put in electronic tables. If that happens, watch NL25 rear its head in the casino. Or
see the smaller stakes players opting for single table electronic SNGs. Then busy cardrooms happily slash payroll and turn underpants into manies.

No, they're not.

Casinos are there to make money, not supply free entertainment to people who are too broke to use dollar chips.

q/q

Exactly. This is why the person complaining about a $40+$15 tournament is dead wrong. The casino is there to turn a profit, not to give what you perceive to be a fair shake.

My poker room* has 0.5/1 and its dead.

*the one I try to go to

any news about these tables? rake etc?