Hi Everyone:

In April of this year, Two Plus Two Publishing LLC released my latest book Cardrooms: Everything Bad and How to Make Them Better; An Analysis of Those Areas Where Poker Rooms Need Improvement:

https://www.amazon.com/Cardrooms-Eve...8019460&sr=1-1

and while we have this book up on Amazon for sale, I feel that the information it contains is important and would like as many as possible to read it. So, since the book is divided into six sections, every so often I plan to post each section of the book in this thread. All comments and discussion are welcome.

Best wishes,
Mason

Introduction


So why a book called Cardrooms: Everything Bad and How To Make Them Better; An Analysis of Those Areas Where Poker Rooms Need Improvement? Well, I’ve been playing poker for a long time, and when first coming up with this idea my initial reaction was that this book would only contain two words: Most everything. But I quickly realized that to do this book right, it would need to be more specific and detailed than just those two words. Still, it’s my opinion that if you were to take any cardroom rule or procedure, it would often be wrong or flawed in at least some way.

Of course, this is probably too critical. While lots of poker rooms may be run poorly, there’s no way they can be this bad. But one thing for sure, many poker rooms can definitely be run a lot better than they currently are, and when I say “many,” this means that most of the ones which I’m familiar with can certainly use improvement. Sometimes only a little, but in many cases a lot.

I do want to point out one of the better run poker rooms that I’m familiar with. At the time of this writing, I’ve been playing some of my poker at the South Point Poker Room in Las Vegas, and it’s part of the reason that this book has been written. While no room can be run perfectly (in my opinion), Jason Sanborn and his staff seem to do many more things right than most of their competitors, and in the text that follows we’ll address some of the positive things that they do (even if I don’t always state that this is something which the South Point Poker Room does).

Another way to look at this is that cardrooms need to have good games where the expert players do well in the long run and the poorer playing recreational players have their winning nights which keep them coming back. I refer to this as a “proper balance of luck and skill,” and when this balance exists, the poker room tends to do well. So, as you read through the ideas in this book, and this concept will come up more than once, keep the idea of a proper balance of luck and skill in mind. Also, the chapter “A Proper Balance of Luck and Skill” starting on page 7 will attempt to explain this idea in more depth.

There’s also an unusual aspect that comes up in well-run poker rooms. It’s the idea that the poker room needs regular players, many of whom are long-term winners. That’s because regular/winning players will help start games and keep games going, and this is the only game in a casino that has this characteristic. So, a well-run cardroom should strive for good poker games where the long-term winners are exactly that, long-term winners. But they also need to be careful not to make them too good (for the long-term winners) because when this is done, the games will often become not so good after a moderate amount of time. There will be discussion of this later in the text.

Finally, to complete this “Introduction,” here’s a story from my history of playing poker. In the early- and mid-1980s, I lived in South California and played in the poker rooms of Gardena as well as both The Commerce Club and The Bicycle Club after they first opened. (In fact, I had a job that was located at almost the midpoint between the two large poker rooms and was there on opening day for both with The Commerce opening in Oct. 1983 and The Bike opening in Nov. 1984.)

Anyway, I had become a regular in the Jacks-or-Better to Open Draw games and would also play some Ace-to-Five California Lowball (which was a two round draw poker game). One day, in either 1985 or 1986, an obnoxious player who also played high stakes, who we’ll call Steve, got into a very loud argument with one of the floormen at The Bike. “Sir, you can’t behave like that” the floorman said to Steve. “Listen buddy,” Steve replied, “I pay $50,000 a year in collections and can behave anyway I want.”

Of course, Steve was right. Given how much he was paying in collections, the cardroom was not going to do much of anything to him. Steve knew this, the floor knew this, and I knew this. But there’s a little bit more to this story, and it’s the part I don’t know.

While Steve was obnoxious, he didn’t just fly off the handle for any reason at all. There must have been something that got him upset. And I strongly suspect that if the cardroom was run better, meaning that the issue which bothered Steve so much might never have happened, there would have been nothing for me to observe and his typical overreaction to something that he didn’t like wouldn’t have happened.

Another thing to mention is that some of the issues to be addressed in the pages to follow will be obvious and should be easy to fix. For instance, when a new game is called down and the cardroom doesn’t have a dealer ready to deal, that’s obviously a problem. No one will dispute this. But there are other issues that can come up, such as buy-in amounts, size of rake, and attention paid to small stakes games relative to high stakes games, where the impact may seem unimportant, but the long-term effects can be bad for both the poker room and the players.

Anyway, we’ll look at a bunch of problems. I’ll explain why they’re problems, and how to fix them. And hopefully this text will have a positive effect on the many poker rooms that people, like myself, visit. And assuming the advice that follows is accurate, and it’s adopted by some of the card room managers who’ll perhaps read and study what follows, we’ll see more full poker rooms and a thriving live poker business in the future.


Part One; Let’s Get Started


Who is This Book For?

The short answer as to whom this book is for is everyone who enters a poker room and a few who might be on the verge of entering. Hopefully, that’ll be obvious. But there are probably three groups of people for whom this book is especially important. They are the cardroom management, the dealers, and the professional players who take up some of the seats at the poker tables in most cardrooms. Let’s give a quick explanation why this is the case.

The answer is, if the cardroom is well-run, the members of all three of these groups will benefit. Another interesting thing about a well-run cardroom is that when this is the case, all three of these groups are working well together and getting along in a satisfactory manner. Specifically, expert players and members of the cardroom staff, including its manager, should not be enemies, but instead the things they do should benefit all of them. As an example, in a well-run poker game where the dealer is getting the hands out in an efficient professional manner the dealer will benefit in the form of more tips. But it’ll also benefit the pros, in that their long-term win rate should be better since a maximum number of hands will be dealt. And finally, it’ll benefit poker room management in that the managers won’t be bogged down trying to solve problems and address complaints from both players and dealers. Instead, their energies and guidance can be applied to make the poker room even better.

Now, even though I just emphasized management, dealers, and pros, a well-run cardroom will also be to the benefit of the recreational players, chip runners, brushes (people who handle the lists and assign new players to the games), drink servers, and whoever else you can think of. And this even includes those who have never played poker in a public cardroom but who may also be watching the games on the rail.
So, let’s get started.

A Proper Balance of Luck and Skill

This is not a statistics text book and to read and understand it you’re not expected to have a background in statistics. But there is an idea that comes straight out of the world of statistics and statistical theory that deserves its own introductory chapter and has already been mentioned. And that idea is what I call “the proper balance of luck and skill.” So, without getting into any heavy statistical theory, here’s an explanation of the proper balance of luck and skill in (I hope) easy to understand language.

It turns out that in games like poker which are grounded in statistical theory (that includes probability theory) there are two parameters that drive the success of the games: The success (or lack of it) of the best players, and much of the enjoyment of the recreational players who, while losers in the long run, will still come back to play again and again. These parameters are luck and skill. And both are required in the right proportions for poker games to be successful in the long run.

First, let’s address skill. You’ll often hear that poker is a “skill game.” But this isn’t exactly true. A better statement is that poker is a form of gambling that has a strong skill element. And this skill element allows the expert players to win money in the long run. And since they win, they’ll come back to play again and again including helping to start games and to keep games going.

Now this idea is very important. Without winning players who act as game starters and help to keep games going, it’s doubtful that poker would be a successful casino game. But there’s also more to it.

In addition, there’s also a problem. If skill was the only parameter, these expert players would never have losing sessions, which means that the non-experts would never win, and if this was the case, there would probably be no poker games.

