Suggestions for Wynn

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

I've been playing some at the new Wynn poker room and have a few suggerstions which I'll post here. I'll also add some commentary from the paper "Cardroom Theory" which I co-authored with Donna Harris many years ago to help explain my positions. (This paper appears in its entirety in my book Poker Essays, Volume II.)

But first, let me comment on a very bright spot concerning this room. Their dealers are surprisingly good. In fact, they are the best at among the cardrooms I play at. (I suspect they may be the best in Las Vegas but I don't play in all the rooms.) Yes, there are some inexperienced dealers, but as far as I can tell there is no extraneous talking in the box by any dealer, and with the help of their automatic shuffling machines they are getting the hands out. The managament staff there needs to be commended for this.

Here are the suggestions.

1. Get rid of the must move games. They are already destroying many games and infuriating many players such as myself. I recently wrote about how bad must move games are for cardrooms in the April Two Plus Two Internet Magazines (Volume 1, No. 4). This material should still be up so I won't repeat it here. But here's what we said about must moves in "Cardroom Theory."

[ QUOTE ]
A related idea is to protect the main game. Players who have been playing for hours, especially if they are losing, don’t like another game to start and have their game break shortly thereafter. One solution for this potential problem is to have what is known as a “must-move game” for a reasonable period of time. This is a game where the players must move to the main game when a seat becomes available.
However, there are problems with must-move games. Particularly, the must-move game will play shorthanded the majority of the time. We therefore suggest the policy of balance — with the emphasis on the main game. That is, we recommend keeping the games balanced using the must-move option, but if no player wishes to move, the next new player would be required to go into the main game.


[/ QUOTE ]

The key word here is "balance." That is the idea of keeping the same number of players in both games, not keeping the main game full and forcing the must move to become so short that it will frequently break thus producing one game plus a list instead of two games.

2. Game Structure. Poker plays best when it is a proper balance of luck and skill. Certain structures do a pretty good job of producing this while other structures throw this balance off. Here's our comment from "Cardroom Theory."

[ QUOTE ]
What game structure is best? A cardroom should strive to spread games that offer a good balance of luck and skill. This balance will allow poor players to win often enough that they will continue to return. However, it will also permit the highly skilled players to do well in the long run. The games that produce the best balance between luck and skill are limit games with two fixed tiers of betting, such as $10-$20 hold ’em or $15-$30 stud. No-limit, pot-limit, and spread-limit games (providing the spread is large compared to the bet, such as $2-$10) dramatically reduce the luck factor and almost always die out. The cardroom should not encourage these types of structures to be spread.

A cardroom should be wary of spreading a limit that is too close in size to another limit. For example, spreading a $15-$30 hold ’em game when you also are spreading $10-$20 and $20-$40 hold ’em may have the effect of reducing the total number of games the cardroom will spread in the long run.

(In addition, the $15-$30 hold ’em structure most likely will have the effect of causing a weak player to lose his money faster. That is, this structure probably upsets the proper balance between luck and skill that should be present in limit hold ’em.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, the $40-$80 stud game with either a $10 ante or a $5 ante is bad. The right game should be $50-$100 with a $10 ante.

One final comment. The Bellagio made a decision when it opened to spread $15-$30 and $30-$60 hold 'em. Since the room is packed, it appears to be a correct decision. But I believe it appears to have worked since many of it's customers are poker playing tourists who only play this structure when in Las Vegas. I believe that they could have even more games today if they would have stuck to $10-$20, $20-$40, and $40-$80.

In addition, the Commerce Casino, the world's largest B&M poker room has, I understand, quit spreading $15-$30 and $30-$60. Given time and the choice, the players will gravitate to this structure.

Here are some additional comments about the $15-$30 structure from another essay in my book Poker Essays, Volume II.

