If kk_rush visits a casino for a 4 hour session, whether he pays $24 or for arguments sake $12 in rake, that $12 difference is easily made up by the difference in level of play and insignificant to the final result of a one time session.
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.
Hummm, $10 = 5 Big blinds,
5 big blinds/hour is huge huge in anyones win rate.
If they deal at 25 hands an hour that means your paying 20 big blinds per 100 hands...
Is your win rate so big that 20bb/100 is insignificant?
I'll probably end up at Fallsview over Niagara as I may want to take a shot at some of the $90 satellites for the WPT event later this year. Still, this is an interesting discussion.
LOL, what casino do you play at that's dealing 100 hands/hour? Include directions please, I can't wait to go.
/g2
Thanks for catching my math mistake!
What I'm trying to say is, Raked 1/2NL is an unbeatable game.
$10 per hour
at 1/2
5 BB/hour
25 hands /hour=> 20BB/100 hands,
40 hands per hour => 12.5BB/100 hands
This game will die without new suckers because nobody can win it long term.
Fallsview has enough clueless tourists that they can get away with charging this much time charge. But most other places would kill their game if everyone lost so much to time charges.
What I'm trying to say is, Raked 1/2NL is an unbeatable game.
$12 per hour
at 1/2
6 BB/hour
25 hands /hour=> 24BB/100 hands,
40 hands per hour => 15BB/100 hands
This game will die without new suckers because nobody can win it long term.
Fallsview has enough clueless tourists that they can get away with charging this much time charge. But most other places would kill their game if everyone lost so much to time charges.
Although I agree w/ your general premise that it's an unwinnable game long-term, it's $10/hr on 1/2, not $12. Still unbeatable though. $12 is for 2/5 & 5/5.
Long wait list at both, but at least FV let you call ahead. However, due to multiple people having the same 1st name & last initial, my seat may've been 'stolen'. They said they couldn't verify who was 1st, so since someone else w/ the same name came 1st, he got the seat. Warning for others to include your last name on busy days.
Also, after July 2, have your PAC swiped at the poker pit, else you'll be charged $10 for parking if you haven't played other games (machine tells them whether you've played based on PAC activity).
After getting on the long Rama WL, went to eat at Dream Catcher, decent food for decent casino price. List was still very long after those 30 mins so I watched my friends gamble for 30 mins, expecting I'd still be way down the list. 1st 30 mins the list hardly moved, the next 30 mins it blew past me! Got back on & waited 30 mins until finally seated. Rama needs a better system.
Aside from the winning shark I know, has any forumer moved up limits to take the "Fallsview Challenge" and consistently beaten the 5/5 game? My current plan is to play 2/5 at Seneca Casino, but I have been advised to skip to 5/5 instead.
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.
Although I agree w/ your general premise that it's an unwinnable game long-term, it's $10/hr on 1/2, not $12. Still unbeatable though. $12 is for 2/5 & 5/5.
Aside from the winning shark I know, has any forumer moved up limits to take the "Fallsview Challenge" and consistently beaten the 5/5 game? My current plan is to play 2/5 at Seneca Casino, but I have been advised to skip to 5/5 instead.
I consistently beat 5/5. However, I only played FV 5/5 about 50x (+Rama $500 buy-in 2/5 20x, so 70x total) over almost 3 yrs due to school & laziness (1.5 hr drive). Variance is high due to the high donk factor. Bring multiple buy-ins, you'll likely top up often.
Very beatable, though more people have caught on to the high donk rate & play pro now so it's a bit tougher. Obstacles to going pro at FV:
1. Longer waitlist vs other casinos gets you to blow your $ at -EV games.
2. Pricey food
3. Relatively big 'rake' vs other casinos
4. High housing/hotel costs vs other casino areas (Rama, Windsor)
Rama is a better choice for pros IMO, though I play at FV more because I'm not a pro. Those pts don't matter as much to non-pros.
I consistently beat 5/5. However, I only played FV 5/5 about 50x (+Rama $500 buy-in 2/5 20x, so 70x total) over almost 3 yrs due to school & laziness (1.5 hr drive). Variance is high due to the high donk factor. Bring multiple buy-ins, you'll likely top up often.
