Bellagio (Las Vegas, NV)
Why can't a billion dollar casino put cup holders on or in their poker tables?
You get more calls of raises out of the blinds which creates bigger pots which means more raising on the flop and turns.
Oh I thought you meant more hands happening per hour, when it seemed to me it would be the opposite.
Bad players tend to play too many hands already. I don't understand how making loose play less bad will give them a greater skill disadvantage, it seems like it will even the playing field and punish nits.
Bad players tend to play too many hands already. I don't understand how making loose play less bad will give them a greater skill disadvantage, it seems like it will even the playing field and punish nits.
You want the recreational players to lose the maximum in the long run. If you upset the balance of luck and skill so that their loss rate is too high, many of them will quit before they lose the maximum. That's not good for the poker room, and it's not good for the better players. See my Cardrooms book for more discussion:
The Bellagio tends to get two or three limit games per day.
Given the small player pool of locals (~60-70% of the pool?) and tourists which fill the games, it doesn't seem like a theoretical disadvantage of this blind structure will have any practical impact on these games.
The Bellagio tends to get two or three limit games per day.
Given the small player pool of locals (~60-70% of the pool?) and tourists which fill the games, it doesn't seem like a theoretical disadvantage of this blind structure will have any practical impact on these games.
I believe a lot of the problem is that in small stakes limit hold 'em the rake is now too high to develop a core of regular players who would then feed into higher stakes games. (This isn't yet true in the small stakes no-limit games but if the rake keeps going up it eventually will be.)
A poker room should, in general (in my opinion), be like a pyramid in the sense that as the stakes gets higher you should see less games than those at the lower stakes. For instance, right now at The Bellagio (where they recently made a change in the structure of their limit hold 'em games) we're seeing more $30-$60 games than $15-$30 games. and sometimes it's difficult to start the $15-$30 games and/or keep it going, and this happens when the $30-$60 game(s) is strong. Thus an inverse pyramid is being created.
I know from discussion with management that they were concerned the $40-$80 game wasn't consistent enough. Thus the change. I also believe that the management in The Bellagio is trying to do the right thing and wants more limit games, and that they'll be watching the results of this experiment closely. But I also think that this "fix" is not the fix they should be pursuing since the 2 chip / three chip structure, again in my opinion, burns the games out too fast.
And the fix that they, in my opinion, should be pursuing is to introduce lower limit hold 'em games with a much reduced rake than what poker rooms are currently collecting. Of course, this fix won't immediately create more games, but in time it should help to create a core of regular players of which some will move up to higher stakes games.
By the way, and I'm just going to come right out and say this, I'm someone with a strong background in mathematical statistics (see my Gambling Theory book if you have any doubts) and have collected data and studied this stuff at a detailed level which the large majority of poker players and poker managers don't understand. I'm happy to discuss this in more detail with anyone in poker room management.
For more discussion, see my Cardrooms book:
Surprised nobody has yet mentioned the negative impact on the game from pots appearing smaller and "less fun" in a three-chip game vs. a four-chip game. People used to talk about that all the time as a reason why four-chip games are better. I also think four-chip games are more prevalent these days among midstakes, so players are just kind of more used to throwing out sets of four chips and the play feels better to them that way. These sort of soft factors matter a little, I think.
I'd bet that come WSOP the games will be back to 20 and 40, even if just temporarily.
Surprised nobody has yet mentioned the negative impact on the game from pots appearing smaller and "less fun" in a three-chip game vs. a four-chip game. People used to talk about that all the time as a reason why four-chip games are better.
People talk about a lot of things that aren't necessarily true or accurate.
Surprised nobody has yet mentioned the negative impact on the game from pots appearing smaller and "less fun" in a three-chip game vs. a four-chip game. People used to talk about that all the time as a reason why four-chip games are better. I also think four-chip games are more prevalent these days among midstakes, so players are just kind of more used to throwing out sets of f
I don't agree that the pots are smaller in this structure, and that's part of the problem. (The small blind now plays more hands which encourages other players to play more hands.)
I do agree that they'll probably go back to the $20-$40 structure by the time the WSOP comes around, but not for the reason you give. I also have no inside information on this and could certainly be wrong.
I don't agree that the pots are smaller in this structure, and that's part of the problem. (The small blind now plays more hands which encourages other players to play more hands.)I do agree that they'll probably go back to the $20-$40 structure by the time the WSOP comes around, but not for the reason you give. I also have no inside information on this and could certainly be w
I don't mean the pots are bigger in terms of bets, I mean they appear to be bigger. Even if a two-chip SB increases pot sizes, it would need to do so by 33% for the pot to appear as large as a pot in a four-chip game. And I just don't buy that a two-chip SB results in an average 33% increase in total pot sizes.
I mean, we agree that a four-chip structure is better. I'm just arguing that on the margins, one of the reasons why a four-chip game is better is that it is perceived as more actiony, which is net good for the game.
I've always thought that was a myth.
I used to sometimes play in a $5/10 LHE game with $5 chips, and there was plenty of action.
I've always thought that was a myth.
I used to sometimes play in a $5/10 LHE game with $5 chips, and there was plenty of action.
Myth or not. Often heard that is why limit games were 4/8 6/12 8/16.
They used to have 4/8 at the Tropicana in Atlantic City, and most players bought in for mostly $5 chips.
The game was still very loose. It was amazing seeing 8 players limp in preflop by betting a $5 chip and then the dealer having to make change and give them each back a $1 chip.
I would be shocked if Bellagio went back to 20-40 and 40-80.
Management didn't make this change casually. They talked to their regular players about it in advance and had their support.
Does this regular $5-$5 PLO Double Board game usually run hi-Lo or hi only?
Heck let’s make it 6-card, double board, hi/lo PLO. We’ll get 4 hands per down. Maybe 3.
When I played it, it was a mix of high only and high/low ultimate. Unless it has changed recently, it is different on different nights (most nights it’s played high only but some nights it’s s mix). The schedule is in the bravo.
When I played it, it was a mix of high only and high/low ultimate. Unless it has changed recently, it is different on different nights (most nights it’s played high only but some nights it’s s mix). The schedule is in the bravo.
Hi/lo ultimate, if I'm understanding it correctly, sounds like it would be a huge pain to determine winners.
In my experience playing and dealing, hi/lo ultimate is exponentially easier to deal than hi/lo dbbp
In my experience playing and dealing, hi/lo ultimate is exponentially easier to deal than hi/lo dbbp
Would that be 4 winners? That also sounds terrible, but I didn't know it existed.
I remember hearing that 5/10 LHE in Vegas was surprisingly soft for the stakes. But that was at least around 20 years ago.
Eh, I'll see another card, it's just one chip!
Hi low ultimate is the best high hand across both boards splits with the best low hand across both board (hence ultimate). There is not a high and low winner on each board it’s the best overall high that is made and the best overall low that is made across both of the boards. And yes people make bad mistakes when they are counterfeited on one of the boards on the low side.
Hi low ultimate is the best high hand across both boards splits with the best low hand across both board (hence ultimate). There is not a high and low winner on each board it’s the best overall high that is made and the best overall low that is made across both of the boards. And yes people make bad mistakes when they are counterfeited on one of the boards on the low side.
Right, but I was asking 2xanman about the other game they mentioned.