So, this means that there needs to be a fair amount of short-term luck in poker for the games to exist. And what this short-term luck does is that it’ll allow the recreational players to also have some winning sessions, and on those nights where they end up loser, they’ll be able to think about when they were ahead, and this short-term luck is the hook that keeps these people playing. However, it’ll also mean that the experts will have some losing nights, and many recreational players love beating the experts.

To be specific, David Sklansky and I feel that the proper balance of luck and skill will allow a strong player to win two out of three four-hour sessions, and the moderately weak player to win one out of three four-hour sessions. So, that’s a rough guideline when this book talks about a proper balance of luck and skill. And for a poker room to be successful, this idea of a proper balance of luck and skill can’t be stressed enough.

But there’s another important point that statistical theory tells us. It’s the fact that over time the short-term luck factor will dissipate and the expectation (win rate for the experts and loss rate for the recreational players) will dominate, and this is exactly the way it’s supposed to be.

But when saying “supposed to be,” I’m also referring to those games in which the expectation of the experts and the luck factor is in sort of a balance. That is, to say it again, the experts will be sure of doing well after a reasonable amount of playing time, and the recreational players will have their winning sessions to remember. And when this is the case, you can expect the games to thrive in a well-run poker room. Furthermore, games like this are the type of games that the poker room management should strive for. It’s also the type of games that the experts should want to play in to maximize their long-term success, even if it means that their expected win in their current session might be lower.

In this book, this idea of a proper balance of luck and skill will frequently come up. So, keep this chapter in mind, and if needed, please read it again to make sure that what is written is understood. Also, if you’re a cardroom manager, this idea should guide many of your decisions. To see why, please keep reading.

What a Poker Room Needs to Accomplish

So, what does a poker room need to accomplish? The short answer is that it needs to be successful. And a successful room is one with a variety of games and a strong customer base that includes both recreational and regular players (which includes professional players) who return again and again. In addition, a successful poker room will also have the ability to pick up some new players, of which a subset of them will become repeat customers in the future.

Now this is easy to say, but what exactly does this mean? In my opinion, there are four characteristics a successful cardroom should meet. And when I say successful, what is being referred to is that business is maximized. There are some cardrooms that have a fair number of games, but if they were run better, they would, in my opinion, have even more. Here are the four characteristics which all poker room managers should be aware of.

1. Games that have a proper balance of luck and skill. This idea was addressed in the previous chapter starting on page 7 and is one of the most important ideas in this book. But I bet many of you who are reading have never heard of it before. In short, a proper balance of luck and skill is required for a poker room to consistently produce good games, and good games lead to a full poker room with many happy customers.

2. Games that will perpetuate themselves. Games where expert players can quickly win a lot of money by easily bankrupting the poor players are not good for the poker room and ironically not good for the experts since their game will soon be gone. Of course, many poker experts don’t understand this and their goal is to try to talk the poker room management into making the games even more advantageous for them in the short run. So, the answer to this is to produce good games that will always be there. A well-run poker room should be able to do this.

3. Few complaints to casino management. Notice that I said, “casino management” and not “poker room management.” That’s because even in casinos with small poker rooms, if they’re run poorly, casino executives can get more complaints out of the poker room than they will from everything else combined. This obviously is not good for the poker room and is one of the reasons that our public cardrooms are sometimes shut down. But a well-run poker room will minimize these complaints and have the support of top casino management.

4. Reputation of integrity and honest games. This should be obvious. When a poker room starts to gain the reputation of dishonest games, even if it’s not true, expect business to drop. But this is unlikely to happen if the room is run well and the regular players as well as the recreational players trust the poker room management to do its job well.

A Note for Poker Room Managers

I do hope that many of you who manage poker rooms or at least work in poker room management read this book and spend some time thinking about the contents and whether you need to make any changes to the cardroom that you run. But there are a couple of things to keep in mind.

First, I’m a player foremost, and thus look at things from this point of view. However, I also spent eleven years working as a professional statistician, half with the United States Census Bureau and half with the Northrop Corporation (now Northrop-Grumman), and thus much of my thinking, since it’s along statistical lines, allows me to view things differently from your typical poker player. And this thinking is reflected in this book. As a result, when writing this book, my aim was to step back from the player role and give a neutral presentation of the things I see as well as my suggestions, and much of what will be presented will be impacted by statistical ideas especially since poker is a game based on many of these ideas and probability theory. However, there may be places where my player bias does come through. So, if you see that, feel free to take it into account when reviewing what follows.

Also, while I believe that everything that is written is correct, that may not always be the case. In fact, it might be that what is written is right for most poker rooms but perhaps not for yours. So again, if you disagree with something, it doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re wrong and I’m right. But it should give you something to think about, and hopefully there will be much in this book that will be worth thinking about.

And finally, there should be a few topics which you may not have even heard about before. We have, for most of you, already seen one of these in the chapter “A Proper Balance of Luck and Skill” starting on page 7. So, my advice is not to skip over something completely new (to you) but to spend some time thinking about it. Poker, as I’m sure you’re aware, can be a tricky game to play well and sometimes correct strategy can be counterintuitive, and, in my opinion, this trickiness can also carry over to poker room management, with some things there being counterintuitive as well.

And one final thought. You’re the poker room manager and you’re supposed to know how to run your poker room well, what the correct decisions are, and what policies should be followed. But if you find yourself constantly asking many players how the room should be run and what the correct rules should be, then you may have a lot to learn and hopefully this book will be of significant help to you.

IÂ’m generally a fan of 2p2 but this feels a bit long winded without getting to much of a clear point. IÂ’m not trying to be disrespectful but rather honest. It seems your target audience is poker players but youÂ’re repeating what most players already know and not making it clear why we should read more.

As far as luck vs skill, I think it doesnÂ’t matter as much as you argue. Most recs would be better off playing PLO than NLHE but on average majority of recs pick NLHE cause itÂ’s simpler and they saw it on TV.

I do think you being around fit earlier days of California is interesting in large part due to California and LA in particular having arguably the biggest and best poker scene in the world. ItÂ’d be interesting to understand better how that came to be, was it just a result of legislation and if so how did that legislation come to be? Sure Vegas had BobbyÂ’s room etc but for mid stakes to high stakes but not nosebleeds, Commerce is still the room IÂ’ve been in with the most diversity of games and consistent tables going.

However, even in California it seems card rooms are conservative with new games, and players have to rally the room to get anything new going.

The other topic that IÂ’m wondering if it gets addressed in your book is cardroom marketing strategies. Because I strongly feel California card rooms donÂ’t market themselves well, particularly to 20-30 year olds. Live at the Bike being the only notable exception.

Mason,

A major premise of your book is the importance of keeping a proper balance of regs to recs in offline poker rooms.

Just for discussion and putting aside, for just a moment, the idea that regs are needed as "game starters and help to keep games going", what benefit do regs provide to recs or operators?

Most of the well run rooms I’ve played in had managers and supervisors who had some professional experience in outside industries, especially hospitality or retail. Most of the worst run rooms had managers and supervisors who were promoted up the ladder from dealer.

Knowing how to treat customers so that they want to come back and how to mange staff are equally or more important important than knowing the rules.

A large number of recs enjoy playing with regs and, most importantly, enjoy the idea that they themselves could become regs one day. A poker room without regs honestly doesn't sound like much fun to me.

I dont want to put words in your mouth but are you saying there are two more benefits that regs provide to recs and operators.

1) They are friendly and enjoyable to play with and provide entertainment value for recs. Tables are just more fun when long term winners are there to lighten up the atmosphere.

