Learning from my home game attendance stats... (2 Viewers)

[Taghkanic]

As the host of a home game which occurs roughly every two weeks, I’m always thinking/fretting about how to sustain and improve the game.

This morning I took some time to assemble attendance stats since late July of last year, to see what patterns I could discern, and see whether there is anything I can learn from the data to help keep the game going.

Chart below, comments / observations to follow:

 

[Taghkanic]

Some observations, all fairly obvious I think:

1. Five of us form the core group who are almost always there, 75%-100% of the time. These players (including me as host) are essential to the game and must be taken good care of!
2. I need 3-5 others to attend each session to get the game off (note: I prefer to play 8-handed with a dealer as the 9th seat);
3. Major illness (e.g. the current serious ailment of my sixth-most regular player) can throw things off unavoidably, and is a big reason to always be recruiting;
4. Focus on the next tier of players (Players G-L) who have made between 20%-40% of games, to figure out what would make them more regular;
5. Take a hard look at the more occasional players (less than 20% attendance) to figure out if there is a reason they have only been occasional participants.
6. The two “snowbirds” are relatively recent additions to the game. While they will never make more than half the games due to being in Florida for 6-7 months per year, over the long term these additions should help keep things going in the warmer months;

 

[Taghkanic]

Most of all, I need to get out more regularly to other home games and also the nearest casino to see if I can find some more regs. My area is sparsely populated, and it is rare for me to meet players I don’t already know.

My game is unraked, with a dealer who gets voluntary tips. The stakes (2/5) are not that high in the poker world, but are considered daunting to many players in my rural area. I could conceivably reduce the stakes to 1/3 or 2/3 to attract those lesser-rolled players, but some of my most valued regs would be the ones least happy about that...

 

[Taghkanic]

As far as the players who have attended only 1-4 times in the past ~15 months, these are overwhelmingly folks with whom I have played before, who were not prepared for 2/5 stakes. It just played to big for them, or they were not able to hold their own with my regs (an above average group, though there’s only one real crusher).

A couple of these low-attendance players have other reasons besides bankroll or ability for not coming back — work or school conflicts — so there is a slight chance that they might become more regular at some point, if their schedules change.

 

[Taghkanic]

TL;DR:

I have essentially three groups of players, leaving aside those who are sick, banned or otherwise defunct:

​

(A) Super-regs (75%+ attendance);​

(B) Semi-regs (20-50%);​

(C) Occasionals (less than 20%).​

I plan to keep group (A) super happy, work on getting group (B) more regular, and keep pushing group (C) while recruiting additional players.

 

[Taghkanic]

... Meanwhile I’m curious if anyone else has run similar numbers, or has a general feel for how their player pool operates.

Do people just have 7-9 people who always play, and no other list?

Or are you like me relying heavily on a core group of super-regs to fill up about half the table, and filling out the other seats from a wider list?

 

[Taghkanic]

The core group of super-regs includes both the best and the worst player in this game. That says something about who plays poker, I think...

 

[BPTDirector]

I’d have a hard time getting a 2/5 game going at all. I know of one place where you could get these stakes around my parts, but there are a lot of 1/3 players.

 

[Taghkanic]

I’d have a hard time getting a 2/5 game going at all. I know of one place where you could get these stakes around my parts, but there are a lot of 1/3 players.

The funny thing is that several of my regs also play in a 1/3 game hosted by my dealer. They tend to buy in for the same amount in both games ($500).

But some 1/3 players don't last at my game because they are not taking into account the need to adjust to a shorter-stacked game, if they are not going to sit down with a fully buy-in. So they find themselves more quickly in a situation where they have to either top off or rebuy, meaning the one buy-in they can milk for several hours at 1/3 does not last nearly as long.

 

[HiveKueen]

Run an experiment over the nExt year… every other game is lower stakes than 2/5 and then rerun your numbers to see which stakes get the most interest.

 

[Taghkanic]

Run an experiment over the nExt year… every other game is lower stakes than 2/5 and then rerun your numbers to see which stakes get the most interest.

Could work, though attendance from the non-superregs in the middle group seems largely related to work schedules, so the stakes might not be a deciding factor.

For example, my friend T. lives closer to my game than anyone and plays whenever he can... but his job involves a ton of travel, so he is only here about 1/3rd of the time. He would play whether it was 1/3 or 2/5, if he is around, so it would be kind of random.

