On a whole, the regs who get invited to the private game are objectively more fun than the regs who don’t. Those who aren’t particularly fun find other ways to be useful, like bringing a whale, loaning money, being someone outside of poker, or just being open to gambling big. Just my personal experience from the pre Covid MGMNH private games. Obviously this is a big generalization but the whales at least perceive these players as more fun than the average reg.

I said it'd good for those weak players in the private game not that it's good for everyone.

And a lot of players getting seats in those games simply have little to no interest in public games. In fact they may be at the casino playing a public game waiting for a seat to open in the private game when if the private game didn't exist they wouldn't be there at all.

I'm not saying this is the case for all of them-but a lot of people on this site really are incapable of seeing things from the perspective of rec players playing for enjoyment rather than to try and make money and don't understand what motivates them to play and to keep coming back.

OP what law/regulation are you hanging your hat on that seating in card rooms must be first-come, first-serve? To me it’s no different than a “public” nightclub wanting to curate a crowd by having the bouncers select who gets in, not necessarily who is first in line.

Maybe Gzesh or other resident gaming attorney here can chime in.

Yeah I don’t disagree. I was just trying to explain what I think polar bear was saying. Totally agree that a lot of the fun players have no interest in playing regular games anymore, especially after they’ve had a taste of the private game.

California is the most corrupt state in the nation. Their regulatory body is completely worthless, just look at Mike Postle ... Regulatory lols

I'll also add that it seems like a grey area in Nevada which actually has a very strong gaming commission. In many other jurisdictions gaming is a joke. So if Nevada is letting it go, I don't think most other states are going to do anything about it.

What you do risk in putting up a big stink about it,is alienating a bunch of players in a relatively small player pool without much if any upside.

Sadly they won't, California has the worst regulation in the country (already proven)

For the record, you are using the word curated incorrectly. It’s used in the food world a lot. For instance, a chef curated menu means the chef picked the ingredients himself or he curated them.

The people chosen for the game were curated. You were not curated from the game.

Carry on and good luck getting this resolved. This is bs in my book.

This is exactly where my head went when reading the OP's post.

Not obvious that Nevada has stronger gaming regulations than California. For example, Nevada allows percentage rake, California does not, only allowing fixed drops. The reason for this law is that the cardrooms are not supposed to be incentivized to create massive pots, which I'd argue is exactly what they're doing by only allowing people who "gamble like trust fund babies" to play.

I do agree there's "what's legal" and "what will be enforced" but I think it's certainly dicey for cardrooms to break the law and hope it doesn't get enforced. They have enough issues battling the tribal casinos.

As far as alienating players, goes both ways, they alienated me, and clearly many people agree with my sentiment and they're alienating all of those players too. I can see the perspective there's a lot of old-timers who think poker's all about rubbing shoulders with the right people, as far as I'm concerned that sentiment should stay in the world of private games. I think most players agree with me that public games should remain open to the public in a fair and transparent matter.

The real reason is that the organizers are in it to make money.

If you give 100 people the option to a) be better at doing their job and b) made more money at their job, pretty sure the majority would pick option 2. If you play poker to make money your primary objective might not be to become a better poker player.

Agree, it's complete BS and shoudn't happen, but.... it does.

No a group of weak players being put in a pool with sharks is worse for them then a mix of players. Rather easily demonstrated as the entire point of the game is to allow the sharks to more easily fleece the fools.

BTW OP I don't know anything about you but if you are a legally protected class and the game does not show sufficient diversity complain to the government that the casino is using "curated as an excuse for illegal discrimination and watch how well that works in CA.

Jesus even 5/10 games are that hard to get into? ima stay online I can probably 5 table 1/2 games in a ring fenced market that are as soft as this one live 5/10 game and play for the same amount with less rake and variance

I cant believe stakes as low as 5/10 are privatized already I figured it would only be for 10/20 and above higher

That may be so, but this is short term thinking and will only work for so long. In the long run the biggest winners will be the ones who worked on their game in order to excel in most line ups, not just the softest ones.

These game organizers may improve their bottom line temporarily while the invited whales have money to blow but their long term prospects for thriving in poker are significantly worse than those of the people who put in real work.

Depends on the maximum buy-in of the game. Doesn't really matter if it's 5/5/10 or 10/20 if most people sit on $5k+.

There's no requirement to be in it "for the long run" though. A lot of people play poker to make the most amount of money in as short of time as possible and then quit to use their time for something they think is more meaningful. Even a lot of people who really enjoy the game shift their focus to something else within the poker industry that has less variance.

Besides that, there are people who have been playing in the softest games for a very very long time. Even a couple pretty well known ones.

I was speaking from the perspective of pros in it for the long run as a lifelong career choice.

And whose game do you respect more? The answer is obvious.

The only fair way is first come first serve. How can you argue against this simple way?

Also nobody said early birds offer anything. I didn’t know that was a requirement to play at a public casino

The pros playing in nosebleed private games are making the most money, regardless of skill. I’m very much in the camp of trying to achieve the strongest fundamentals possible but it’s not an argument that access to better games >>> actual skill in poker.

I don't really understand how anyone would make poker their "lifelong career choice" but that's outside the scope of this thread

Not sure if OP is doing himself a favor by getting gaming regulators involved but I'm extremely curious to find out how they're going to respond. My best guess is that if Bay 101 stops offering the semi-private game without being forced to do so by the authorities, organizers will try to take it across the street to M8trix.

So I do think that OP’s perspective is valid, and makes sense, but I think that there’s a big difference between not being able to play at all, and starting the game with a certain lineup of players set in advance. It also depends on how long a leeway they are giving to the “late” player. How long are they holding his seat for? I think the casino can have some argument that holding a seat for an extended period is at the discretion of the floor.

I think that “starting a game” has different rules to it than once the game is open. If the lineups are set in advance, it’s almost like people were put on the board “the night before” if you will. So being bumped from your spot on the board can be argued to be an illusion. If the players were technically on the board when the previous game that was running broke, is that really you getting bumped from the lineup?

Getting bumped to the waitlist is not the crux of the problem. It’s what the floor told me after. Here are some reasonable things the floor could have said:

1) hey we’re sorry you got bumped, we’ll write down your name and get you in the game next time

2) hey we’re sorry the prop set the lineup, but here’s a number you can text that discusses the logistics of getting a seat

Instead I was told to “play like a trust fund baby” and “suck up” to the prop. What does sucking up even mean in this context? Sounds like they want a bribe/kickback.

As far as doing myself favors, there’s many casinos in the Bay Area, we’re a 1 hour flight to Vegas and LA.

What I care about more than playing one specific game at bay 101 is pushing back on this stupid curated/semi private trend. A game is public or private. I think players should be able to go to their local cardroom and play a 5/10 game without getting pressured to gamble more than they want to and without getting pressured to bribe employees. Gambling is highly regulated, the state lists a number citizens can call to report violations, so I called it, and encourage others to do the same instead of this “well shucks that’s just the way it is”

I think this is exactly right. In starting a game there is 100% freedom. It’s equivalent to nine buddies walking in at same time and asking for casino to spread a game for them.

After it starts it should operate relatively normally, not sure if OP indicated it didn’t. If it doesn’t, then I think that is cause to “put up a stink”. Screw them. But again no indication anything being done way out of the normal.

Floor didn’t do themselves any favors in communicating. It’s not hard to explain.

Only gray area is how long to wait for late player. Not enough info provided in this example. Was OP playing for awhile? Or was pulled right as he grabbed his chips? How long after game started? Should be a half hour, maybe one tops.