2) They lead a lifestyle that a large number of recs look up to and hope that one day they too could live the same lifestyle.

good work, mr mason. adding positively to the poker community as always, sir. God bless ya.

I imagine it's similar to blackjack, a whole lot of people lose money at blackjack because they know there are people out there who can count cards and win and they want to pretend that is or can be them. These people probably wouldn't play as much if they didn't fancy that idea.

Only in blackjack you don't get an example of that person sitting at your table, it's just from movies and common knowledge. I imagine the effect is a lot more powerful at poker where you can see some guy whose there all the time and is seen as a winner, and you envy that image and want to think it could be you.

Now I dunno how that is offset by the fact poker players are insufferable jackasses, so maybe getting berated by how you played a hand by those people removes all the positives, or hell I dunno, maybe it adds to it for weird psychological reasons.

There's also the element of competition, people naturally want a bar to compare themselves to, so having someone who is a reg and perceived as a winner gives you that, as opposed to a table of randoms you don't know how to judge yourself against.

Rake

MM

Hi Alobar:

I don’t buy the blackjack argument. If it was true no one would play craps, slots, etc. People play blackjack because they think it’s a good gamble, not because other people can win at it.

Best wishes,
Mason

Ok, rake is good. But lets rem the only resource avail to rake is player buyins. Those are a constrained resource.

The goal for room is to optimize how buyins are converted to rake.

Winning Reg players reduce the number of available buyins to rake. This is a net loss for the room..

The only way this could be false is if regs paid more rake than they took out in winnings. By definition, they would then no longer be a winning reg.

If we set aside (for a moment) the benefit of regs starting games, then winning regs are a net loss for the room.

Okay. First, as you point out not all regs are winning players which is important and there is more discussion on thses players in other places in the book. Also, later in the book, there is a chapter about poker rooms, which we have seen in the past, which strive to have all players break even except for the rake.

I suggest that after this chapter appears in this thread, you revisit this issue.

Best wishes,
Mason

I'll look forward to reading it. Interesting topic for a book. Collective intelligence of running rooms has never been put to pen.

Hi Everyone:

Below is Part Two of the book.

Best wishes,
Mason

Part Two: Cardroom Procedures


Consistent Decisions


As mentioned in the “Introduction” of this book, some of the problems presented will be obvious, and this is certainly one of them. Specifically, decisions that the floor makes relative to disputes at the poker table need to be not only correct but consistent not only from floor person to floor person but from shift to shift as well.

Here’s an example. As part of the before the flop action a player limps not realizing it has already been raised and now does not want to play for the raise. Does he get to take his money back?

The standard rule in most cardrooms is that if it’s clear the player didn’t know a raise had been made, (and this will involve judgement from the floor person making the ruling), and there has been no action behind him, then he can take his money back. But what if there is action behind him, particularly if a player who acts after the mistaken caller now reraises?

Well, I have seen it ruled both ways. Sometimes the player in error is allowed to take his money back and other times he must either call for the full amount to continue playing or, if he doesn’t want to play, the money incorrectly placed in the pot must stay (if he decides not to play the hand), and this second option is the correct rule.

But what inconsistencies like this do is that the players at the table, and especially the players involved in the hand where the ruling is made, will lose confidence in how the poker room is run. This is especially true if the amount of money that someone is playing for is significant to them. And most important, these inconsistent rulings can lead to an adversarial relationship between the players and cardroom management, a topic that will be addressed in more detail later in this book. (See the chapter “Adversarial Relationship Between Players and Management” starting on page 50.)

The floor should apply the exact same rules, which leads to the exact same decisions for all players, and this includes those players that are liked by the floor as well as those who are not. However, there can be some exceptions. For example, there should be less tolerance towards a known shot taker when something questionable has happened at the table. And in some instances, novice players in low stakes games might be given a little leeway when a rule comes into play that they clearly didn’t understand.

There’s also a corollary to this, and it’s the idea that the floor should not make ridiculous decisions, and these ridiculous decisions do sometimes happen. A common one is a lazy floor person telling the players to split the pot instead of trying to understand exactly what happened. And the decision to split the pot will again often lead to animosities between the players and the floor personnel simply because it’ll appear to the players that the floor person either doesn’t know how to do his job or doesn’t care to do his job well.

Back in the late 1980s, I was the witness to a decision that was so ridiculous I don’t think it can ever be topped. I was playing in a $10-$20 limit hold ’em game at one of the major poker rooms in Las Vegas (at that time) and several players wanted to kick it up to $15-$30. The rule in that cardroom, as it is in most places that offer poker, was that everyone at the table needs to agree to this change for it to happen.

At the table was a person sitting behind another person, often called a “sweater” in poker language, who spoke up and said that he had never watched a game that big before and would be uncomfortable doing so. Well, the floor person then told us that since someone at the table was objecting to the stakes being kicked up, that no change would be made. But the person objecting wasn’t even playing in the game, and decisions like this, in my opinion, contributed to the demise of this poker room approximately two years later.


Buy-ins That are Too Large


One of the ways that no-limit hold ’em differs from limit games (and this includes non-hold ’em games) is that the amount a player can buy-in for is predetermined by the card room. And this brings us to the logical question of what is the correct amount to set for the buy-in, both minimum and maximum in games of different stakes. This chapter will only look at the maximum typically allowed since I don’t see problems with the minimum allowed.

First, however, let’s talk about something that a poker room should strive for. In my opinion, as previously stated, poker rooms should strive to have games where there is a proper balance of luck and skill. So, what does this mean?

As already explained, a proper balance of luck and skill means that there is enough skill in the game so that in a reasonable amount of time, (which could sometimes be several months), the best players do well, just like they’re supposed to. But it also means that there is enough luck in the game that the losing players, unless they play extremely badly, can have their winning nights. Wins that often act as the hook that keeps them playing.

So, the successful players who do well in the long run will be there to help start games and keep games going, while the live players will have enough winning nights to keep coming back. This is one of the keys to a poker room producing good games, and when it’s known that a poker room has good games, the room usually stays full and remains that way over time.

Unfortunately, for today’s poker rooms, the most popular form of poker that is currently being spread as a cash game is no-limit hold ’em. While this game works well in a tournament format since the escalating stakes help to keep the luck factor in balance, in my opinion, no-limit hold ’em as a cash game tilts the balance of luck and skill too much towards the skill factor. One result of this is that most of the games being spread, even in the larger poker rooms, are small stakes where there are not as many good players as the higher stakes. The good players just beat the bad players at too high a rate.

Another aspect of no-limit hold ’em is that the more chips an expert has, the larger his win rate, in general, will be over a live opponent. This is especially true if the live opponent has also managed to accumulate a lot of chips.

Here’s an example. At The South Point, which is generally a well-run poker room, but I disagree with them here, their $3-$5 no-limit game has a buy-in range of $300-$1,500. At The Bellagio, their $2-$5 no-limit game, which based on the structure should be similar to a $3-$5 game, has a buy-in range of $200-$500. So naturally, the expert player would rather play the $3-$5 game providing he’s against the same weak opponents. But is this really to their advantage?

What I believe happens is that the live players in The South Point $3-$5 game quickly lose their money and the $3-$5 game becomes relatively tough meaning that even experts are only small long-term winners. On the other hand, the live players in The Bellagio $2-$5 game are able to survive longer and have more short-term wins, which means they’re more likely to come back, and thus lose more money to the experts in the long run. This means, if I’m correct, that the smaller buy-in game at The Bellagio is the better game not only for the cardroom but for the better players as well.

