The Mandalay Bay 10-20 game

[Dynasty]

Today, I went on a fact-finding mission to confirm some rumors I heard yesterday and were posted in Clarkmeister's thread "Rake increases at Mirage and Bellagio".

The recent rake increase from $3 to $4 at the Mirage and Bellagio has already had a major impact on the Las Vegas poker scene. On Wednesday, several Mirage 10-20 Hold'em regulars (ones who get the game started in the late morning/early afternoon hours and keep it going) joined together and headed to Mandalay Bay, which has a $3 rake, to start a game there instead.

I went to Mandalay Bay today and confirmed that they have had a 10-20 game running for each of the last two days. In conversations with dealers and management, I learned that this core group of players intends to continue playing at Mandalay Bay by starting up the game themselves at about 11:00am each day. Even though this core group of players had left by the time I got there at about 4:30, the game was still running with a few of Mandalay Bay's 4-8 regulars and a few tourists.

The impact hasn't just been increased business for Mandalay Bay. It's also created problems for the Mirage. For the second day in a row, the Mirage was not able to start and maintain a 10-20 game. Yesterday, the Mirage didn't have a 10-20 game running when I arrived at about 4:00pm and couldn't get one going the entire time I was there (to about 8:30). Today, I arrived at the Mirage at about 6:30 and they were just starting a 10-20 game. In talks with management and players, I learned that a 10-20 game had started at about 3:00 or 4:00 but broke about an hour later. I suspect that the Mirage will continue to have problems getting their games started without this core group of players.

I was able to briefly speak with Mandalay Bay's poker room manager, Kay White. She seemed optomistic that they would be able to keep the game running successfully with the combination of the Mirage defectors, some of their regular 4-8 players, and tourists. Here are a couple interesting items which she brought up during the conversation.

1. There will be no chopping of blinds. She was adamant about this based on here experience as a dealer and manager. The Mirage allowed chopping so I think some other 10-20 players may be uncomfortable with this.

2. They will not spread any games bigger than 10-20. I think this decision comes from casino management more than from Kay herself.

In addition, Mandalay Bay has a far better comp system than the Mirage. This could only help to maintain a group of regulars for the 10-20 game.

I told Kay I would be putting up this post tonight and told her where to find it. Hopefully, she will respond and give us information in the future about how the game is going.

Ah, the free market in action. Isn't it wonderful!?!

I checked in at Mandalay over the weekend to see if the 10-20 was going. It wasn't, at least on Sunday. But with the rake increase @ Mirage, it doesn't surprise me to see folks move over there. It's a nice room and seems to be well-run. Now so long as they don't see this as an "opportunity" to raise their rake to $4.... If they keep it at $3, and thus attract the regulars to keep the game going, they'll certainly get more business from out-of-towners like myself when we're in Vegas.

[balt999]

I really like the way the Mirage 10-20 players have banded together for a singular cause. I agree with Dynasty that this is ultimate hurt the mid-limit action at the Mirage and increase Mandalay's business. In the long run, I think the Mirage and Bellagio will continue to lose a lot of the local business as work gets around of the 10-20 games running at Mandalay. And even if the Mirage/Bellagio poker rooms renig on their rake increase...the damage will be done because the local players will be skeptical of why their doing it. I mean, once you burn someone once, they never forget. Personally, I've only played the 10-20 Mirage games a few times, and I don't play it enough to make an impact. But the next time, I decide to play 10-20, I would think twice about going to Mirage and go to Mandalay instead (Besides the female clientel is much better looking /forums/images/icons/smile.gif )

And I think forums like this and advocators such as Dynasty speaking out on this (I mean when Dynasty talks, people normally listen) will ultimate increase the business of Mandalay and hurt the Mirage...

Just my opinion...