Very beatable, though more people have caught on to the high donk rate & play pro now so it's a bit tougher. Obstacles to going pro at FV:
1. Longer waitlist vs other casinos gets you to blow your $ at -EV games.
2. Pricey food
3. Relatively big 'rake' vs other casinos
4. High housing/hotel costs vs other casino areas (Rama, Windsor)
Rama is a better choice for pros IMO, though I play at FV more because I'm not a pro. Those pts don't matter as much to non-pros.
I think you got to keep in mind that FV will probably attract more tourists which in effect will make the games better compared to Rama, which is located in an area where the tourist attraction rate will be significantly lower than that of FV.
AFAIK @ FV 5/5, and I don't think approx. 15-20 sessions is even close to a good sample size, but so far so good.
Thanks, HP_John. Is it because you're too young that you haven't taken advantage of Seneca Casino yet? It has a lower rake and free alcohol, and from what I have read, shorter wait lists and a beatable donk or drunk factor.
Obstacles to going pro at FV:
1. Longer waitlist vs other casinos gets you to blow your $ at -EV games.
2. Pricey food
3. Relatively big 'rake' vs other casinos
I consistently beat 5/5. However, I only played FV 5/5 about 50x (+Rama $500 buy-in 2/5 20x, so 70x total) over almost 3 yrs due to school & laziness (1.5 hr drive). Variance is high due to the high donk factor. Bring multiple buy-ins, you'll likely top up often.
Very beatable, though more people have caught on to the high donk rate & play pro now so it's a bit tougher. Obstacles to going pro at FV:
1. Longer waitlist vs other casinos gets you to blow your $ at -EV games.
2. Pricey food
3. Relatively big 'rake' vs other casinos
4. High housing/hotel costs vs other casino areas (Rama, Windsor)
Rama is a better choice for pros IMO, though I play at FV more because I'm not a pro. Those pts don't matter as much to non-pros.
Nice post!
Why do you play in Fallsview if it is better at Rama?
I've never been to Rama since Brantford and Niagara Falls are closer to me in Hamilton. But I may check out Rama if it's worth the long drive.
How much do you have to adjust your game to play at Fallsview vs Rama? I imagine you play tighter at Rama since the blinds are smaller and it's rake not session fees.
The tourists are why I play at FV inspite of Rama's edges.
I've played at SC once but I never knew how to compare their rake vs FV's session (thanks BF for running the #s). They only had 1 2/5 table that day, so waitlist was long (should've sat at 1/2 while waiting). Do they have more than 1 2/5 table now?
If Rama is much farther it's not worth it IMO (gas, & tiredness really affects you). IMO, despite the rake vs session difference,tables at both play similarly (LA on weekdays, LP on weekends) but FV has higher donk rate on weekends. Weekends have much higher 'tourist' to 'pro' ratio.
fallsview runs thier room very poorly & rake would be better but they are greedy
LOL...welcome to the forum.
There are various reasons why we believe session is better than rake; most of which have already been outlined by Jason. I won't get into another debate about it here but I do stand behind his decision 100% and would make the same choice myself if it was up to me.
For my 2 cents worth a $5/half hour with a $100 buy in max for 1/2 is too steep. Your 5/5 rate at $6 is fine since the buy in is reasonable and the potential payout is there.
Your $100 buy in is chewed up by 5% every half hour. If I was a casino and could get away with this I'd take it too. As a poker player I'd love to win 5% every half hour. If you went to a max $200 buy in at least there is money in the pot to be won but still believe it is more player friendly to rake that game. I have yet to play in your casino where we play more than 1 orbit per 1/2 hour. Between change, shuffle machine breakdowns, etc I find paying 50 cents a hand too high.
Seneca recently went to $200 max buy-in for 1/2; definitely worth the walk across the border and the wait time is minimal compared to the Niagara casinos. If Fallsview doesn't want your business, take it elsewhere.
Thanks, HP_John. Is it because you're too young that you haven't taken advantage of Seneca Casino yet? It has a lower rake and free alcohol, and from what I have read, shorter wait lists and a beatable donk or drunk factor.
Everyone forgets the most important Seneca factor.... the cute redhead that gives massages to players.... does anyone else know what I am talking about??
There are various reasons why we believe session is better than rake; most of which have already been outlined by Jason. I won't get into another debate about it here but I do stand behind his decision 100% and would make the same choice myself if it was up to me.
Respectfully, no one cares what you would choose. 90% of the posters on this thread, and 90% of players I speak with at your casino and others, would prefer a $5 max rake to a $12/hr session fee. The arguements have been outlined previously in this thread by myself, Blondefish and others.
