Fallsview vs Rama
I was looking to play more regularly (ie 2x/wk) & wanted to compare the 2.
Rama PPC gives $0.50 every hr, Fallsview gives nothing right?
Fallsview waitlist is callable, Rama doesn't allow call-aheads right?
Fallsview 5/5 is $6/30 mins, Rama's 2/5 NL (same buy-ins as Fallsview 5/5) is $5 max, 10% I think. Who makes more $ here?
Rama PPC gives $0.50 every hr, Fallsview gives nothing right?
Fallsview waitlist is callable, Rama doesn't allow call-aheads right?
Fallsview 5/5 is $6/30 mins, Rama's 2/5 NL (same buy-ins as Fallsview 5/5) is $5 max, 10% I think. Who makes more $ here?
Comments
Fallsview never charged me for my drinks, although I did tip them a buck.
Rama has no session fee, only rake.
Fallsview comps 50 cents an hour of poker play for those with a PAC card. Be sure to swipe in and out. A PAC card also gets you free parking. No room comps...only food!!
Fallsview does allow call ins.
Session fees are always better for better players (IMHO).
Free non-alcoholic drinks at both casinos. No free booze in Ontario casinos.
There should be more tourists (fish) at Fallsview right? Sorry for all the questions, thanks to all who reply.
its convienant travelling distance and alot of non worthy people aswell as some worthy
If a session fee is better than a rake, then how come I'm happy as a clam paying $5 bucks when I take down a monster pot, but when I'm card dead for hours at a time I feel like I'm getting 13 cards shoved up my arse sideways every time the dealer changes, often four hands after the last time the dealer changed?
If Fallsview was really interested in player satisfaction, and Fallsview doesn't really have a preference on session vs. rake, they would simply poll the people who play there. Guaranteed minimum 80% prefer a 10% $5 max rake over a $12 per hour session fee.
Ohh you better be careful what you say about Fallsview! The user fallsview is overly sensitive about criticism and he'll begin his moral, holier than thou rant
Does Rama have a jackpot drop?
I hate jackpot drops = mostly just theft and variance as far as I can tell.
Seneca has a jackpot and I stopped playing there because of it.
5/5 nl, $6 per 1/2 hour session fee..that's obviosly only $120 per hour for the casino, I can't imagine how many x's that they make on the average black jack table.
Any math guy's have an opinon on $12/hr session fee vs. 5% rake at nl?
Our lower LIMIT games are a session fee, the numbers are much less player friendly from what we drop in revenue. Limit games are quicker paced (NL players generally take longer to make decisions, but we still exceed 24 hands per hour).
I agree that the 1/2 game is not the most player friendly, but with all due respect, if you are that serious about poker, you would not be playing 1/2. The 5/5 is a legitimate game with legitimate play, including the buy-in spread. I've said before, if you can't regularly and consistently beat the 5/5 at Fallsview, you need to take a serious look at your game. I understand that if you are having a losing night, paying a session fee every thirty minutes is kind of a kick, but in the long run a winning player benefits greatly from session fee if you look at the mathematics. I am more than open to suggestions, but the math doesn't make sense if you are indeed a winning player Mathers, I don't understand why you would be upset. The 1/2 is a learning/tourist/occasional player level, it certainly isn't a level where you see serious poker. Starting hand requirements and appropriate betting does not apply to the 1/2 games.
In summary: I appreciate your suggestions Mathers, that's one of the reasons why I come to this forum. We chose session fee because it is far better for winning players who understand the mathematics and it has proven that by the increased loyal play that it has helped to develop. I believe we are "doing right by our players", and the foot traffic agrees.
P.S.
M_I_K_E is still upset at getting absolutely destroyed by the board for an amateur mistake. I called him out for making an inappropriate personal attack on a public forum towards one of our staff. This behavior is not indicative of the vast majority of posters on this forum, and I personally hope that the rest of the posters do not allow it to go in this direction through tolerance.