Another thing to consider is that well-run poker rooms are like a pyramid in the sense that there are lots of small stakes games, which feed into a smaller number of medium stakes games, which in turn feed into an even smaller number of high stakes games. Now no room will be perfect in this regard, but this pyramid structure appears in all highly successful cardrooms. But if the maximum buy-in becomes too large in the small games, the best players won’t feel the need to move up and the higher stakes games won’t be part of that poker room. This in turn puts too many expert players playing against the tourists/recreational players, which should have the effect of destroying many games relative to the number of games that the poker room could have.

Anyway, as the years have gone by, the maximum buy-in allowed has gone up in many cardrooms. And in my opinion, this should have never happened.

To complete this chapter, let me relate a story of something I observed in The Bellagio Poker Room several years ago. First, their $5-$10 no-limit hold ’em game has a $1,500 buy-in, which is small for most games at this level. But their $10-$20 no-limit game has an unlimited buy-in, which is standard for games of that size or higher.

One day, for some reason, they decided to make the buy-in unlimited in their $5-$10 buy-in. The result was that virtually all the players in their regular $10-$20 no-limit game quickly moved to the $5-$10 no-limit game where the weaker players (when compared to $10-$20) were. This experiment lasted less than a day as The Bellagio not only lost games, but they put some of their customers in jeopardy of being quickly wiped out by the extremely strong players that were entering their game.


Transferring Players Bringing the Wrong Amount of Chips


In today’s no-limit hold ’em games, especially at the s
maller stakes, the maximum amount a new player can buy-in for is usually limited. This limit is also applied to a player who has lost chips and wants to purchase additional chips. As we saw in the previous chapter, there are good reasons for this, and they need to be strictly enforced. But what if a player transfers to another game from one no-limit or pot-limit to another?

In this case, most cardrooms don’t treat him like a new player and the exact rules for how much a player can bring to his new game varies from poker room to poker room. For example, one card room that I know of does not consider the transfer to be a new player, so if the amount of chips he has is more than the maximum buy-in amount, he’s allowed to start the new game with this amount. Another card room that I know of (not in Nevada) allows a person to transfer if he has less than the maximum buy-in, but if he has more than the maximum buy-in, he can’t transfer, and this sure seems like a strange rule.

Now, the problem with transfers in no-limit hold ’em where a maximum buy-in is enforced, is that some players, when they move to another table, will pull a couple of large denomination chips out of their pocket and add them to their stack. And as we saw in the previous chapter, “Buy-ins That are Too Large,” starting on page 16, expert players, by increasing their chip stack, increase their advantage over weak players, especially against weak players who have accumulated some chips. Furthermore, from the poker room’s perspective, this should upset the proper balance of luck and skill that is present in the specific game. So, what’s the solution?

When talking to cardroom management they usually tell me two things. The first is that they watch the transferring players closely to make sure they don’t add chips to their stacks. But in my view, this is not reasonable, especially if the card room is busy. Even though I’m often critical of poker room management, especially in this book, I do recognize they can’t be everywhere. So, watching the transferring players carefully, in my opinion, doesn’t work well.

The second reason which I hear, from both management and the players, is that if someone has won chips and is still playing, his opponents, even though in a different game, have the right to attempt to win them back. This is also the reason given for why players can’t take chips off the table, and I consider this to be one of the silliest things done in poker rooms.

The real reason goes back to the old days of Gardena California, which during the 1960s and 1970s (and earlier) was the location where more legal poker was played than anyplace else. And this reason is largely forgotten. At that time, if the poker room manager thought someone was cheating, he had the right to stop the game and distribute the supposed cheater’s chips to the other players. But because of privacy laws, the manager (or anyone else including cardroom security) could not search the person. So, this is the real reason why players can’t take chips off the table. A reason that no longer applies.

Anyway, the solution regarding a transferring player is to treat him like a new player to the game that he is transferring to. That is, the most chips he can start with should be the maximum buy-in that is allowed for that particular game. If he has more chips than this, they should either be cashed out or removed from the table by some other means. Now the problem of players transferring and adding chips to their stacks will be eliminated, plus the job of those who work the floor will become a little easier.

(There is one situation where I think it’s okay to allow a player to bring more than the maximum buy-in to the table. This would be when a table breaks, and a player assigned to a new game has more than the maximum buy-in. Since it’s not his choice to move, penalizing him by insisting on a smaller stack size is probably wrong.)


The Must-Move Rule


Of all the stupid rules that poker rooms have I consider this to be the worst one. Imagine a cardroom with a rule that was designed to break games and create lists. In addition, how about having a rule that would help assure that some of the weaker playing regular players won’t have enough money to play on the slow days or won’t always be available to help start games and keep games going. Well, if you can imagine all of this, you have just visualized the Must-Move Rule.

I’m not exactly sure where it came from, but it seems like it probably came from the large rooms of South California where the transfer lists at certain stakes were too difficult for some of the less competent floor people and brushes to keep track of. But in any case, this rule is now everywhere and in my opinion it should be nowhere.

What the Must-Move Rule is supposed to do is to keep the main game full. That is, one of the games at a particular stake is declared the main game and when a player leaves this game, another player, according to the order of the must-move list, is moved from the must-move game into the main game.

I suspect that part of the reason this rule is now so prevalent is that the day-shift players who frequently start the game, and who are also there when the poker room manager is in the cardroom, demand that their game be kept full. And, of course, the manager, who gets tired of the complaints and doesn’t think about the damage he’s doing to both his cardroom and to many of his regular customers, complies.

But here’s what happens, especially later at night. When you keep moving players from the must-move game to the main game, the must-move game will eventually become short and break, and a list is now created. And having a list will often result in the loss of customers. This especially happens when a potential player, who may play poker very poorly, wanders into the poker room and is told that there is a list and he’ll have to wait. Upon hearing this, he’ll often leave, an obvious major problem for everyone associated with the poker room. Yet very few understand this.

Let me be more specific. As mentioned above, some of the regular players struggle to survive and it should be important to the poker room to keep these people in action since they help to start games and keep games going. That is, these mediocre players often want to keep playing all the time, but to do that they need to take advantage of any good opportunities that come along (even if they don’t understand this). And having a “live one” come in from the pit and sitting in a game is certainly one of the common opportunities that can occur in poker. But the Must-Move Rule often stops this and stops the pit visitor who will usually lose enough money to essentially pay the rake of many players for a number of days.

Continuing with this idea, it has been my opinion for a long time that the best poker games (by chance) almost always have one seat open. This way when a live one does show up, and this happens at all stakes, he can get right into the game, theoretically lose what he’s supposed to lose, and the cardroom, as well as the players, are now better off. But the Must-Move Rule, in addition to creating lists, effectively stops this.

Years ago, after The Wynn Casino first opened, I had a short conversation with the poker room manager (who was new to Las Vegas) about how bad their must-move games are and all the damage they do to poker rooms. But her reply to me was that they kept the games full. “What about the games you break?” I asked her. She had no idea what I was talking about.

A few years later, I had a short conversation with the then new poker room manager at The Bellagio. He told me that some players wanted must-move and some didn’t. My reply to him was that he was the poker room manager and that he was supposed to know what to do or else he shouldn’t be manager, and that he didn’t work for the players. This conversation, as you might expect, didn’t get anywhere.

Another story I have occurred at The Bellagio in (I think) 2005 during one of their big tournaments. I was playing in an $80-$160 limit hold ’em game (before no-limit became the dominate game) and they had five of these games. In addition to the main game and the must-move game they had a must-must-move game (where the players were fed into the must-move game), a must-must-must-move game (where the players were fed into the must-must-move game), and a must-must-must-must-move game (where the players were fed into the must-must-must-move game). One of the results of this was that if a player left the main game, it would take about 20 minutes to get a new player into the must-must-must-must-move game. And since $80-$160 is a time game (as opposed to a rake game), I wonder how many time fees were lost that day. Needless to say, I never saw anything this stupid again, and yes, it would be hard to make something like this up and this was occurring at the premier poker room in Las Vegas.