But maybe I'll schedule a 1/3 or 2/3 game and see what happens. TBH my guess is it would mainly mean more straddling...

 

[Taghkanic]

BTW I used ChatGPT to produce the basic graph, then enhanced it in my photo-editing program. AI ain't all bad!

 

[Rhodeman77]

Any thought to lowering the blinds but keeping the max buy-in to recruit more $1/3 players? Or have the $1/3 game and the $2/5 alternate to help recruit new blood.

I know my regs would rather play lower stakes than not have a game because of a lack of players.

 

[LeCoq]

Any thought to lowering the blinds but keeping the max buy-in to recruit more $1/3 players? Or have the $1/3 game and the $2/5 alternate to help recruit new blood.

I know my regs would rather play lower stakes than not have a game because of a lack of players.

I will second this. We play $.25/$.50 blinds and have a fun and robust game with many rebuys. I think the busiest night we had a total of 38 buyins

 

[Tight_Lay_DOWN]

... Meanwhile I’m curious if anyone else has run similar numbers, or has a general feel for how their player pool operates.

Do people just have 7-9 people who always play, and no other list?

Or are you like me relying heavily on a core group of super-regs to fill up about half the table, and filling out the other seats from a wider list?

I’ve been running what is basically a 2/5 game for over 10 years with a core group of 6 players, myself being number 7. We usually play 8-handed, but will run 6 or 7 if needed. The 8th seat rotates between semi-regulars or vetted guests. It’s a mixed game, so it stays fresh, and because it’s a consistent weekly event, players schedule their lives around it. The game has become more than poker—it’s an experience.

By contrast, earlier this year I started a low-stakes NL ($.25/$.25 or $.25/$.50) with a different group of friends. It ran weekly for a couple of months, but attendance quickly dropped. We invited others to fill seats, but without a strong core or vetting, it became inconsistent. Now it runs maybe once a month.

The key difference? The 2/5 group treats the game as a priority and commits their schedule. The low-stakes players enjoy it but have other priorities in life, so the consistency isn’t there—and that’s totally understandable.

***edit***
A few players even mentioned that while they enjoy the environment, if life gets busy, they can always scratch the itch at the local cardroom by playing 1/2—so missing the .25¢ game doesn’t feel like a big loss...

 

[acezag]

TL;DR:

I have essentially three groups of players, leaving aside those who are sick, banned or otherwise defunct:

​

(A) Super-regs (75%+ attendance);​

(B) Semi-regs (20-50%);​

(C) Occasionals (less than 20%).​

I plan to keep group (A) super happy, work on getting group (B) more regular, and keep pushing group (C) while recruiting additional players.

In business, we talk about conversion - getting someone to respond to an ad with some kind of action; converting that action to a lead with a salesperson; converting that lead to a sale; converting that sale to a long-term customer relationship (ie achieving loyalty) - converting that loyalty to word of mouth; then starting the cycle again.

Your "C" players have become leads. If you want to grow your game, you want to convert them to Group B.

In sales, moving someone up a step in the cycle is much easier than getting a prospect to take that first step. Same thing here: moving C players up is much easier than going to casinos, finding decent human beings who you'd actually want to invite, getting them to want to come and commit and then show up - which, after all that work and lots time and failure, just puts them in Group C anyway.

IMO maybe it's worth focusing on what's keeping C away, and putting energy there. It's often that the core group intimidates in some way (and it's not always obvious). I think Daniel Negreanau's always had an awesome perspective on how you get less experience players to love playing with pros.

 

[Poker Zombie]

IMHO, there are more high-stakes players willing to play lower stakes than low-stakes players willing to play higher stakes.

 

[HiveKueen]

But maybe I'll schedule a 1/3 or 2/3 game and see what happens. TBH my guess is it would mainly mean more straddling...

In order to get a true sense of which blind level attracts more players consistently you would have to disallow straddling, at least in the lower buy in games, if not all games. Or only allow straddles every other hand or some such algorithm.

 

[Cratty]

I and a few of my friends are max Monthly players, but mostly given phase of life with young kids. Monthly even is a bit of a stretch sometimes.