Respectfully, no one cares what you would choose. 90% of the posters on this thread, and 90% of players I speak with at your casino and others, would prefer a $5 max rake to a $12/hr session fee. The arguements have been outlined previously in this thread by myself, Blondefish and others.
session fee is fixed while a rake is variable; casinos don't like variable profits. I know, "they lose money on the poker room".
Respectfully, no one cares what you would choose. 90% of the posters on this thread, and 90% of players I speak with at your casino and others, would prefer a $5 max rake to a $12/hr session fee. The arguements have been outlined previously in this thread by myself, Blondefish and others.
And yet... we still have 100+ people on waiting lists for 2 tables of $1-$2 No Limit on Friday and Saturday nights. That is adequate action for our size room. Changing to a "preferable" rake would only congest our wait list even more thereby making our room as your choice less desirable.
And yet... we still have 100+ people on waiting lists for 2 tables of $1-$2 No Limit on Friday and Saturday nights. That is adequate action for our size room. Changing to a "preferable" rake would only congest our wait list even more thereby making our room as your choice less desirable.
if it congests the waiting list more, doesn't this mean that it is the preferred method? not sure if that is a valid argument.
And yet... we still have 100+ people on waiting lists for 2 tables of $1-$2 No Limit on Friday and Saturday nights.
I wouldn't be bragging about this. My aim isn't to pick a fight with you but we all know why the poker room at Fallsview is busy. There's simply nowhere else to play NL live.
I'm not particularly amused that the last 3 times I've been at Fallsview there have been 6+ hour waits, and all 3 times I didn't get to play. And I wasn't in line for 1/2 NL, either (I have been in lines for 5/5, 5/10 and 10/20 NL). Because of that, I won't be going back for an indefinite amount of time (unless I hear that there's enough tables for the demand, which doesn't appear as though it's going to happen by the tone of the manager posting in this thread). Next time I play, I'll have to go to Seneca Niagara, or more likely host a game at my house. Waiting 6+ hours to play poker is unacceptable to say the least, especially when I'm not a degenerate who plays other table games (this of course is what Fallsview wants people to do). I actually can't believe that anyone really waits that long, unless they're local and can go home for 5 hours.
if it congests the waiting list more, doesn't this mean that it is the preferred method? not sure if that is a valid argument.
It means they can offer shorter waiting times at an increased cost for the player. It shows steady profit for the casino. Last Friday when I played there I was able to walk in and play they had NO waiting list for the 1/2 game at 3:30 on a Friday afternoon.
I wouldn't be bragging about this. My aim isn't to pick a fight with you but we all know why the poker room at Fallsview is busy. There's simply nowhere else to play NL live.
I'm not particularly amused that the last 3 times I've been at Fallsview there have been 6+ hour waits, and all 3 times I didn't get to play. And I wasn't in line for 1/2 NL, either (I have been in lines for 5/5, 5/10 and 10/20 NL). Because of that, I won't be going back for an indefinite amount of time (unless I hear that there's enough tables for the demand, which doesn't appear as though it's going to happen by the tone of the manager posting in this thread). Next time I play, I'll have to go to Seneca Niagara, or more likely host a game at my house. Waiting 6+ hours to play poker is unacceptable to say the least, especially when I'm not a degenerate who plays other table games (this of course is what Fallsview wants people to do). I actually can't believe that anyone really waits that long, unless they're local and can go home for 5 hours.
Ryan Hall
I see a new business springing up, poker waiting rooms: comfy chairs, magazines, maybe a few computers so you can play some online while waiting, drink service all for an hourly fee. They keep a runner at the casino keeping an eye on the board and announcing when players are up next. Perhaps even a shuttle bus to run people back and forth.
Now to find a way to get a house near the Casino..
And yet... we still have 100+ people on waiting lists for 2 tables of $1-$2 No Limit on Friday and Saturday nights. That is adequate action for our size room. Changing to a "preferable" rake would only congest our wait list even more thereby making our room as your choice less desirable.
It's great to have Fallsview casino rep's here posting in our discussions.
Here's my take.
Casino's want long poker lists...
Why?
Poker makes less money for the casino than the sucker games.
Slot machines make up the majority of the casino's profits in terms of total profit and profit/square meter of floor space. Next comes "very exiting" table games ... The poker room has to compete with slot other games for floor space.
Questions to consider:
Do casino's view poker as something to bring in suckers to play the negative EV table games and slot machines?