Huh? I took the feedback in stride
Besides, I knew this would strike a chord with you. "cheers:
Get off your soapbox. Thanks.
1) At Fallsview, I consistantly hear many many players prefer a rake to a session fee, at least up to and including the 5/5 level.
2) It is extremely rare, in my experience, that 24 hands are dealt per hour on average. You also need to see over 24 max raked hands per hour for the players to see a break even point. A full orbit per half hour is not common. A full orbit equals 20 hands per hour, at least a few of which will be chops (no rake), a few of which will end pre-flop (also no rake), and a few of which will be limped pots that end with a single post flop bet (potentially less than max rake). This is the heart of the matter. If over 24 max raked hands were dealt per hour, then a session would be a +EV (though still, imo, a -variance) and the majority would prefer it. They are not, and we do not.
3) With respect to your points on limits, I believe making statements such as "5/5 is a legitimate game with legitimate play" and "1/2...isn't a level where you see serious poker" is utterly absurd. Legitimate play is made up of the 10 people sitting at the table. Anyone who has played a bit has played 5/5 tables where many of the participants are clueless and has played at 1/2 tables so tight they squeek. I saw Gavin Smith push $3600 all-in blind during WPT week. Sometimes "starting hand requirements and appropriate betting" do not apply to 25/50 NL either.
4) To pin the loyalty of people who play poker regularily at Fallsview on the fact that you charge a session fee is to pin the sinking of the Titanic on the seagull that hit hull before the 40 billion ton iceberg. People play at Fallsview because the casino has a Las Vegas feel, because you don't have to cross the border, because it's closer than other places from where they live, and mostly, because all those factors draw the hugest whales, drunks and cannons there to donate money. "Winning players who understand mathematics" play there DESPITE the session fee, not because of it.
Again, it comes down to my final point, which you cannot argue with and you cannot obscure with any amount of false rationalizations and mumbo-jumbo. If you think you can make more money with a rake (and I do not believe that you think you can), POLL THE PLAYERS AS TO WHAT THEY PREFER. If they want session, give them session. If they want rake, give them rake.
The bottom line is the bottom line. As you state, the casino can make way more money from a blackjack table. The casino wants to generate a minimum and a guaranteed $120 an hour from those tables. And the only way they can do it is with a session fee.
1) The majority of players who average less than three wins per hour.
2) Tight players who play fewer hands on average, e.g., a rock who wins only one $120 pot per hour on average.
3) An above-average player wins an average of three hands per hour but one of every three pots is only for $10-$40, e.g., 2 $50+ wins and 1 $15 win (less than $12 rake/hour).
4) Some of the raked pots are less than $50 (less than $120 will be deducted from players per hour).
5) Having a slow dealer, players or other delays that reduces the hands per hour.
The only way I would choose the session fee over the rake is IF I was an exceptional player who consistently wins at least three $40+ pots per hour. Anyway, Fallsview Casino is in the business of maximizing revenue and the fact is that most gamblers don't know or don't care about maximizing EV.
Our lower LIMIT games are a session fee, the numbers are much less player friendly from what we drop in revenue. Limit games are quicker paced (NL players generally take longer to make decisions, but we still exceed 24 hands per hou[/quote]
Ok, So things have changed since I last played Limit there. I don't have the patience for live Limit anymore anyway. And it wasn't happening today.
Fallsview, It's good that you post and read here. I must however disagree with your view of the 1/2 game. I was hoping to play 2/5 nl today, not enough interest I guess. So while waiting for 1/2 nl, 5/5 has open seating...so I sit. Played tight, picked up $150 when everyone folded to the tight guy's cr. They call my name for 1/2 nl...What to do...I have Bob directly on my right making idiotic bluffs as always. I have won $400-$700 3 out of my last 4 times playing 1/2 there. If I get sucked out on twice at 5/5 i'm down a grand...I move. Point being that not eveyone who decides to play 1/2 is a moron.