Now, over the years, perhaps because some players do strongly complain about the Must-Move Rule, a few cardrooms have come up with some adjustments. Here are three of them:

1. Guarantee eight (for games that are usually nine-handed). What this does is to only allow no-more than eight players in the main game unless the must-move game also has at least eight players or the must-move game breaks. So, if there were fifteen players between the main game and the must-move game, instead of having nine of them in the main game and only six in the must-move game, the numbers will be eight and seven respectively.

This is actually a slight improvement over the standard Must-Move rule since it does help the must-move game last a little longer. But it still doesn’t solve the basic problem of encouraging the must-move game to break and creating a list.

2. One hour must-move only. What happens here is that the Must-Move Rule will only last an hour. After that, both games become equivalent in the main game sense. In my opinion, this is a big improvement since after an hour players like myself don’t have to deal with the must-move silliness any longer. But it’s also my experience that most poker rooms (which I’m aware of) don’t seem to want to do this.

3. Must-move ends at floorman’s discretion. Again, this is better than a perpetual must-move, but it’s also my experience that those who work the floor often don’t want to make the change from must-move to two (or more) main games when they probably should. Perhaps the reason for the reluctance to change has something to do with the fact that they’ll now have to create a new list for transfers (while they’ll now discard the must-move order list) and players who want to immediately transfer can be annoying.

It’s hard to say exactly why this doesn’t work well, but again in my experience, while better than permanent must-move, it’s also not much better. And in many cases when this rule is used, it’s really the same as permanent must-move.

Finally, I want to mention one more issue that must-move causes. Poker is a game of many skills, and game selection is certainly one of these skills. In addition, it’s a very important skill, especially in higher stakes games. And the Must-Move Rule puts an end to picking the game that you think will be best to play.

A corollary to this is that the main game will often become much tougher than the must-move game, especially late at night, when, as previously mentioned, players will frequently wander in from the pit looking to play a little poker and the regular players of the poker room won’t have a shot at them due to the Must-Move Rule. So, here again is another example of how this rule hurts the regular players, which in turn will hurt the poker room in the long run.


The Third Man Walking Rule


In live poker, almost all players want to play in full games. That is, they want someone sitting in every seat and enjoy the game the most when this is the case.

However, some people like to walk. This can include someone just wandering around or perhaps it’s someone on a lunch or dinner break. But it does leave an empty seat, and when there are enough empty seats, even though there are chip stacks in place, the remaining players will often quit playing and sometimes the game will break.

Of course, when this happens, the cardroom itself is hurt. Often, if the game continues but is shorthanded, the rake will be reduced, or the time charge is skipped for the next half hour. Needless to say, this is something that poker room management doesn’t want to see happen, and for that matter, most players don’t either. They want the game to remain full and The Third Man Walking Rule addresses this.

Now for those not familiar with this rule, what it does is to reduce the amount of time that a third walker can be away from the table. For instance, while the first two players can be away from the table for up to a little over an hour (depending on the cardroom), the third walker may only have as little as 10 minutes. That is, if he doesn’t make it back to the game in that short period of time, his chips will be picked up while the others may still be walking, and he can’t play any more since another player will be called from the list to take his place.

When first hearing about this rule, it seemed to me that it would never be implemented in Las Vegas. The reason for this was what would happen if a casino high roller wandered into the poker room to play a little poker, and then got his chips picked up because of The Third Man Walking Rule. My guess was that if this was an important customer somewhere in the pit, and this person complained about being picked up after being away from the table for only a few minutes, poker room management would hear about this in the strongest terms and that would be the end of The Third Man Walking Rule in that cardroom.

But to me, the real issue with this rule is that it’s not fair. Why can two people go on extended walks but no one else can? Shouldn’t all the customers of a poker room be treated the same?

Another issue is that after someone gets up from the table, it can encourage a second player to now walk since he won’t want someone else to walk and then have The Third Man Walking Rule applied to him. Thus, this rule can encourage empty seats.

One possible solution is to have what I would call the “Short Walking Rule.” Let it be known that if anyone is away from the table for more than a short, predetermined amount of time, their chips will be picked up. But now, instead of being completely out of the game, they’ll be placed first on the list for a specified amount of time. So, in most cases, they’ll shortly be back in action in the particular poker game they left when they return to the cardroom. Also, notice that by quickly replacing the walker with a new player, the desired full game will be achieved.

Back in the 1990s, when seven-card stud was still a popular form of poker in the cardrooms of Las Vegas and a game that I used to play a lot, there was a regular player in the games who was known as “Walking Jack.” Jack usually played at the $20-$40 level, which at that time was still a raked game. In addition, Jack also had another characteristic. He was cheap.

So, in response to his constant walking, which usually occurred if he was ahead in the game, and his cheapness, some of the regular players went to poker room management and asked that the game be changed from a rake game to a time game, where a fee had to be paid every 30 minutes. This was done and Jack’s walking was dramatically reduced. This story makes me think that some of the games would have fewer empty seats if there was a time charge rather than a rake.


The Lunch Break Rule


In the two previous chapters we saw how most poker rooms have rules that are designed to keep the main game full. But at the same time most often have what can be called “The Lunch Break Rule,” which allows players to be away from the table for extended lengths of time, especially on a busy night.

What often happens is that a player wants to take a meal break, whether it be breakfast, lunch, dinner, or perhaps a late-night snack, and he’ll ask the floor for extra time to be away. Now most cardrooms determine when a player has been away from the table for too long and will then pick up his chips after he has accumulated too many “no player” or “absent” buttons. That is, whenever a new dealer comes to the game, he gives each absent player one of these buttons. Then, the missing player’s chips are picked up if he has accumulated three buttons plus 15 minutes in those rooms where the dealers rotate every 20 minutes. He’ll also be picked up in those rooms where two buttons plus 15minutes have occurred where the dealers rotate every 30 minutes. Seems simple enough. But there’s an inconsistency which no one ever seems to think about. Which is that with must-move games and “The Third Man Walking Rule,” the poker room is trying to keep the games full (even if they’re misguided as to how and why they do this) and then at the same time they have a rule which encourages the game to have missing players.

And speaking of must-move games, I have even seen situations where because of The Lunch Break Rule there will be more active players in the must-move game than there are in the main game. So, what’s the solution?

Fortunately, in my opinion, there’s a simple one. If a player wants to go to lunch have him pick up his chips and then put him at the top of the list where he can stay for some predetermined length of time. Perhaps 90 minutes in most situations would work. Notice that this is similar to the Short Walking Rule that was mentioned in the previous chapter.

If he comes back before the 90 minutes are up, he’ll get the first available seat. If the 90 minutes pass, his name will be removed from the list and he’ll have to sign up as a new player and start at the bottom of the list like all new players do. Also, even though I’m using 90 minutes, there’s nothing magical about this length of time, and I’m sure it would vary depending on the cardroom and how busy the casino is at that time.

Let’s notice what has been accomplished. First, the player who’s next on the list will now get into the game instead of having to wait while there are vacant seats in the game. Second, the player who has been picked up, should be able, in most situations, to get back into the game fairly quickly.

And one more thing. While I don’t object to players eating at the tables, why do they have to sit out as these eaters will frequently do. Again, this is another example of the poker room sometimes encouraging someone not to play when they have rules that are designed to keep the games full.