Or do they consider poker as a source of revenue in it's own right?
Do casino's view winning poker players as valued customers who hold games together or a parasites who suck away money that would go into the rake/session fees?
Fallsview is in the situation where they don't have to cater to winning low limit players. They have enough suckers to fill up the unbeatable 1/2NL 2/5NL lists. The 5/5 and 5/10 seem to be full as well.
As long as people are stupid enough to play the session fees it makes good business sense to charge the market what it will bear.
From the casino's point of view... session fee's are preferable.
If you're a poker room manager and you want to maximize profits and there are waiting lists you can charge what the market will bear.
From a players perspective ... you should play elsewhere if you want to play 1/2NL or 2/5NL.
From a players perspective ... you should play elsewhere if you want to play 1/2NL or 2/5NL.
But then good players SHOULD come play at Fallsview because of the endless stream of new, donktastic money coming in to sit down each day; more than enough to make up for the session fees!!
Comments
Hummm, $10 = 5 Big blinds,
5 big blinds/hour is huge huge in anyones win rate.
If they deal at 25 hands an hour that means your paying 20 big blinds per 100 hands...
Is your win rate so big that 20bb/100 is insignificant?
What's your win rate?
/g2
Love FV's waitlist. Tough.
What I'm trying to say is, Raked 1/2NL is an unbeatable game.
$10 per hour
at 1/2
5 BB/hour
25 hands /hour=> 20BB/100 hands,
40 hands per hour => 12.5BB/100 hands
This game will die without new suckers because nobody can win it long term.
Fallsview has enough clueless tourists that they can get away with charging this much time charge. But most other places would kill their game if everyone lost so much to time charges.
Although I agree w/ your general premise that it's an unwinnable game long-term, it's $10/hr on 1/2, not $12. Still unbeatable though. $12 is for 2/5 & 5/5.
Long wait list at both, but at least FV let you call ahead. However, due to multiple people having the same 1st name & last initial, my seat may've been 'stolen'. They said they couldn't verify who was 1st, so since someone else w/ the same name came 1st, he got the seat. Warning for others to include your last name on busy days.
Also, after July 2, have your PAC swiped at the poker pit, else you'll be charged $10 for parking if you haven't played other games (machine tells them whether you've played based on PAC activity).
After getting on the long Rama WL, went to eat at Dream Catcher, decent food for decent casino price. List was still very long after those 30 mins so I watched my friends gamble for 30 mins, expecting I'd still be way down the list. 1st 30 mins the list hardly moved, the next 30 mins it blew past me! Got back on & waited 30 mins until finally seated. Rama needs a better system.
right you are...
Thanks I corrected my math mistake.
I consistently beat 5/5. However, I only played FV 5/5 about 50x (+Rama $500 buy-in 2/5 20x, so 70x total) over almost 3 yrs due to school & laziness (1.5 hr drive). Variance is high due to the high donk factor. Bring multiple buy-ins, you'll likely top up often.
Very beatable, though more people have caught on to the high donk rate & play pro now so it's a bit tougher. Obstacles to going pro at FV:
1. Longer waitlist vs other casinos gets you to blow your $ at -EV games.
2. Pricey food
3. Relatively big 'rake' vs other casinos
4. High housing/hotel costs vs other casino areas (Rama, Windsor)
Rama is a better choice for pros IMO, though I play at FV more because I'm not a pro. Those pts don't matter as much to non-pros.
I think you got to keep in mind that FV will probably attract more tourists which in effect will make the games better compared to Rama, which is located in an area where the tourist attraction rate will be significantly lower than that of FV.
AFAIK @ FV 5/5, and I don't think approx. 15-20 sessions is even close to a good sample size, but so far so good.
Nice post!
Why do you play in Fallsview if it is better at Rama?
I've never been to Rama since Brantford and Niagara Falls are closer to me in Hamilton. But I may check out Rama if it's worth the long drive.
How much do you have to adjust your game to play at Fallsview vs Rama? I imagine you play tighter at Rama since the blinds are smaller and it's rake not session fees.
I've played at SC once but I never knew how to compare their rake vs FV's session (thanks BF for running the #s). They only had 1 2/5 table that day, so waitlist was long (should've sat at 1/2 while waiting). Do they have more than 1 2/5 table now?
