Opening new games / breaking old ones, question to floor/dealers

[dtbog]

[ QUOTE ]
There are few things more annoying to players than having new games start (whether the same limit or different limit), having the new games wind up killing your old game, then you finding yourself shut out from the new games.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is definitely true -- but I don't know that the problem is necessarily the fault of the floorman. It seems like simple capitalism/economics to me.

If I open a successful business... but a store opens down the street which sells the same product at 1/2 price, I will lose all of my business AND be effectively excluded from his market (how could I possibly justify buying my own product somewhere else??)

.. however, he can't be faulted for opening his competitive business, and the government can't be faulted for giving him an operating license.

edit: typo

[steamboatin]

It is not the same, you are talking about competeing businesses, and we are talking about not shutting your customers out of the action. If someone is giving you action and especially if they have been playing shorthanded or otherwise helping to keep a game open, I think you have a resposibility to keep them in the action if it is possible.

I guess it is logical to consider that the games competing with each other but don't forget the players in the original game are also customers of the cardroom.

Like Al said, this is difficult decision.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
I do have one more question about your examples -- would you say that there is an inherent priority given to those who are currently seated in a game?

If the changing conditions of the cardroom dictate that a new arrangement of tables/games is more desirable (profitable for house, profitable for dealers, accomodating for players), then shouldn't it not matter who got there first?


[/ QUOTE ]

In some senses, yes, it doesn't matter. If it's apparent that starting a 4-8 game will be the best overall choice for the room, then you should probably start it, even if it's possible that a couple of existing 2-4 players might not be best served individually in this choice. But remember that customer satisfaction is a MAJOR consideration, which may balance out, or even exceed, the needs of the house's drop figures. For instance, if someone gets pissed off in the poker room, and subsequently decides they'd rather take their green chip blackjack and craps action to another casino, you've failed to keep the house's best interests in mind.

[ QUOTE ]
Example: in my 1-3 scenario, only two of the players were gung-ho about playing NL, but five of the others expressed that they would rather play NL than 1-3. Let's say that there are 12 people in the room (which was basically the case):

given their first choice:
10 would rather play NL
2 would rather play 1-3

.. and NL obviously generates more rake and more tips.

Wouldn't it make more sense to open the NL with 10, even though the 1-3 would break and therefore piss off two players? Before the two gung-ho NL players sat at 1-3, there were 8 seated and happy.. with the NL game, there would be 10 seated and happier (as well as the, albeit marginal, financial benefit to the cardroom).


[/ QUOTE ]

Great question. Complicated tho. But still a great question.

There is probably no completely simple answer here. Obviously you don't want to leave anyone unhappy. But if ten want no limit and only two want 1-3 spread, then you should probably spread the no limit. In reality tho, no limit doesn't generally make the rake you think it might, the game is slower, and particularly with 1-2 no limit, the average pot size might actually be SMALLER than it would in a limit game with similar blinds.

Another consideration is the number of dealers and breaks you have at the moment. Suppose you have nine tables with 12 dealers. That's a break after every 3 tables. Well here, you could go to a three, three, and four game push easy enough. This should make you somewhat more inclined to go for a new game. But if you're already at a five game and a four game push, you might be somewhat less likely to start it, as five games (2 1/2 hours) is pushing it more than three games would for the length of time a dealer can reasonably go without becoming fatigued starting to make mistakes. Dealing is taxing, more so than it may appear from the actual quantity of physical labor being performed. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] It might not be metal roofing in texas [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img], but dealing ain't as easy as it looks....

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
It is not the same, you are talking about competeing businesses, and we are talking about not shutting your customers out of the action.

[/ QUOTE ]

How true. For instance, if you can go play at boulder station for 5%, $3 max, it's certainly not worth it to leave center strip (all pissed off and rejected) because you got shut out of a game, even tho you can save some on the rake.

[ QUOTE ]
If someone is giving you action and especially if they have been playing shorthanded or otherwise helping to keep a game open, I think you have a resposibility to keep them in the action if it is possible.

I guess it is logical to consider that the games competing with each other but don't forget the players in the original game are also customers of the cardroom.



