MGM poker rooms raising rake to $6

Any NL will be intimidating to some newer players. Rightfully so.

Locally 1/3NL is over 90% of the games but it is match stack so plays big. While we all know that the small stack is the effective stakes but when a short stack is facing 3 or 4 much deeper stacks every time he comes in he is playing for his stack. This is intimidating

Even with a $500 max buyin, these beginners buying in near $100 or $200 are almost forced to play shove/fold post flop. They can’t really learn to play this way.

This is just a reality of trying to learn via a NL game. At one time early-ish in my poker life, I played almost exclusively 4-8limit. Though the buy in did not really matter, I developed a habit of buying in for $160. No reason just seemed to feel right for me.

The smallest NL game offered was $2/5 $200-$500 or match stack. One time a poker friend, more of a beginner than me, asked why I did not play 2/5 since buy was only $40 more. He just did not get the idea of always being a short stack and being almost always at risk of all in.

When I got my bank roll built up enough to take shots at 2/5 while buying in for at least $300 and usually $400, I did start sitting in that game AND getting my butt kicked initially. But I was deep enough to play TAG and learn how to adjust to NL vs LHE. But honestly the best thing that advanced me was another room opened offering 1/3 $200-$300 or match.

If 1/3 did not come along I don’t know what would have happened. But I do know if I had to start at NL, be it 2/5 or 1/3 even 1/2 I doubt I would have survived. I fully believe a healthy poker environment needs LS LHE fir beginners to start in.

As a few have already said, it's surprising this hadn't happened a lot earlier.

Fwiw, Bellagio use to drop 4 dollars in 2005 for lower games. 6 dollars today represents a little over a 2% annualized increase which is basically in-line with inflation over that period which is surprising because obviously a lot of things especially in the last ten years in Vegas has far outpaced inflation.

^Bellagio was still dropping $4 in 2015 which even at the time looked like a really good deal.

With MGM and Caesars so eager to keep raising fees and prices I was expecting rake to go up faster when it increased to $5.

I haven't been into the The Grand to play a session in YEARS... the 2/5 game used to be amazing on the weekends when it was in it's old spot by the sports bar and the people could walk by on the way top the club.

Assume you’re talking about mgm grand, you are not missing anything.
1/2 is uncapped but only guys who buy in more are some wannabes that try to show off and are there because they would get wrecked in the big rooms 2/5+.
Their stacks are generally not actually in play.
Most of the games are $2-300 stacks with high rake and often more omcs when promos are going on.

effective...

that casino is always a curiosity whenever i go. most people do play the 1/3 or 2/3 -- both seemingly a race to the bottom.

rake to $6 is a bummer. but if they keep the comps to $3/hr, maybe that's that all that bad?

MGM should do a field trip to Europe and learn. Just Got back from Vienna, where the casino rake is 5%, with a €25 max. I know of several other locations in the continent where it is at that level

So you want MGM to also have insanely high rake?

Vegas has a lot more competition, while Vienna can be compared to Aruba or a cruise ship poker room (i.e. the only game or one of the few games in town). If MGM increased the rake to say $10, they would lose customers to competition such as Caesars Palace, Horseshoe and to a lesser extent station casinos.

I hope they don't raise rake but very very few people would stop playing poker at a certain Vegas room if rake increased. there is literally zero evidence it has decreased demand anytime it has gone up.
recs will play anyway because rake doesn't mean much to them.

Well I know it's not exactly a cause and effect, but 15-20 years ago the rake was lower and there were a lot more people playing.

If all the rooms stay pretty much the same then they won't lose a lot of business, but if one doubled the rake while the others kept it the same, I'm sure they would lose business.

Years ago when Venetian lowered their rake for quite a few months, they definitely increased their share of games.

I think even if many don’t care about the rake or notice it, they do notice if they lose more per year or win less often. Or if they were break even and now lose. People that would play more play less or stop playing. Over time it can’t be good for poker unless the stakes also go up. But for small games if there aren’t many people that win even a little bit, over time there are fewer games, fewer poker rooms and less interest in poker. Tournaments seem to be an exception as the chance of winning a lot compwriting/event like feel seems to bring people in (not my cup of tea but whatever). But when you turn break even players into losers and winners into barely breaking even it hurts the games. No answer for it, but it’s a reality.

He's a CZR stockholder.

look outside poker. casino games are always a win for the house. people still gamble

Not as many prior gamble as used to do so. You haven't heard that most of Las Vegas casino income is no longer from gambling?

and 15 years before that the rake was even cheaper and hardly anyone was playing.