If Rama is much farther it's not worth it IMO (gas, & tiredness really affects you). IMO, despite the rake vs session difference,tables at both play similarly (LA on weekdays, LP on weekends) but FV has higher donk rate on weekends. Weekends have much higher 'tourist' to 'pro' ratio.
LOL...welcome to the forum.
There are various reasons why we believe session is better than rake; most of which have already been outlined by Jason. I won't get into another debate about it here but I do stand behind his decision 100% and would make the same choice myself if it was up to me.
Your $100 buy in is chewed up by 5% every half hour. If I was a casino and could get away with this I'd take it too. As a poker player I'd love to win 5% every half hour. If you went to a max $200 buy in at least there is money in the pot to be won but still believe it is more player friendly to rake that game. I have yet to play in your casino where we play more than 1 orbit per 1/2 hour. Between change, shuffle machine breakdowns, etc I find paying 50 cents a hand too high.
Everyone forgets the most important Seneca factor.... the cute redhead that gives massages to players.... does anyone else know what I am talking about??
sometimes cheaper than the rake at the table!
Respectfully, no one cares what you would choose. 90% of the posters on this thread, and 90% of players I speak with at your casino and others, would prefer a $5 max rake to a $12/hr session fee. The arguements have been outlined previously in this thread by myself, Blondefish and others.
session fee is fixed while a rake is variable; casinos don't like variable profits. I know, "they lose money on the poker room".
And yet... we still have 100+ people on waiting lists for 2 tables of $1-$2 No Limit on Friday and Saturday nights. That is adequate action for our size room. Changing to a "preferable" rake would only congest our wait list even more thereby making our room as your choice less desirable.
if it congests the waiting list more, doesn't this mean that it is the preferred method? not sure if that is a valid argument.
I wouldn't be bragging about this. My aim isn't to pick a fight with you but we all know why the poker room at Fallsview is busy. There's simply nowhere else to play NL live.
I'm not particularly amused that the last 3 times I've been at Fallsview there have been 6+ hour waits, and all 3 times I didn't get to play. And I wasn't in line for 1/2 NL, either (I have been in lines for 5/5, 5/10 and 10/20 NL). Because of that, I won't be going back for an indefinite amount of time (unless I hear that there's enough tables for the demand, which doesn't appear as though it's going to happen by the tone of the manager posting in this thread). Next time I play, I'll have to go to Seneca Niagara, or more likely host a game at my house. Waiting 6+ hours to play poker is unacceptable to say the least, especially when I'm not a degenerate who plays other table games (this of course is what Fallsview wants people to do). I actually can't believe that anyone really waits that long, unless they're local and can go home for 5 hours.
Ryan Hall
It means they can offer shorter waiting times at an increased cost for the player. It shows steady profit for the casino. Last Friday when I played there I was able to walk in and play they had NO waiting list for the 1/2 game at 3:30 on a Friday afternoon.
I see a new business springing up, poker waiting rooms: comfy chairs, magazines, maybe a few computers so you can play some online while waiting, drink service all for an hourly fee. They keep a runner at the casino keeping an eye on the board and announcing when players are up next. Perhaps even a shuttle bus to run people back and forth.
Now to find a way to get a house near the Casino..
It's great to have Fallsview casino rep's here posting in our discussions.
Here's my take.
Casino's want long poker lists...
Why?
Poker makes less money for the casino than the sucker games.
Slot machines make up the majority of the casino's profits in terms of total profit and profit/square meter of floor space. Next comes "very exiting" table games ... The poker room has to compete with slot other games for floor space.
Questions to consider:
Do casino's view poker as something to bring in suckers to play the negative EV table games and slot machines?
Or do they consider poker as a source of revenue in it's own right?
Do casino's view winning poker players as valued customers who hold games together or a parasites who suck away money that would go into the rake/session fees?
Fallsview is in the situation where they don't have to cater to winning low limit players. They have enough suckers to fill up the unbeatable 1/2NL 2/5NL lists. The 5/5 and 5/10 seem to be full as well.
As long as people are stupid enough to play the session fees it makes good business sense to charge the market what it will bear.
From the casino's point of view... session fee's are preferable.
If you're a poker room manager and you want to maximize profits and there are waiting lists you can charge what the market will bear.
From a players perspective ... you should play elsewhere if you want to play 1/2NL or 2/5NL.
But then good players SHOULD come play at Fallsview because of the endless stream of new, donktastic money coming in to sit down each day; more than enough to make up for the session fees!!