[ QUOTE ]
Concept No. 2: An expert player should be able to make as much with less risk at $15-$30 hold ’em as at $20-$40. The main difference between these two limits is the blind structure. In the $15-$30 structure the blinds are two chips and three chips respectively, and in the $20-$40 structure the blinds are two chips and four chips respectively. This doesn’t seem like much of a difference but it routinely causes some of the poorer players to play their hands differently and lose at a faster rate in the $15-$30 structure. The type of errors and why they are made is beyond the scope of the discussion here, but almost all players will tell you that there is more action at the $15-$30 limit than at the $20-$40 — and my experience agrees with this. In fact, I believe that an expert will win just as much if not more in the long run at $15-$30 than he will at $20-$40 if he was to play against the exact same players — as long as they are not too tough — and his fluctuations will be smaller. The same is true for $30-$60 versus $40-$80.

By the way, there is another side to this. I have at times cautioned cardrooms about spreading the $15-$30 structure. It breaks the live ones too quickly and may be detrimental to the cardroom in the long run. And any form of poker that is detrimental to a cardroom will also eventually be harmful to the players. (If there are no games, there will be no money to win.)

[/ QUOTE ]

No limit games are currently the rage right now. So a cardroom needs to offer them. But they also have these problems. The cap on the buy-in for the small no limit games does help.

3. Use the rail well. The rail of a poker room is a crucial tool to develop new customers. The Wynn room only has a small rail, so they must utilize it optimally to become truly successful. Here's what we say about this in "Cardroom Theory."

[ QUOTE ]
Proper location of games. Some games need a little extra help in ensuring that there is an additional pool of players besides the regular players. For example, unless the cardroom is very busy, locating the middle-limit games in the back of the room will only ensure that “they die.” In many cardrooms, these games need to be located “on the rail,” so that other casino visitors can get a view of the excitement and “flavor” of the gambling action that middle-limit games offer.

Very large games do not need this type of location, as those players who usually play these stakes have planned to play high all along. Very small games, since they are mainly occupied by non-regular players, also don’t need a premier location. Because of the small amount of money at risk, non-regular players don’t need the extra incentive to sit down that they would need if they were to play in a game that is still affordable but substantially larger, such as middle-limit hold ’em or middle-limit stud.

[/ QUOTE ]

Adding a little to this, the games on the rail should be action games, and the amount of money in the pot should be an amount that interests the people watching on the rail but isn't so large that it scares them from playing. When I was at Wynn (Saturday night) the rail games were $1-$2 blind no limit hold 'em, a no action game since many rounds of betting will get checked, and $4-$8 hold 'em, a game that is too small to really interest people. They should put a $20-$40 ($5 chip) game on the rail, and a $40-$80 ($10 chip game) on the rail.

On a related note, I believe that those poker rooms, and this is probably everyone of them, that build high limit sections in the back (and which are sometimes elevated) are just being foolish. Why put these games where you are discouraging potential customers. They should be showcase games, front and center, and be used to attract customers.

One final comment. Years ago, I walked into a Laughlin casino. To my surprise, someone I knew had just been named poker room manager. He told me how he was striving to have a nice quiet cardroom where his customers would be very comfortable. I told him that if he wanted quiet, he should move it out into the desert.

4. String bet rule. According to one of the floorman, dealers are not suppose to call a "string bet" unless it is blantant. This is clearly the worse of all worlds. Dealers should either call a string bet, or not. Leaving something open to interpretation is a sure formula for disaster.

I also believe that dealers should call all string bets. (I know some California cardrooms don't do this.) Why make the player the bad guy? and what about a tourist who doesn't know what a string bet is?

5. Food. At Wynn, you can get a meal at the table. But the prices are ridiculous. Someone who can only afford to play low limit can't afford these prices. Now another player told me that the poker room food service hasn't started yet and that the menu for the meals is from room service. If that's the case, then this problem should be soon improved. But I do recommend to the Wynn poker room management not to serve food and just irritate people who see the menu prices until the poker food service is ready to go.

In closing, I'm going to use my administrative powers and make this post "sticky." This should ensure good discussion on these topics.

Best wishes,

Mason

[AllVegasPoker.com]

Mason,

Excellent post! I'm going to first add my commentary about a few of your suggestions, and then I'll add a suggestion of my own..