[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. A primary concern is not to upset those who have already been loyal customers to your room, keeping an existing game going. Intentionally offending these clients, even if they are small stakes players, could ultimately be catastrophic for your business, particularly if they are local players.

al

[ QUOTE ]
the game is slower, and particularly with 1-2 no limit

[/ QUOTE ]

I really doubt this. I deal a 2/5 NL game and play 1-2 NL. I know I get out many more hands of NL than I do 2/4 or 4/8. But I do agree that in Vegas the house is probably making more in most 2/4 or 4/8 games than they do from a 1/2 or 2/5 NL game. However the original poster was talking about TS and I'm not sure what they are raking in the NL games but when I used to play there they took $3 per pot on $3-$6 and $5-$10 ($10-$20 and higher were time) -- I don't mean $3 max -- I mean $3 per hand regardless of pot size. If they are taking that in the NL game that would be a pretty strong drop.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

It is possible that the presence of a "drop on the flop" or a "dead drop" might sway certain decisions as far as the house goes. I did not consider this when I made my comments, I was considering standard las vegas strip rakes.

al

[Randy_Refeld]

Al has this covered pretty good. The floor has a responsibility to do what is in teh casino's best interest. He rightly points out that what the floor would do at 1 pm is a lot different than what the floor would do at 1 am. The floor has to be able to make judgements about if his new game will go and if the old game will continue to go. Places that say thay have to have 6 to start a new game have instituted a rule rather than allowing the floor to use judgment. This is generally a sign that the poker management doesn't really understand these issues so in hiring a floor staff they have no way to make a determination if a potential hire understands these issues (some of the poker management I have seen recently might not even know that a good floorman can tell if a game will go or not go).

As far as the original poster bringing a deck of cards to the table you just made the floor's life difficult (the phone will be ringing wanting to know what is going on etc). As a winning player you have the same customers as the casino and a lot of your interest are in the same place (you both want more games etc). It is a really bad idea to aggrevate them. If you were to ever produce a deck again in this casino you should expect to not return.

[Terry]

Best thread I’ve seen here in a long long time. Al has shown the “stream of consciousness” type thinking that a “thinking” floorman goes through.

A strong game with a list is better than two games that could break at any time – is a pretty good general rule. Al has gone well beyond that.

Thanks and congrats. If more of my bosses had been like you, I might still have (want?) a job. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Toonces]

Al, I'm curious as to your opinion on a discussion I have had recently with the floor at Potowatomi (Milwaukee). They have 10 tables, and a typical configuration these days are 1 $1-$5 stud game, 4 2/4 games, 3 5/10 games and 2 $200 3/5 NL games. When they opened, a 10/20 and 20/40 game was always going, but in the past 18 months, the 20/40 game became a 15/30 game, which merged into the 10/20 game, and nowadays, the 10/20 game is hit & miss.

The problem is that by the time enough people are around to play 10/20, either the rest of the tables are filled up or they don't want to hurt the games that are currently going on. I try to argue that the card room should make a special effort to provide a higher limit game even if it risks hurting one of the several lower-limit games because there is a value in having a variety of limits available, especially limits that they are struggling to keep.

As it is, I now travel to a casino an additional 1/2 hour away because I know they will have a 20/40 game running while this nearby casino may not even have a 10/20 going. I have to think that other are doing the same. Does it make good business sense to try to prevent this, or am I offbase?

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Great question. No easy answer tho, I am afraid.

It's a major downfall of the poker craze that no limit is killing the bigger limit games. The fact they're spreading 3/5 no limit is what's killing the middle limit games like 20-40 or 15-30. There is nearly as much, or more money on the table in a 3-5 no limit, but the sharks have to pay far smaller blinds, and have far more leverage to make the tourists or bad players make major mistakes. It's a sad fact, but no limit is almost "killing poker" as we used to know it.

One other factor, spreading extremely small games like 2-4 isn't really a good thing. It does keep the tables open, but they'd stay open anyway if you just ran 3-6 or 4-8. The difference is smaller rake for the house, but a higher % of the pot going bye-bye for the players. Thus you have more overall losers. Just watch the money in a 2-4 game go down the slot one day, it goes surprisingly fast. Same chit with 1-4 stud or whatever.

It's kinda frigged up but I almost yearn for the dayz back in 2000-2001 before the WPT when it was all limit poker, because at least you could find middle limit games when you wanted them. Hell, I played nothing but limit for YEARS, only with this WPT nonsense did I ever start with no limit.

As for the cardroom, they SHOULD make an effort to spread a higher limit game like 10-20. 10-20 makes more for the house than 2-4, no doubt, but takes far less off the table stakes of players (proportionately). It also provides satisfaction for the higher limit customers. In addition, with so many 2-4 tables, they can certainly spread one less and still make everyone happy. You don't want to completely alienate your middle limit players. But unfortunately, this is mostly what's happening these days. It's all 2-4 and 1-2 no limit. Bummer.

al