Of course, if a player is going to be away from his seat for only a few minutes, such as a bathroom break, that should obviously be allowed without the required chip pick-up. And second, this suggested rule doesn’t require the absent player to be going for a meal. The Short Walking Rule should be implemented whenever the player either is or announces he’ll not be playing for more than a pre-specified length of time.


Straddles


One rule that almost all poker rooms have, and which I’ve always disliked, is that straddles are allowed. But not all straddles are equal. Some are worse than others.

For those who don’t know, a straddle is an additional blind that a player is allowed to voluntarily put into the pot. Generally, a straddle is twice the size of the big blind, but some rooms allow for a convenient amount, such as a $5 straddle in a $1-$2 game. And straddles can be used whether the game is limit or no-limit.

Another aspect of straddles is that they can only be applied in certain positions. Virtually all rooms allow the straddle to be to the left of the big blind. But some rooms will also allow what is known as a “Mississippi Straddle” which is a straddle placed on the button.

Obviously, the straddle to the left of the big blind is a poor play, but it’s my opinion that the straddle on the button can at times be strategically correct. Let’s address this some more.

First, in all forms of poker, being in position is advantageous since you get to see what your opponent(s) does. But this advantage in no-limit hold ‘em is stronger than virtually any other form of poker. In addition, excellent players will know how to better use this positional advantage than the weak players.

Another aspect of no-limit hold ’em is that having lots of chips is also an additional advantage for the excellent player. This is especially true if you’re against a weak player who also has a lot of chips. That’s because a weak player is much easier to trap for all his chips than a strong one.

So, suppose the following situation has developed. An excellent player is on the button with a lot of chips and one or more bad players also have a lot of chips. In this spot, I believe the play with the highest expectation for the excellent player is to take the straddle on the button. That is, taking the straddle has become correct and it’s not always the “sucker play” that many players think it is.

But there is something even more subtle going on here. It’s the fact that the proper balance of luck and skill is now being tilted towards skill, and when this happens, it can have long-term negative effects not only on the poker games but on the cardroom itself. And in no-limit hold ‘em, a game that may already be out of balance towards too much skill, this should not be a good outcome.

There are two other problems with having straddles. The first is that they make the games bigger, and some players will be uncomfortable playing the larger stakes. This can also cause some players to go broke quicker which can’t be good for the poker room. Yes, it can also help a player losing in the game to get even quicker since the stakes are now higher, if he happens to get lucky. But if this player is a long term loser, his theoretical loss rate will have also gone up meaning that his average playing time will often go down which can’t be good for the poker room. (The better players might like the fact that this player is now theoretically losing at a higher rate. But if it means that the amount of time he spends in the poker room is now greatly reduced because of some higher losses, it won’t be long-term good for the better players either.)

Second, some rooms have a weird rule relative to the Mississippi Straddle. What happens in these rooms when the button straddle is placed is that before the flop the player in the small blind is now first to act, the player in the big blind is second to act, and the player on the button (who has put up the straddle) goes last.

This does two things. The first is that the skill element in the game is shifted even more towards the button since he now acts last before the flop. This means the balance of luck and skill can again be thrown off, but now by an even higher amount. In addition, the players in the standard blinds, who normally get compensated for putting up their blinds by getting to act last before the flop, lose this compensation. And this means that players in the standard blinds, as our poster sevencard2003 pointed out, will now sometimes play much tighter. That’s because instead of being last to act before the flop, they become first to act with many players still to act behind them. The result of this is that the poker room is now creating games with reduced action, which most players view as less attractive than games with lots of action. And since one of the themes of this book is the creation of attractive poker games, allowing a button straddle where the straddle acts last before the flop, is accomplishing the opposite.

The bottom line is that, except for cardrooms where straddling has become a common, accepted and popular practice, management should consider not allowing them at all. And in those cardrooms where having straddles is common, management should consider scaling back this practice.


Lammers


Lammers are small round plastic disks, like chips, that have a dollar amount written on them but which have no real value. The only time that they are used is when the dealer requests a fill and the lammers are then placed on the table next to the dealer to mark the amount of money or real chips (or a combination of both) removed from the rack (or dealer’s tray). So, for example, if a dealer has run out or is now low of $1 chips which are mostly used for rake, he’ll call the chip runner over, give him some amount from the rack in higher denomination chips and/or cash, and in this example let’s say $120, and then mark this to the right of the rack with lammers that will show a total of $120. (One of the reasons for the use of lammers is that if there is a dealer change, the new dealer can see how much in chips the chip runner is supposed to bring.)

Then, when the chip runner returns to the table with the appropriate chips, the dealer will count them down to see that he has received the amount (in chips) that matches the amount of the lammers. Then put both the chips and the lammers in the (dealers) rack. Also, the countdown is a little slow in happening since this almost always includes taking chip stacks of 20 out of the chip rack that the runner will usually bring to the table. These twenty chip stacks are then often broken down to stacks of five chips each to assure that the count is accurate. Seems simple enough.

But there’s a problem. All of this takes time, and over a course of a playing session this time adds up. This should cost the poker room rake and reduce the win rate of the winning players. Plus, this should annoy most players who generally like a fast-paced game.

Of course, there is a different way to approach this. And that way, unless lammers are required by the local gambling authority, is not to use the lammers at all.

Here’s a solution. When the dealer calls the chip runner over, he can tell the runner how much in chips is needed and in what denominations. No money is handed to the runner at this time.

The chip runner can then get the requested chips, return to the table, and then the dealer can hand the runner the money in exchange for the chips. Notice again that no lammers are put in use.

Then when it comes to counting chips, the dealer can inspect the chip rack where twenty chips will fit tightly in each section of the rack to see if the chip count is accurate. To help them do this, a dealer can use a finger to feel that the chips are tightly placed in each column. They can do this by moving their finger over the top of each column to feel that the column tops are smooth. And only columns that are not full, if needed, will be broken down and counted,

My guess is that this alternate procedure would take about half the time as the standard procedure and is every bit as good. And, by using it the poker room can collect more rake because more hands will be dealt, and playing more hands is something that the players should like.

An alternative to the two above procedures, which is what The South Point Poker Room does, is that the chip runner can be the one who carries the lammers. Then when the dealer hands in the money/chips the runner can be the one to count out the lammers and make sure they come to the right total. And while the runner is doing this, the dealer can begin the process of dealing the next hand. So, while not as fast as the second procedure above, it should be close, and in those jurisdictions where lammers are required, this is probably the best approach.


New Set-Ups


For there to be poker games there needs to be cards. And in most poker rooms two decks are brought to the table when the game first starts, and these two decks are known as a set-up. In addition, new set-ups are brought to the table at other times, usually when a player requests a new set-up or when a damaged card is discovered.

And before the decks are shuffled and any cards are dealt from the set-up, each deck will be inspected, front and back, by the dealer, and this is a time-consuming process. Of course, this needs to be done. But how often should this occur?

First, let me be clear that the cards should be changed every so often to help assure that any recognizable marks which get placed on the cards, whether intentionally or not, are not there for certain players to recognize. And knowing the value of even one card, except for those you’re supposed to know, can be a significant advantage to a knowledgeable player.

So, I do recognize and agree that new set-ups should be brought to the poker table every so often. But the question is, how often? If new set-ups are brought in too often, which is frequently the case in most poker rooms, it not only hurts the cardroom in the form of reduced rake but will irritate many of the players who like a fast paced game (and also reduce the long-term win-rate of the winning players since they’ll play less hands if they’re constantly waiting for the dealer to finish inspecting the new set-up).