[HDPM]

I think it is good that another casino will be spreading mid-limit poker there. 10-20 should be sustainable a lot of places. Not allowing chopping does make the game more expensive than the $3 rake would otherwise indicate though, particularly with those day shift regulars who chop a third of the hands. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif
If Kay White happens to read this, I will tell you that I am much more likely to go play at your room the next time I am in Las Vegas. I am not a huge fan of Mandalay Bay and have not spent much time there. I checked out the poker room once or twice but never played. However, if you have a good 10-20 with $3 rake, I will make a point to go there and will give you a play. I might stick around and play a lot there if I like it too. I think a lot of other players will play there because of the increased choice in games too. Us out of towners can't start the games or keep them going like the locals, but I think this will be good for your room.

[Ryan_21]

Cant keep a game together. Thats what greed gets ya. Serves them right, greedy b*st*rds....lol.

Ryan_21

[Tommy Angelo]

This is funny and tragic. It's funny that players would leave one game because the price went up, and instead go play in one that is more expensive.

It's tragic, for management, that poker customers are apparently the only customers who feel that management should be in business for some reason other than profit.

Tommy

let all of the 1020 regulars go to mandalay so i can sit with all of those tourists who are visiting and staying at the mirage and carve those fish up. Just me and 9 tourists at the table... I'm gonna splurge on the $1 extra per pot... what is $1??? it is poppycock, bupkus... let all od those cheap mopes head over to mandalay, i promise you the 1020 will continue, mirage pokerroom will thrive, and begas will be the same. The only thing different, is that my pockets will be fatter. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

[mewhoelse]

Does HorseShoe still have a $2 max rake? If so should not people move their games downtown?

[PokerBabe(aka)]

The Horseshoe is so tacky- If you don't mind filth and smoke I guess it's ok. It's worth paying a bit more to be in a nice environment.

[Jimbo]

From my perspective I'll just tip a dollar less per pot won which is still probably $3 more than the Vegas regulars!!

Jimbo

[ripdog]

How can moving from a game that's raked at $4 max to one that's raked at $3 max be considered moving to a game that's more expensive? That statement seems to defy logic.

In regards to statement number two, I think that profit is definitely important in this decision. It seems to me that if the management at The Mirage can successfully drive off their poker business, they could fill the room with slot machines instead. That was my initial reaction to the rate increase. I always see some ulterior motive, even if it's not really there. When I try to think like a casino manager, I lean towards pushing out the poker players in favor of slot players. It is all about profit, and I would rather have a bunch of gamblers in my casino than poker players who understand the concept of self-weighting. I refuse to play games in which my best outcome is to lose slowly, so I wouldn't expect Mirage management to kiss up to me. Maybe they just want a smaller room. It's a win-win situation for them. I can't blame them for that.

[Mason Malmuth]

I haven't yet read the other posts, but I think your points 1 and 2 clearly show a pokeroom manager who does not understand poker very well, and this is typical of these small rooms.

Point 1 means that they want to rake people who are playing heads up. At $3 a hand, there won't be any winners in this spot.

Point 2 is the old, "Let's not let anyone win too much in poker. If everyone will just break even, it will maximize the house rake in the long run."

Although I don't like it either, I suspect that you would be better off paying the higher rake at The Mirage.

[Mason Malmuth]

When I try to think like a casino manager, I lean towards pushing out the poker players in favor of slot players.

This is a common misconception that many people have. Replacing poker tables with slot machines only increases the profit if the casino is already crowded and the new machines will get plenty of use. If eliminating the poker room also lowers the number of (other) people in the casino, the total revenue on all slots could drop.

This is what a casino manager needs to think about. I do agree that some don't think very well in this area.

MM

[bernie]

if all the 'regulars' are leaving to another venue, what does that leave? usually the 'unthinking' players. which may actually make a better/more profitable game even though the rake is higher. but i do agree that the games may be more sparse in said room, id still check in and watch for the guppies.

a $1 increase in a 10-20 doesnt make the game unbeatable by any means. otherwise, the $4 drop w/jackpot, wouldnt be beatable in a 4-8 game.

up here they have a room with a $2 rake. everywhere else is $3. add $1 to each for JP. yet the $3 places get plenty of action.

b

[bernie]

some places up here tried the no chop thing. and what happened was the players would just check down, then hand the chips back under the table, or behind the dealers back.

b

[Clarkmeister]

You can't beat a game that doesn't get spread.