The Rail
[ QUOTE ]

When I was at Wynn (Saturday night) the rail games were $1-$2 blind no limit hold 'em, a no action game since many rounds of betting will get checked, and $4-$8 hold 'em, a game that is too small to really interest people. They should put a $20-$40 ($5 chip) game on the rail, and a $40-$80 ($10 chip game) on the rail.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're definitely right that the rails breathe life into poker rooms, in the form of new players.

First, I think Wynn has a pretty respectable rail-size. The poker room is very long, and the rail runs down the entire room. I'm surprised you thought it was short.

I also think that Wynn is putting the right games by the rail. In particular, I think the lower limit games are the correct games to put there. Here's why -- the rail is mostly going to attract a certain type of player; newbies. The players that are drawn in from watching games played on the rail are inexperienced players. An inexperienced poker player (even at Wynn) will more than likely want to get their first few poker lessons cheap. Sure, there are complete poker newbies that will sit down at a $30/60 table. I used to see them all the time at the Bellagio. But, there are a LOT more poker newbies that will sit down at a $4/8 game. The newbies are the rail birds. People that are really familiar with the game are not going to be captivated from the rail. The rail does not draw in poker pro's. By putting the lower limit games by the rail, the people watching are going to see a game they think they can actually PARTICPATE in. Higher stakes games might capture a rail-bird's attention, but they're not going to actually compel the player to sit down at the table, in most circumstances.

Also, putting the $1/2 NL game by the rail is the right move because this variation of hold'em is what the inexperienced players are seeing on television. Although the game is tight, it will have some big all-in moments, and these moments will capture attention. The inexperienced rail-birds will be drawn to the type of poker they have seen played on television.

High limit games in the back
[ QUOTE ]
[the cardrooms are just being foolish for putting the high limit games in the back]. Why put these games where you are discouraging potential customers. They should be showcase games, front and center, and be used to attract customers.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the reasons stated above (about rail-birds), I disagree with you here. Furthermore, I disagree because I think the high stakes players want (perhaps demand) a certain degree of privacy. I don't play high stakes poker, so I can't speak from personal experience -- but if I were a high stakes player, then I would be risking serious money every time I sat down. Frankly, I do not want Joe Public breathing down my neck if I have serious money at stake. I bet the top pro's don't either.

Case in point -- Bobby's Room at the Bellagio. I don't think that the Bellagio built "Bobby's Room" without doing their homework. The high stakes players probably expressed to Bellagio management that they would like a place to play, that is, for the most part, private. In this regard, I think the Bellagio has upstaged Wynn.

String Bets
[ QUOTE ]
According to one of the floorman, dealers are not suppose to call a "string bet" unless it is blantant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow! I can't believe this! I did not know this. In my experience playing on opening night, the dealers were calling string bets. I could not imagine a poker room that did not call string bets, especially a higher-end poker room such as Wynn. Heck, even the Excalibur, a poker room known for its kitchen table-style poker, is pretty strict about string bets. Wynn should definitely reconsider this policy. I would be PISSED if the dealers were allowing string bets all night.

The price of food
[ QUOTE ]
At Wynn, you can get a meal at the table. But the prices are ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is sort of a branding issue. Wynn is high class. You don't go to Wynn for a $9.99 prime rib dinner, or a 99 cent breakfast. I wouldn't expect the food to be cheap anywhere in the hotel, even at the poker room. The people playing poker at Wynn have money. This isn't the Imperial Palace. I haven't seen the menu, but I suspect the prices are relative to the prices of other dining options inside the hotel. It would be counter-intuitive for Wynn to offer cheap eats to poker players. It would simply not be in the best interests of the Wynn "brand" -- high class, exclusive, posh, etc.

My Main Suggestions for Improvement?

Remove a few poker tables! My biggest issue with Wynn is the space allocation. It feels like there is less space between the tables at Wynn than at the Mirage, or any other poker room in Vegas for that matter. I compare Wynn's table spacing to the Mirage, because previously, I thought Mirage was the most cramped poker room in Vegas. Wynn has to do something about this. It's just too darned tight. Players can't move at all.

Wynn has a hell of a lot going for it. It could be the best poker room in Vegas, but it's up against some tough competition (Bellagio, MGM). As an aside, it will be very interesting to see whether Caesars Entertainment will rise to the ocassion, and join the high-class poker room party, with its new poker room at Caesars Palace.