Generally, new set-ups come to the table in one of two ways. The first is that a player requests a set-up. Usually, a player who requests a set-up will do it a lot because he thinks the current decks are unlucky for him. Of course, this is silly, and cardrooms should simply stop this practice. All they have to do is politely tell the particular player who’s requesting the set-up that “In this poker room the cards are changed every X hours and that’s our policy to assure a fast paced game.” Most set-up requesters will be satisfied especially since they’ll now know that the “unlucky” cards won’t be there forever.

The second way a new set-up happens is when there is a damaged card, In fact, by restricting a new set-up to every X hours the poker room may now be encouraging someone who wants a new set-up to deliberately damage a card. If a poker room notices that a player is doing this, he should be talked to and if necessary, disciplined.

But there’s another, better solution. Instead of bringing a new set-up, the poker room can just supply a replacement card. This way, the person who wants a new set-up will learn that he’s not getting one (until the predetermined time) and most important, it’s much quicker to replace one bad card than it is to inspect and shuffle a new set-up. And at the time of this writing, the only poker room that I play at which does things this way is the South Point, and it works great.

I do want to mention one other terrible practice which I haven’t seen anywhere in at least 30 years. But since it was once quite common in California, it’ll still be covered here, and that practice was called “decking.”

Years ago, when I lived and played in South California, all the poker rooms (that I played in) allowed the players to take a small amount of money, as a tip for the floor person, out of the next few pots (and sometimes it was more than a few) after a new set-up was brought into the game, and this practice was known as decking. Of course, a new set-up was only supposed to come to the game every four or eight hours, but this decking was frequently terribly abused.

In fact, it was common for a new player to come to a game, demand a new set-up, take a bunch of chips out of the game over the next few hands, give them to the floor person, and then quickly exit the table. Also, this practice was everywhere, and it cost players like myself a substantial amount of money (over time). In addition, if you refused to take part in the decking, there always seemed to be someone at the table who would point out to the floor that you wouldn’t participate in tipping them.

Fortunately, when The Bicycle Club opened in 1984, then General Manager George Hardie stopped this practice, and over the next couple of years decking seemed to disappear from all the California cardrooms, and thanks to George the integrity of poker in California went up. However, I include the idea of decking here for completeness since it did occur and was once widespread, and could only happen when a new set-up was brought into the game. Also, as far as I know, the practice of decking never made it to Nevada or anyplace else where public poker rooms are available.


Rack Counts


One of the annoying things that occurs in the poker rooms of Nevada and some other locations are rack counts. (They do not occur in those cardrooms where the dealers carry their own trays which will be addressed in the chapter titled “Dealers Carrying Their Own Trays” starting on page 64.) Every so often, perhaps once or twice a shift, an announcement will be made for the dealers to count the rack to make sure that the right amount of chips are present. If the rack is short, the floor will usually bring chips to make up the difference, and if the rack is over, the floor will usually remove the extra chips. In my experience, the rack is more likely to be short than over, but both do happen.

The problem with this is that it interrupts and slows down the game which many players find irritating. In addition, some rooms then require the dealer to sign a document that states the rack has been counted and it’s now correct. This is done by having a floor person hand a clipboard to the dealer that holds the document which the dealer now signs, and this takes yet more time.

Now, this may not seem like a big deal, and by itself it’s probably not. But there are many things in the poker room that slow down the play of the games. And they add up.

So, how can this be improved upon? The answer is to just follow standard dealer procedure. Which is for the dealer to count the rack when he sits down and for all dealers to keep the rack organized, usually by groups of twenty chips which are separated by lammers so that the rack can be counted quickly. In fact, when the next dealer walks up to the table and is waiting for the current dealer to finish the hand, by looking over the shoulder of the current dealer he can start, and in most cases complete, the rack count before he sits down. As a result, if there is an error in the amount of chips present in the rack, the new dealer can call the floor over and get it corrected. And since this is standard practice in most poker rooms, there should be no need for the interruption every so often of counting the rack since it’ll already be done.


Cardroom and Game Location


Back in the early 1990s I spent a day in Laughlin NV and ran into an acquaintance who had just become the poker room manager at one of the large casinos there. We started talking and he explained to me that the poker room was adjacent to one of the four casino pits and to assure that his players could play in peace and quiet, he had requested to top casino management that the casino pit next to the poker room be the one to be filled last. My response to him was that if he really wanted his players to have peace and quiet, he should move the poker room a few miles into the desert. Of course, this didn’t go over well.

Yet, I have seen this attitude on many occasions. Let the poker players be left alone so that they can enjoy their poker games. And this makes sense, that is, assuming they have games to enjoy.

In 1989 The Mirage opened, and in many ways it had the best poker room I’ve ever seen. Not only was it centrally located to the whole casino, it had a “strong rail” and on a busy night casino guests would often occupy every inch of that rail to watch the poker games. And this is one important way to attract new players into poker.

Now, I do understand that poker rooms tend to be located where the casino management wants them, and the poker room manger often can’t do much about it. But the above is still one of the most important ideas in poker. Visible games that casino customers can watch will attract future players.

When the Venetian first opened, I met with the poker room management to make some suggestions as to how they could attract players. (At first, while The Venetian had a large cardroom, it had few games.) One of the things I noticed was that instead of a rail, there was designed glass that, while beautiful, was difficult to see through and extended from the top of the rail to the ceiling. My suggestion was to get rid of it even though I was sure this fancy glass cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to create and put in place.

So, the conclusion here for poker room managers is that no matter where your cardroom is located, make it as accessible as possible and make the games as visible as possible. If it’s in a poor location, you won’t be able to do much about it, but at least make sure the rail is as strong as it can be and welcome casino guests to watch the games.

Furthermore, where and how the games are placed inside the poker room is also important. Years ago, before the WSOP was moved to the Rio Hotel and Casino, I had to meet a friend there for lunch. Since I wasn’t familiar with the layout of the Rio, I told my friend to just find the poker room and I would be there watching the games.

Anyway, once at the poker room I noticed that it contained three rows of poker tables with the first row being next to the rail. All the games, at that time, were in the second and third row so there was no way a spectator could watch the poker in action. I remember telling my friend that this room would probably be closed in the near future and that’s exactly what happened.

And there’s another important point to make. Not only do you want to place games on the rail, but you want to place the right games there. If the featured games have very small stakes, most casino customers won’t find them interesting. And if you put extremely large games on the rail, they may draw a crowd, but the stakes may scare off people from giving poker a try. This means that it’s the games in the middle that should go on the rail. For instance, in today’s no-limit environment, a $2-$5 game is probably a much better candidate for a rail game than a $1-$2 game. The size of the chips will make the game more interesting for someone watching than the smaller game, but the pots won’t be so big that the watcher will be afraid to give poker a shot.

Also, how the tables are placed is important. For instance, tables that are parallel to the rail are easier to watch than tables that are perpendicular to the rail. And so, it goes.


Lists Plus Call-ins


One of the more important things that a poker room does is maintain an accurate list for each game that is being offered. Simply stated, a “list” is a list of the players waiting to get into a particular game and the list is kept in the order that the players will enter the game, with the person who has waited the longest (see more below) being the top player on the list.

When a seat opens in that game, this top name will be called, and this person will be given a proper amount of time to take his seat (and depending on the rules of the poker room his name may get announced several times if he does not immediately show up). And if this person doesn’t show up or declines the seat, the next person on the list is called. Simple enough.

If, however, there is no next person on the list or there is no list at all, then the seat is declared “open” and the first person who comes into the poker room and wants a seat in that particular game (but not necessarily that particular table) will get the seat.