Also, not that I care but I didn't recognize 6 of the 7 suits there. One didn't seem to understand the problem when there was a dispute at the table. Why not promote your more competent dealers who understand poker rather than bringing in supervisor's from who knows where?
Like the room, hope you keep reading/posting.
The math suggests a $5 max rake is better for us, but the $6 session fee isn't bad compared to 'poker clubs' (up to $15 max on 5/5 I hear, crazy). I'd prefer a 10%, $5 max rake though, as would my friends who play 5/5.
I haven't had issues w/ slow dealers but session makes others more likely to call 'time'.
Niagara has similar locale & tourism, & is raked (but no 5/5?).
First of all buying in at 50BB max already takes away from a lot of post flop play. 5xbb standard unopened raise? With additional limpers, who knows.
Whitehorse, I am not doubting your playing ability but, making 4-7x your buyin 75% of the time is not natural. It just adds to the point that at that level it is not a legitimate game. Too many dumbasses willing to put their chips in the middle and pay you off.
FYI, CNE Casino's rake structure for LIMIT hold'em will be the same as last year - 5%, with $7.50 maximum for $5-$10 and $10 maximum for $10-$20. The Casino will be open July 30 - September 30, 12 PM - 6 AM daily.
Good point, You're right. However sitting at a game because you know you can crush it for a good profit doesn't mean that everyone who sits down at 1/2 is a complete donk.
I believe both their 1/2 & 2/5 NL are 10%, $5 max ($2 on flop, std on raked casinos). I'm not sure but I figure their 5/10 L can't be higher.
First off, my typo Whitehorse, our lower LIMIT games are raked, and I can tell you that it is not favorable for the players when compared to sessions. I would love to have more limit games, demand simply dictates mostly NL.
I was by no means implying that every person that plays 1/2 does not have a clue, I meant that in general you do not see the level of skill on that game as you do on higher limit games. Whitehorse's results are not what you would generally see on a 1/2, and plays like the ones that Gavin Smith made are not generally what you see on the higher limit games. Both do happen. Game mix is definitely different at each table at any given time, but you have a greater chance of playing with newer, learning players on the 1/2 game than you would on the 5/10 tables.
I share a lot on this forum, but I can't share everything, this means financial numbers will remain private for obvious reasons. These are facts as taken from financials:
- Bottom line is over the long run more money comes off the tables to the house in a raked game than a session fee game.
- We average more than 24 raked hands per hour, especially on games with a shufflemaster.
- Fallsview poker room used to do half the head count that Casino Niagara does, now it more than doubles Casino Niagara. This trend began directly after Fallsview went all session fee and CN went all rake.
Each and every poker room could be run better/more efficiently/more consistently. The Bellagio consistently gets crushed in forums for it's customer service, and it is widely considered to be the Mecca for poker. If I didn't expect to get crushed for some decisions on a public forum it would be too naive. If I didn't want to improve, I wouldn't be here. Some posters are helpful and constructive (even Blondefish!), some posters are just a waste of everyones time. Most of the posters will offer thought out answers and some will simply voice wants, which is what we need to hear as well. As for the Blondefish quote "Fallsview is in the business of maximizing revenue", absolutely we are, but we do invest a great deal back into the game as well. In the past 15 months we have spent over one million dollars on poker at Fallsview. We have gone from 8 to 16 tables, brought in the WPT, added shufflers to the games, added drink rails on each game (for convenience and to limit downtime due to spilled drinks), new chairs, new tournament chips, and the electronic board. The return on an investment of one million dollars into a poker room is not a short timeframe at all. There is a great deal of variance (Hollywood plays, newbies, distractions, etc) that affect the business and playing end of poker as well, session fees do limit the variance for both sides in my opinion, some will vehemently disagree. The guaranteed income of $120 per hour is better for both sides in the long run, it allows us to run the room for costing, and it leaves more money on the table in play. I have honestly not fielded a complaint about session fees while in the room, and I spend a great deal of time in there.I will not criticize other poker rooms, but next time you play a raked game, you will see some $1 and $2 pots awarded on the lower limit tables. It is not collected $1 at $10, 2 at $20, etc...Seneca is $3 on the flop, at every limit, to a maximum of $5, plus a jackpot dollar taken out.
