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!!
They should come if they can overcome the session fee.
I'm not good enough to win at the 1/2 NL in Fallsview.
My win rate at other sites is 4 big blinds per 100 hands with a standard deviation of 17.
This is about 1 Big blind an hour.
I would lose if I had to pay $10/hour session fees which is 5 big blinds an hour.
I think you're doing your job by charging as much as the market will bear.
If people are stupid enough to play double zero roulette (-5.26%), when they could just walk over to another room and play single zero roulette with half back on outside bets (-1.3514%) then it makes sense to offer the suckers a double zero roulette table.
Similarly if people are willing to play unbeatable 1/2NL games then you're doing your job by offering them the chance to get slaughtered. If enough tourist traffic comes by that you get a fresh stream lambs for the slaughter then I can understand why you do what you do...
If they have enough skill and bankroll ...
People should play at least 5/5NL or 5/10NL or higher and forget about 1/2NL and 2/5 NL at fallsview.
Is there anyone who's winning long term (10,000 to 50,000+ hands) at Fallsview 1/2NL or 2/5 NL????
One major concern is that a very high a session fee doesn't develop players because it's skinning the sheep too quickly. New players will always almost always loose to the rake if they don't stack off so that your player base isn't sustainable longterm.
Thats the thing, if you're playing 1/2 or 2/5 long term, 10k+ hands, then what are you really doing? Those games should be wham bam thank you mam tourist games.
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."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I disagree.
Long waiting lists deter people from visiting the casino. I guesstimate that 70% of potential poker customers have little or no interest in playing table games or slots in any case. The long waits have decreased the frequency of my visits by roughly 60%.
There is massive excess slot machine capacity at Fallsview currently. Table games are often idle as well. The poker room is the busiest part of Fallsview most of the time, as measured by % of capacity used. Thus, if they added a poker room annex with 10 more tables, the casino would earn more money because there would be no loss of revenue from slots or table games.
I like Denise the best so far, who I have been told gives the best massage. It seems to be -EV though as all the players in my 2/5 table that paid for a masseuse either totally busted out or lost money. Not long after his relaxing massage, a busted player on tilt rebought and immediately went all-in BLIND after a straddle. :fish: The Canadian behind me called with AKs and rivered the king, and sent the guy into a coma.
Here is my take on this. It may be over simplified but this is why I'd rather play raked. For argument's sake Player A is playing an 8 hour session at 1/2 NL. House is 10% to max $5 or $5 per 20 mins. Lets say 25 max rake hands per hour. We've previously established that 10 pots per hundred hands dealt is a good ratio to come out winning so 10% of hands seen are winners.
In this case, Player A is winning 2.5 pots per half hour. 8 hours = 20 hands won. In this scenario, in 8 hours of session, Player A is paying $80 to win 20 hands. If the player were to win 20 pots at max rake his pots would pay the house $100. On first glance, this looks like Player A is paying more at rake but it's not true. The absolute max that one player could put toward the rake would be 50%. If every pot Player A won was heads up and maxed, Player A would have paid $50 toward rake which of course is worst case scenario. Chances are, Player A would have paid maybe $25 toward rake in these 20 wins. Even at worst case, Player A is paying less to play and win the same amount of pots. This also means that $300 of Player A's money could be put into losing pots (10% = $30) and still come out even(more than likely ahead) rakewise.
Most people have a standard deviation of about 15 to 20 in their win rate/100 hands.
I won't go through the math but this means to show a win rate you need a sample size of 30,000 to 50,000 hands.
Longterm in poker is usually about 30,000 to 50,000 hands.
So longterm from a perspective of a player is years for a B&M player.
What I was trying to say is having 1/2NL and 2/5NL games where the players have no chance of winning means that you are not developing a player base to feed your upper games.
New players will have to learn their low limit skills elsewhere if they are to have any bankroll.
If all places slaughtered the fish in this way, new players would not develop.
Comments
They should come if they can overcome the session fee.
I'm not good enough to win at the 1/2 NL in Fallsview.
My win rate at other sites is 4 big blinds per 100 hands with a standard deviation of 17.
This is about 1 Big blind an hour.
I would lose if I had to pay $10/hour session fees which is 5 big blinds an hour.
I think you're doing your job by charging as much as the market will bear.
If people are stupid enough to play double zero roulette (-5.26%), when they could just walk over to another room and play single zero roulette with half back on outside bets (-1.3514%) then it makes sense to offer the suckers a double zero roulette table.
Similarly if people are willing to play unbeatable 1/2NL games then you're doing your job by offering them the chance to get slaughtered. If enough tourist traffic comes by that you get a fresh stream lambs for the slaughter then I can understand why you do what you do...
If they have enough skill and bankroll ...
People should play at least 5/5NL or 5/10NL or higher and forget about 1/2NL and 2/5 NL at fallsview.
Is there anyone who's winning long term (10,000 to 50,000+ hands) at Fallsview 1/2NL or 2/5 NL????
What do you consider longterm?
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."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I disagree.
Long waiting lists deter people from visiting the casino. I guesstimate that 70% of potential poker customers have little or no interest in playing table games or slots in any case. The long waits have decreased the frequency of my visits by roughly 60%.
There is massive excess slot machine capacity at Fallsview currently. Table games are often idle as well. The poker room is the busiest part of Fallsview most of the time, as measured by % of capacity used. Thus, if they added a poker room annex with 10 more tables, the casino would earn more money because there would be no loss of revenue from slots or table games.
In this case, Player A is winning 2.5 pots per half hour. 8 hours = 20 hands won. In this scenario, in 8 hours of session, Player A is paying $80 to win 20 hands. If the player were to win 20 pots at max rake his pots would pay the house $100. On first glance, this looks like Player A is paying more at rake but it's not true. The absolute max that one player could put toward the rake would be 50%. If every pot Player A won was heads up and maxed, Player A would have paid $50 toward rake which of course is worst case scenario. Chances are, Player A would have paid maybe $25 toward rake in these 20 wins. Even at worst case, Player A is paying less to play and win the same amount of pots. This also means that $300 of Player A's money could be put into losing pots (10% = $30) and still come out even(more than likely ahead) rakewise.
Am I wrong? :js :jd
Good question.
Most people have a standard deviation of about 15 to 20 in their win rate/100 hands.
I won't go through the math but this means to show a win rate you need a sample size of 30,000 to 50,000 hands.
Longterm in poker is usually about 30,000 to 50,000 hands.
So longterm from a perspective of a player is years for a B&M player.
What I was trying to say is having 1/2NL and 2/5NL games where the players have no chance of winning means that you are not developing a player base to feed your upper games.
New players will have to learn their low limit skills elsewhere if they are to have any bankroll.
If all places slaughtered the fish in this way, new players would not develop.