I love Turning Stone, but they know they're the only game in town

[dtbog]

So I stop into the Stone for a little NL action on my way back up to school -- and lo and behold, they've raised the rake again.

They've made major changes to the rake structure twice in the last three months, and they keep rearranging the games. The 200max NL game, for example, has had four incarnations since March: 1/2 blinds where they take $3 per pot, 2/5 blinds where they take $5 per half hour, then 1/2 blinds where they take $5 per half hour, and now 1/2 blinds where they take up to $4 per pot.

The troubling part of this is not that they raised the rake, but the fact that they can do so with little to no consequence. If a casino in Vegas or AC decided to start raking $6 per pot at a 1/2 NL game, everyone would cross the street and play somewhere else -- but if Turning Stone decided to do just that, they'd probably still have lines out the door. I can't even say for sure that I'd stop playing -- the games would still be profitable!

Capitalism, it is -- but is there anything to be done?

If casinos started paying 34:1 instead of 35:1 on a roulette spin, for example, how many people would actually stop playing?

-dB

[poker327]

People play 6:5 bj without any qualms.

[dtbog]

[ QUOTE ]
People play 6:5 bj without any qualms.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, where the hell do they have that?

-dB

EDIT: Unless (the obvious case) you're talking about the actual odds of placing a bet -- and of course, all of the casino games are biased for the house. The question is how far they could push the current balance before people stopped playing.

[BISCO]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People play 6:5 bj without any qualms.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, where the hell do they have that?


[/ QUOTE ]

every single casino on the las vegas strip offers single deck blackjack that only pays 6:5 for a blackjack.

sucker game.

[TM1212]

I was at Tstone for the past 2 days, and was also very surprised by the structure changes, and though to myself were will it end. Then after realizing how busy they were on a weekday, maybe it wont end.

The NL 100 max which is the only nl that runs Monday, and Tuesday, with out a lot of interest in 200, is packed with old tourist, and young dumb as rocks college kids (at least when it comes to poker). The game is very profitable, maybe as profitable as foxwoods 100 max, but The rakes getting out of control. I would say maybe 6 players at the 4 tables running 100 max, actually understand the rakes effect on profits, that and the monopoly over poker in the area, and gambling in general guarantees it success. I will be making an in-depth trip report tomorrow to much to write to do it tonight. But the game has defiantly increase in profitability even with the rake. (at least since the last time i visited 4 months ago.) and I will be returning soon.

[dtbog]

[ QUOTE ]
I was at Tstone for the past 2 days

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I play with you at 100max on Monday night? (that's all they had when I was there for NL)

-dB

[KenProspero]

I was a the 100 max game last saturday. I agree completely, this game is SOFT.

The casino is getting piggy with the $4 rake, but this game was easily beatable.

[DeezNutz3]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People play 6:5 bj without any qualms.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, where the hell do they have that?


[/ QUOTE ]

every single casino on the las vegas strip offers single deck blackjack that only pays 6:5 for a blackjack.

sucker game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so much when you have a good count (friends playing other spots).

[MicroBob]

if you are referring to counting-cards....6:5 single-deck is not an easily beatable game with traditional advantage play.
If you think it is then you are wrong.

Regarding friends playing other spots...I have no idea what you are talking about.


When I was just leaving dealing BJ in Tunica, Miss. to go into poker-playing full-time our casino had just implemented the 6:5 single-deck game.
I dealt to players who were NOT drunk who couldn't figure out what 6:5 meant. Some actually thought it was better than the regular 'time-and-a-half'.
Of course, after they made their first BJ and got only $12 on a $10 bet instead of the $15 they were expecting they began to see it.


To the previous poster...I do not believe many players would give a crap if roulette only paid 34:1 instead of 35:1.
Roulette is already a 5.26% advantage for the house as it is.
Upping it to around 7.5% wouldn't concern many players at all.
Hell....you could do this 34:1 thing on a table...and then make the wheel bigger including bigger number slots. Somehow the players will take this to mean that there is more space for THEIR number to hit and, thus, their chances of winning are improved.

Typical -EV gambling is still something that completely boggles my mind.
You're either an idiot if you think you have TRULY discovered a winning method on some of these games.
Or you really do just enjoy playing the game even though you are pretty sure you are going to lose.

This is not a slam on either group though really.
It's just something that is SO different about myself compared to other people and I find it interesting.

I have virtually zero inclination to play a game where I know I am at a disadvantage.
Although this has been changing a little bit of late as roulette is the game of choice for my GF so we enjoy getting a couple drinks...pretending like we're psychic with the numbers...and trying to win (we've won 3 of 4 sessions so far).

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Capitalism, it is -- but is there anything to be done?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not true capitalism... they have a government-granted semi-monopoly. It's not like any joe schmoe can open up a casino next door.