Expect though as my girls (now 5 and 7) get older I'll get more regular, similar to friends. But seems like the dynamic really takes a bite out of those in their mid-30s to early 40s.

That said, at 2/5, assume you likely don't have many in our demographic. But totally get that game also likely attracts a different type of player as well and seems like a good balance to keep up frequency.

All that said, fun read!

 

[jamesjkim]

From my experience, the vast majority (like 90%+) of my home game attendees are recs. They’re mostly there for entertainment and camaraderie. I increased the stakes once and immediately saw the distaste among most, and dropped it back down immediately.

At the same time, I’m also hosting to get our core group of friends together on a regular occasion, not run a regular poker game (big difference).

At 2/5, I would expect you need to recruit reg, higher skilled players that know they won’t be punting every game. I’m highly doubtful any recs would feel comfortable on a regular basis and suspect those are your one-time attendees and/or trying to take a shot.

 

[doublebooyah85]

Small input FWIW. I have 2 crowds. $1-$2 and $5-$10.

 

[Munchies11]

From my experience, the vast majority (like 90%+) of my home game attendees are recs. They’re mostly there for entertainment and camaraderie. I increased the stakes once and immediately saw the distaste among most, and dropped it back down immediately.

At the same time, I’m also hosting to get our core group of friends together on a regular occasion, not run a regular poker game (big difference).

At 2/5, I would expect you need to recruit reg, higher skilled players that know they won’t be punting every game. I’m highly doubtful any recs would feel comfortable on a regular basis and suspect those are your one-time attendees and/or trying to take a shot.

it’s a tough median ! Realizing the stakes def might discourage players coming for games. However maybe lowering it just a bit to 1/2 blinds and having unlimited buyins you might see the pots run up. Not sure if This worked for you !

 

[Taghkanic]

However maybe lowering it just a bit to 1/2 blinds and having unlimited buyins you might see the pots run up. Not sure if This worked for you !

I've never played in a no limit cash game with limited buyins. Always unlimited. The only limit is how big you can buy in (in my game, 200BB max or half the biggest stack).

 

[doublebooyah85]

My $1-$2 game is $500 max, match the biggest stack. So if you do decide to lower the stakes, maybe that’s a compromise.

 

[Taghkanic]

At 2/5, I would expect you need to recruit reg, higher skilled players that know they won’t be punting every game. I’m highly doubtful any recs would feel comfortable on a regular basis and suspect those are your one-time attendees and/or trying to take a shot.

While most of my players are skilled / experienced, there are recreational players at every stakes.

For example, one of my newest players is a retiree who sold his chain of car dealerships for a ton of money. He is a more casual "rec," for whom our stakes are no big deal.

 

[Taghkanic]

In order to get a true sense of which blind level attracts more players consistently you would have to disallow straddling, at least in the lower buy in games, if not all games. Or only allow straddles every other hand or some such algorithm.

If I lowered the stakes *and* outlawed straddling, there would be a mutiny among my most regular regs. These are guys who as the night drags on want to straddle and double straddle.

 

[Mojo1312]

You know how well your player pool is rolled better than us. In my years of playing, I have never seen where the fear of straddles prevents players from attending. If anything,, outlawing straddles would be a reason to stay home.

Do you think you would lose any of your core players if you changed the blinds to $1/$3 and the buy-in to $300 to $600?

 

[jamesjkim]

While most of my players are skilled / experienced, there are recreational players at every stakes.

For example, one of my newest players is a retiree who sold his chain of car dealerships for a ton of money. He is a more casual "rec," for whom our stakes are no big deal.

I’d guess that he’s the exception and not the norm. But I don’t disagree that there are recs at all stakes.

 

[Taghkanic]

Do you think you would lose any of your core players if you changed the blinds to $1/$3 and the buy-in to $300 to $600?

I think two of my most regular players would play a lot less.

These two guys both buy in for the max ($1K) and top off if they get short. They also play higher stakes elsewhere (5/10 NLHE, 5/5 PLO, even 15/30 PLO8).

So going down to 1/3 would make them a lot less interested in my game. I might pick up some 1/3 players to compensate, but I doubt these would be as regular as the two solid attendees I'd lose.

 

[warma]

Totally different situation, as my game is more social and lower stakes, but find that my games are held together by a core group and others float in and out. Life conflicts seem to be the biggest challenge as all the players are also fathers.