[AlanBostick]

... IF there are enough live ones who don't think about the drop to keep the game going.

If the game can't get started, then the live ones will play 3-6. Or play somewhere else.

[Wingnut]

"How can moving from a game that's raked at $4 max to one that's raked at $3 max be considered moving to a game that's more expensive? That statement seems to defy logic."

I think that refers to the "no chopping" rule. Implying there will be a flop (and hence a rake) on every hand, something the relatively tight 10-20 crowd doesn't always have.

[Wingnut]

A floorperson at the Luxor (also owned by MBG) actually suggested that very thing to me (at the table, no less) when I complained about not being able to chop, even though there was no posted rule to that effect (and any who's seen the Luxor poker room knows that their rules are posted on a rather large sign on one wall).

The floor finally relented when I pointed out (with witnesses) that chopping had gone on earlier at that very game, apparently without the dealer noticing at the time.

-David

[bernie]

many casual players/ tourists dont think of the drop. why would they consider that, but then go play roullette later on? they just see it as another game of chance to a certain extent. they believe its skill til they get hammered. then they believe more in the luck factor like all the 'other' games.

again, that was about your casual/tourist type.

but you and clark are right...the game has to be spread. but it may be worth keeping an ear to the ground on.

b

[Tommy Angelo]

"How can moving from a game that's raked at $4 max to one that's raked at $3 max be considered moving to a game that's more expensive? That statement seems to defy logic."

Let's look at as dollars/hour that leaves the table, where dollars = rake+tips. I'm guessing that a $3 max rake game with no chopping would have a higher dollar/hour -- be more expensive -- than a $4 max rake game with chopping. I'm making two assumptions that would blow this conjecture if wrong. One is that they still chop a lot of pots in $10-20 games in Vegas (when allowed), and two is that the players don't habitually stiff the dealers on pots that have a flop and only one or two called bets after the flop.

Tommy

[BLUESMAN]

Does Mandalay Bay extend their high-hand bonus program to this new 10-20 game?

Poppycock and bupkus!!!!!!

it's more like $2500.00 a year to a regular player that plays 40 hrs per week.

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Bluesman, Nope - the "bonus" was not part of the "deal". Babe

[Dave in Cali]

I think your description of the movement of the 10-20 game from mirage to mandalay bay says it all. I agree with those who moved their game to the place with the lower rake and better comps. I say this even though I really like the mirage and think Donna Harris, the manager there, is a top-notch lady and very good manager. I would like to think upper management forced Donna to make this change against her will, but I don't actually know what factors led to the decision to raise the rake at the mirage. Perhaps I'll email her and find out. At any rate, the bottom line is that I'd rather play at mandalay bay than mirage, given the rake is less, the comps are better, and the game is more likely to actually get going. Too bad for the mirage, I like playing there, and it seems this decision will inevitably result in my playing there less often.

Dave in Cali

[baggins]

the rake here is $5. still beatable. but worse than you vegas humps have it. adjust your strategy, or play wherever you want. my guess is that with all the regulars who know a thing or two about the game gone, the $4rake is nothing compared to the live ones you will have all to yourself. find some live ones to start up games with at the Mirage.

[Dynasty]

This game died within two weeks (I know I posted that somewhere when it happened but it's not in this therad).

However, it's interesting that EVERYBODY who I talk to in Vegas about the quality of the games agrees that the Mirage 10-20 is incredibly good right now and has been for quite a while. A year ago, the game was considered the ultimate rock garden game and was something I almost always avoided. Now, I often choose to play 10-20 over 20-40 because I think both are worth about $30 per hour.