"Not as many prior gamble as used to do so. You haven't heard that most of Las Vegas casino income is no longer from gambling?"

That's because gambling is all over the country now. It's not because less people gamble.

You think the number of people playing poker hasn't declined in the last 15-20 years? I don't really know, but the common belief seems to be that it has.

Yes but the casino doesn’t need winning or break even players for table games to start, the dealers just stand there and when someone comes they can play 24/7. If fewer people can win or break even at least at poker, there is less interest and fewer poker games in the long run because people that may have played once a week, a few times a week or every day are less likely to do so or can no longer afford to do so. And recs lose even more frequently and are likely to play less. It slows the growth of poker. Yes, there will be games but fewer. IMO if blackjack had a ten percent house edge instead of a smaller one there would also be fewer blackjack games. People may not understand or care about the house edge but if they win much less often they will come less often. For tables, people don’t play every day bc they would go broke, they play for fun on occasion usually. For poker, many regular players play very often and if they no longer win, no longer break even or lose more (win less frequently) many will play less.

I think the nunber of people playing poker in Vegas has declined. But if you look at how many more options there are now compared to back then, I would guess the overall number of people playing poker is similar. There are many more states with their own casinos/poker rooms, online poker, circuit events, etc. Plus the WSOP is still setting records for entrants to the ME, I believe?

yes poker in Vegas has declined.
I really don't think an increase in rake has contributed much to that fact.
no limit Texas holdem is no longer in its beginner boom phase. the overall skill level of most players has increased significantly on the last 2 decades. it's much tougher for new players to break into.
along with that, casinos are closing rooms because they consider it a loss-leader, like buffets. post-covid Vegas is different in many ways, most of them anti-consumer ways. fewer rooms leads to fewer people playing poker. recreational players are less inclined to congregate/travel to a different casino than where they are staying
these are more significant factors than rake

Oh I agree it has but that doesn't mean it has because of the rake.

Rake is higher than it was in 2010 and we have less players.

Rake was higher in 2010 than it was in 1995 and yet in 2010 we had way more players than in 1995.

At the end of the day rake is just another opponent.

Jeffage,
You are 100% correct. People may not notice the rake and it's effect right away, but over time they notice they don't win as much or are now losing when they were a small winner or break even player. The latest increase from $5 to $6 will actually cost a full time player this much, or close to it: 25-30 hands an hour (hand shuffle/Auto shuffle) at an 8-handed table that is 3.125 hands per hour, 9-handed is 2.778 hands per hour or 3.75 and 3.33 hands per hour.
Playing 2,000 hours a year would mean the player would pay an extra $5,556 to $6,250 to $6,666 to $7,500. That is a huge chunk of change, especially if you are playing 1-2,1-3, or 2-5 Nl.
Finally, for those that say the cost to run a poker room has gone up dramatically, they are wrong. Dealers make minimum wage, or much less in many states like they always have. Floor people make the same or less than what they did 20-30 years ago from my research, and most places tend to use less floor people than in the past. Brush people are quite often dealers on break or part of the floor people's responsibilities except in the largest rooms. Many places have done away with cages/cashiers, or pay them the same (minimum wage, or close to it) as in the past.
Bottom line, lower the rake, and in a few years poker will have decidedly more business. More people winning and/or losing less will play more. New players will have better success and see that the game is beatable, which will bring more people into the game, etc. Example: I would bet every dollar I have or will have that if the Wynn Encore cut the rake to $3 max per hand on all games and promoted it, within three years they would have to expand the room to handle the extra business.
Casinos and poker rooms need to understand that you have to have winning players for a room to be successful long term.
Don't be like horse racing and try and squeeze every dollar every which way possible.
Racetrack

Almost no rec players are playing anywhere near 2000 hour a year.
Of course it costs more to run a room now than it did 20-30 years ago. Costs for everything are up.

The impact is definitely bigger on lower stakes full time grinders than rec players and those players understand the impact right away.

Realistically it's costing most rec players something like 1-2k a year. And the tighter they play the less it costs them.

Do I like rake increases? No of course not. But I also don't like when players get better or a good player takes a bad players seat. At the end of the day rake is another opponent.

While true, it's worth mentioning that here in Nevada, Minimum Wage was $8.25/hr when they raised the rake from 4 to 5, and it's now $12/hr when they raised it from 5 to 6.