Yes, Casino Niagara rakes the 1/2NL 10% to a maximum of $5.
1) DISAGREE. You are comparing your rake on a limit game vs. your session on a NL game
2) Again, you are basing 24 raked hands (and you state 24 "raked" not "max raked" hands) on your Limit games, not on your NL games. You take session on the NL games, so current financial data will give you no indication whatsoever of how many hands that would be max raked, (if there was a rake), are being dealt every hour at NL. You simply do not know. I don't see you counting hands.
3) Show me data that shows one thing has anything to do with the other. Sometimes the sun comes up, my dog wakes up, and he farts. By your scientific approach, the sun makes dogs fart.
The session does increase revenue and lower variance for the casino. It reduces EV, leaves LESS money on the table and greatly increases variance for the players. If you disagree, POLL THE PLAYERS.
Thank you for clarifying your comments that essentially implied that 1/2 NL is not a real game, and people who play it are not really serious or capable poker players. Probably was a little offensive to a lot of people.
Anyway, I think you guys might be overlooking one thing. $5 session fee every half hour at 1/2 NL is huge compared to $6 every half hour at 5/5NL. I would prefer either a lower session fee or a rake at the 1/2 tables but the $6 session fee at 5/5 is not so bad (relative to 1/2 anyway).
I also understand that at the end of the day the casino has to pay the dealers, staff etc. so the rakes/session fees are set to at least cover the costs. But if the casino makes more with raked hands and people want rakes then maybe something can be worked out at least for some levels (ie. 1/2).
I hope you consider running the poll Fallsview and 13Cards.
I like all the improvements you do to make Fallsview better.
Pagers, listing ahead, providing NL games ...
If the other players are so bad that you can beat the game for 5 big blinds an hour or about 20 big blinds per 100 hands then you can win at 1/2 NL at Fallsview.
:-)
I think reading between the lines you're saying "1/2 NL is for idiots and suckers" in the nicest possible way. :-)
For 5/5 rake and session fees look much closer but it's still slightly better for the player to pay rake.
Paying $12 per hour at 5/5 = 2.4 Big blinds per hour. => roughly 10 big blinds per 100 hands.
Average player win 10 hands / 100 hands .... max rake on 10 hands is $5*10 => 10 big blinds/100 hands.
I seem to win a places that are 5% rake max $4 but I don't have a big enough sample size ... yet.
Except most of the people who have posted are saying that the rake/session paid IS significant (which I'd tend to agree with). Game softness isn't really related to the rake implications of the game, they're separate issues.
In general, I'd tend to agree with the preferring capped rake games over session at the low short stacked NL games you find since the sessions are ridiculous in terms of BB, not to mention the slow nature of B&M games in general, let alone NL games where people have to think about decisions (or just hollywood about it to slow the game down even further).
Paying $12 or 6 BB/hr for 20-25 hands dealt is pretty ridiculously steep no matter how big your "advantage" is over the field. If you truly think you can beat this game even with that sort of handicap, either you should be stepping up and crushing the higher limits, or you should read BBC's "false edges" post.
Just my 2 cents, haven't really been inclined to do the math. I'm sure there are people that play micro limit online with PT stats to figure what they're typical rake contribution is per 100 hands, so I'd guess they have a better idea of what that entails...
And just to be clear, I'm not saying people SHOULDN'T play 1/2NL at the B&M. I'm just saying you "probably" shouldn't expect to do it with the expectation of winning anything in the long run...
If he were to play there regularly I agree completely with your assessment. I would much rather pay a rake% than a session fee at any level.