Today, in almost all poker rooms, the list is clearly posted, usually on an electronic board, and this is the way it should be. By doing this, the integrity of the list is highly likely to be maintained and the players are placed into the games in their proper order. In the past, this wasn’t always the case and the list was kept on a piece of paper that only the brush had access to. This would occasionally lead to fake names on the lists and violations of the order, but fortunately this is a problem that’s mostly gone today. However, if you’re playing in a poker room that doesn’t post the list for everyone to see, my advice is to talk to the poker room management to get this policy changed.

A second list that the brush needs to maintain is the transfer list. Many poker players, including myself, do at times like to change games and some players will do this a lot. This list is usually maintained by the brush, and while held privately, it should be available for anyone to see. If that’s not the case, again I would recommend a conversation with poker room management to change this. Also, when must-move games are employed, there will be no transfer list.

Going back to the main list for getting into games, a more recent development is call-ins. These are people who are not yet in the poker room but who have called in to put their name on the list so that their wait time after they arrive to get into a game won’t be as long. This is a nice feature and I recommend that all poker rooms do this. But there is an issue.

It’s annoying to be waiting in a cardroom, think you’ll get in the game soon, but then to have one or more call-ins show up who are ahead of you on the list. Apparently, what has happened is that even though you got to the poker room first, the call-in(s) had his name placed on the list before your name was placed on the list.

The solution is that any live player who’s waiting, should go ahead of a call-in. This would be the case if the live player is someone who just walked into the room or a call-in who got to the room before another player who had called in before him. Let me give a specific example.

Suppose there is a list with six players on it. The first two are live players and the next four are call-ins. Now the person who was the last call-in walks into the room. Instead of being sixth on the list with the original two live players and the remaining three call-ins ahead of him, he should now be moved to third on the list. This will place him behind the two live players but ahead of the other three call-ins.

Notice that in this example the player who just walked into the room will not only think he’ll be the third player to be called for the particular game but will in actuality be the third player to be called for the game. If his place on the list is not moved ahead of the other call-ins, his wait may be much longer than it at first appears, since it won’t be clear as to whether he’ll be the third, fourth, fifth, or sixth person to be called for the game.

And one last idea related to lists is that when you’re on a list and your name is approaching the top, the poker room could then send you a text message or use a pager. As our poster BukNaked36 put it: “Waiting around / checking back with a long list sxxxs. I'd like to see the poker room send you a text when your seat is ready,” And, another poster, Black Aces 518 pointed out that the “Casinos should like it since lots of players sit right by the room so as not to miss their name called, when they could instead be off in the pits waiting for the text.” So, now both the players and the casino benefit, and when the players are happy, that’s good for the poker room (unless, of course, they lose all their money in the pit).

The Third Man Walking Rule

In the late 90's I was a reg at the Biloxi Grand which at the time was the IT room of the entire South East US, as there wasn't all the legal poker that is there now. The 2 main games where 1-4-8-8 HE Spread limit, and 10-20 Limit HE.

There would be 1 game of 10-20 during the week and a 2nd game would start late afternoon that would kill the list and then people on the 1st table would be getting hungry and getting free buffet comps and taking a break.

They didn't know about 3rd man walking at the time. As soon as the 3rd guy got up, it was like dominos falling and then it would be 5 handed and people didn't want to play short and game would break. This was a pretty regular occurrence.

Then I took a trip to Vegas and played 10-20 at the Mirage and they were doing 3rd man walking and I liked it. When I got back to Biloxi I told the manager about it and he liked it and started implementing right away and it worked great after people got used to it.

Great rule.

There's a lot of bad things about cardrooms. I wholeheartedly agree.

But you know what really gets my goat?

There's this one guy, a semi-regular at Bellagio. He sits in the mid-stakes limit holdem games. He doesn't say a word to anyone, but has a sour look on his face the entire time. He wears the exact same shirt every single session, emblazoned with the name of his company. The most interesting thing about him is a baggie of vitamins he whips out every so often, and downs about 15 of them. At least I hope they're vitamins.

Anyway, this dude is the antithesis of fun. I admit that I'm not always a barrel of laughs at the table, depending upon my mood, but at least I try to talk to people and make it into a social experience. This guy I'm talking about is a tight rock who says nothing, looks angry, and never utters a peep.

I really wish cardrooms didn't have people like him.

yeah, I mean I don't think that's the case for everyone obviously, people like to gamble just to gamble.

Do you not think there is at least a portion of people that lose a lot more money than they otherwise would tho because they want to fancy themselves a card counter or because they at least know that it's possible to be a winner, so they can convince themselves they are "about even" or "up a little bit", and thus justify it to themselves or others why they play, and therefore play a lot more than they would if it was like craps or slots?

Hi Alobar:

I’m sure there are some people who are as you say. But I do believe this idea is overrated.

Best wishes,
Mason

Whoa, this guy sounds like a real loser. I'll bet his company was worth mid 8 figures and he sold it for less than 1% of that too.

Fossilkilkid:

About a year ago in the hopes that we would allow Witteles a thread for his podcast on our website, he posted this:

If Mason would be wiling to get over the silly animosity he's had toward me for the past 12 years, I would be happy to have a thread for PFA's podcast here. I would even speak highly of Mason and 2+2 on the show for allowing such a thing. If interested, you know how to reach me.

See Post #31 in this thread:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...hlight=podcast

He would, I suppose, if we allowed the thread for his podcast, be writing about what a terrific person I am, how everyone likes me, and how the Cardrooms book is great for poker.

Mason

LOL at how you think my recent criticism of you stems from your refusal to allow a thread about my show. Further LOL at your belief that I'd think you were a "teriffic person" had you allowed it.

You offered to let some people post threads for their shows, and I took a shot to see if you would allow mine, as it would give the show some additional publicity. When you said no, it wasn't a big deal and I moved on.

If you want to better understand my actual issues with you, go reread what I wrote in the thread started by the new Russian owners. Those very clearly outline my problems with how you've treated me and others over the past 15 or so years.

Why don't you refresh your memory and read my direct responses to you, Posts #23 and #35 in particular in this thread:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...hlight=podcast

You'll see, even though you claim something very different, that you were given a specific reason as to why we wouldn't allow your podcast to have a thread, and you also deleted the threads on your website that I linked to.

MM

How does this make any sense?

Where do I indicate that I was furious about you not allowing my show to have a thread?

I assumed the answer was "no" before I even asked, because I knew very well that you hold endless grudges.

This looks like a distraction tactic on your part, since the other issues being brought up about you right now are indefensible.

If you go to you site, and this includes your podcast, you'll find numerous personal insults you have made at me and this goes back well over ten years. I don't believe I've ever made a personal insult at you. And you constantly say that I hold grudges.

You don't know me at all and don't know anything about how I live my life and what my relationships with other people are. Yet you say all sorts of nasty stuff about me. And just in case you (or anyone) needs any examples, just look at your posts in the "This website has been purchased by us. What is the future of 2+2?" thread and this post in this thread:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...3&postcount=16

MM

It's hilarious how you're actually trying to sell people the idea that you weren't routinely bashing me and my site while I was on here last year.

Everyone saw it, so I don't understand why you're playing innocent victim here.

When we had the agreement for me to come back, I purposely stayed out of your way, and tried not to get into any confrontations with you. It was impossible. Everywhere I looked, there was some kind of jab at me from you, even in threads I wasn't pahticipating in.

This claim of yours is as believable as the one that you "didn't pay attention" to Sklansky's antics with young girls.