Cash Game New to this (2 Viewers)

[David O]

That’s the second time you’ve said that, but I don’t believe one thing follows the other. Do you seriously think they’re just featuring poker rooms as loss leaders? I don’t. Regardless of what percentage of their overall income the poker room generates, I think it’s safe to say that the casino is going to try to maximize its poker room revenue.

It actually is one of the loss leaders in a casino. The casinos are not making much profit from gambling like they used to and when they did poker rooms were not making much for them especially if you look at it by profit per square foot. This why several years ago you saw many of the rooms closing. The casinos found out that poker was important to the casino to keep players there so they can make their money off of food, entertainment and parking which are the new profit generators for the casinos.

 

[Mojo1312]

Point taken regarding the O.P.

Overall, I think it is a mistake to say that home games should mimic the 5x buy-in spread popularly used by casinos when a 1.5 to 2.5 buy-in spread is more practical.

That aside, my real irritation stems from the dismissive and condescending nature of your post regarding AWeturnaenger's buy-in options for cash games, where you referenced the structures used by casinos. (See below.) You provided a perfect example of how you addressed this issue in your post regarding the player in your group who turned pro and would buy-in for 150BB's into your 50BB game. Looks like we both agree that a player with a deep stack can potentially change how a game is played and therefore should be on the radar of every host.(?)

In my opinion too many "options". I have deferred to casino rules and structure because they are the most logical and well thought out AND because I have many casino players in my group and it's what they expect. They would be quit to mock and point out all the flaws of any customized structure.

Most poker players these days have only been exposed to poker on TV and home games. This is fine but structure is rarely discussed on TV and most home games don't bother to research structure. They simply make it up on the fly. If players just want to play they will agree to anything especially if the stakes are very low.

P.S. I will send you $5 via paypal if you stop referencing casinos when discussing appropriate buy-in structures for home games. (Please, oh please!)

"I think it's best to follow standard casino rules, min ~30 big blinds and max no more than 100-150 big blinds."

"Again, I differ to the casinos. The casino industry has figured this and other standards out over the last 75+years."

"In my opinion too many "options". I have deferred to casino rules and structure because they are the most logical and well thought out."

"Adopting the casino industry standard helps mitigate any debate or arguments."

I may have a "severe reading comprehension deficiency," but I got it already.

 

[Old State]

That’s the second time you’ve said that, but I don’t believe one thing follows the other. Do you seriously think they’re just featuring poker rooms as loss leaders? I don’t. Regardless of what percentage of their overall income the poker room generates, I think it’s safe to say that the casino is going to try to maximize its poker room revenue.

True, but the implication was made that they were trying to simply maximize profits at the expense of spreading the best possible game. I disagree with that. Spreading the best possible game keeps the actually poker players (as apposed to a tourist sitting down for 20 mins) there. The longer you stay in the game the more rake or time you pay.

The casino industry has a pretty established buyin to blind ratio that is usually consistent as the stakes rise. Most people playing at $2-5 NL or higher are seasoned poker players. The casino isn't going to spread a game they don't like. Also limiting the buying is NOT in the casinos financial interest as the bigger the pots the larger the rake in raked games (as apposed to higher stakes where you pay time).

 

[Old State]

Point taken regarding the O.P.

Overall, I think it is a mistake to say that home games should mimic the 5x buy-in spread popularly used by casinos when a 1.5 to 2.5 buy-in spread is more practical.

That aside, my real irritation stems from the dismissive and condescending nature of your post regarding AWeturnaenger's buy-in options for cash games, where you referenced the structures used by casinos. (See below.) You provided a perfect example of how you addressed this issue in your post regarding the player in your group who turned pro and would buy-in for 150BB's into your 50BB game. Looks like we both agree that a player with a deep stack can potentially change how a game is played and therefore should be on the radar of every host.(?)



P.S. I will send you $5 via paypal if you stop referencing casinos when discussing appropriate buy-in structures for home games. (Please, oh please!)

"I think it's best to follow standard casino rules, min ~30 big blinds and max no more than 100-150 big blinds."

"Again, I differ to the casinos. The casino industry has figured this and other standards out over the last 75+years."

"In my opinion too many "options". I have deferred to casino rules and structure because they are the most logical and well thought out."

"Adopting the casino industry standard helps mitigate any debate or arguments."

I may have a "severe reading comprehension deficiency," but I got it already.

Hmmm, stop referencing casinos when the whole point of my post was to simply adopt casino standard to limit arguments and maintain consistency. Again, you need to re read this thread

If supporting my OPINION is condescending to you I don't know what to tell you. The only person posting here with any attitude is you...but that seems to be your MO here. There is always at least a few on every forum.

 

[Mojo1312]

Hmmm, stop referencing casinos when the whole point of my post was to simply adopt casino standard to limit arguments and maintain consistency. Again, you need to re read this thread

If supporting my OPINION is condescending to you I don't know what to tell you. The only person posting here with any attitude is you.

Okay. You are not getting my $5.

 

[Old State]

Point taken regarding the O.P.

Overall, I think it is a mistake to say that home games should mimic the 5x buy-in spread popularly used by casinos when a 1.5 to 2.5 buy-in spread is more practical.

.

Don't have any idea what you a referring to. I never mention anything like that. You seem to be here to simply argue. 100 to 150 BB is a pretty standard max buy in for a $1-2 game at a CASINO. This what I see at most CASINOS when ever I decide to go to a CASINO. But I prefer not to play at a CASINO if I can get CASINO stakes without the CASINO rake.

 

[Old State]

To @David O s point, Here is a whole article discussing poker profitability.

"However, this is not the norm for the entire year. At many Las Vegas casinos, their poker room may not actually be profitable in and of itself, even with the uptick during the WSOP months. Indeed, the fact is that casinos, in Las Vegas or otherwise, tend to make the vast majority of their revenue through their slot machines and table games. These two types of games generally make more money for the casino than everything else combined.

So, if poker is unprofitable or not as profitable to a casino as its other games, then this leads us to the following question: does poker drive business to the slot machines and table games? This question actually has many possible facets to it, including the effect of the existence of poker in general, online poker in particular, and most specifically, the poker room at an individual casino and how its presence may or may not draw slot machine and table game traffic there. From a business standpoint, casinos certainly may be interested in this question, as the answer can help them decide whether to support online poker legislation, and/or whether to have a poker room in their property."

https://www.pokernews.com/news/2014/07/is-poker-good-for-casinos-18713.htm

 

[allforcharity]

Casinos make most money from slot machines. Everybody knows this. Every casino application that the municipal and provincial government in my area gets always asks for more than double the number of slot machines that they'll eventually get permission for.

 

[Jambine]

It actually is one of the loss leaders in a casino. The casinos are not making much profit from gambling like they used to and when they did poker rooms was nt making much for them especially if you look at it by profit per square foot. This why several years ago you saw many of the rooms closing. The casinos found out that poker was important to the casino to keep players there so they can make their money off of food, entertainment and parking which are the new profit generators for the casinos.

^That^
On average depending on the game, a poker table is going to rake $100-$150 per hr.
That space could accommodate 3 or 4 slots making a HO-LOT-MORE (and no dealer to pay)