[MicroBob]

Nice ideas Mason.

I've read your thoughts on this in Poker Essays II.


I don't play much live but I have been playing more.

I understand your concern regarding NL games...but obviously it is ALL the rage right now. And the tourists who come to play poker want to be able to push all-in like they see on TV. I don't know if the changing situation and popularity means that your ideas of it hurting things is out-dated or not. But you obviously acknowledge that NL is under-going a significant revival. Whether this continues or not remains to be seen.


I found your observations comparing live 15/30 to 20/40 to be compelling.


I too think it would be a good idea to highlight the bigger money games near the rail. But I also wonder if this might have an intimidating effect on potential new players. I know this would be the case for me (just trying to imagine myself 2 years ago when I didn't know how to play poker).
To that end, to draw new customers maybe have a 4/8 game AND a 40/80 game on the rail.
The 40/80 draws attention and is exciting to look at.
The 4/8 shows all these people with white single-dollar chips so that the new player knows he doesn't have to be rich to give it a shot.
But I definitely agree that 1/2 NL likely doesn't make for the most exciting of rail-games for the 'check around' reasons you mentioned.


I am curious what the responses have been to your suggestions at various poker-rooms.

Is your input generally well-received or does the management just nod agreeably even though they have no intentions of actually listening to what they view as one customer's nit-picky ideas?

Since they obviously know you are not just ANY customer I would think they would be more willing to listen....but I also know that management in virtually any area can be pretty hard-headed sometimes and unwilling to change their status-quo just because one non-employee thinks it would be a good idea (no matter how compelling those reasons might be).

Regardless, interesting reading your thoughts.
Keep up the good fight.


I'm coming out there for a couple weeks for the WSOP (won my seat on Stars a couple nights ago) so perhaps will give Wynn a try.

[Michael O'Malley]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Everyone:

I've been playing some at the new Wynn poker room and have a few suggerstions which I'll post here. I'll also add some commentary from the paper "Cardroom Theory" which I co-authored with Donna Harris many years ago to help explain my positions. (This paper appears in its entirety in my book Poker Essays, Volume II.)

But first, let me comment on a very bright spot concerning this room. Their dealers are surprisingly good. In fact, they are the best at among the cardrooms I play at. (I suspect they may be the best in Las Vegas but I don't play in all the rooms.) Yes, there are some inexperienced dealers, but as far as I can tell there is no extraneous talking in the box by any dealer, and with the help of their automatic shuffling machines they are getting the hands out. The managament staff there needs to be commended for this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason and I actually talked about a few of these things last night so I thought I would offer my perspective. By the way, thanks for the compliment on the dealers. Hiring a good pool of dealers in the Vegas market is actually a pretty difficult thing to do. Overall the dealers are good, but we will continue to work with them.

[ QUOTE ]
Here are the suggestions.

1. Get rid of the must move games. They are already destroying many games and infuriating many players such as myself. I recently wrote about how bad must move games are for cardrooms in the April Two Plus Two Internet Magazines (Volume 1, No. 4). This material should still be up so I won't repeat it here. But here's what we said about must moves in "Cardroom Theory."

A related idea is to protect the main game. Players who have been playing for hours, especially if they are losing, don’t like another game to start and have their game break shortly thereafter. One solution for this potential problem is to have what is known as a “must-move game” for a reasonable period of time. This is a game where the players must move to the main game when a seat becomes available.
However, there are problems with must-move games. Particularly, the must-move game will play shorthanded the majority of the time. We therefore suggest the policy of balance — with the emphasis on the main game. That is, we recommend keeping the games balanced using the must-move option, but if no player wishes to move, the next new player would be required to go into the main game.


The key word here is "balance." That is the idea of keeping the same number of players in both games, not keeping the main game full and forcing the must move to become so short that it will frequently break thus producing one game plus a list instead of two games.

[/ QUOTE ]


I actually agree with Mason that getting rid of the must move is a good idea. Each game should be able to stand on its own and each player should be able to choose what game he wants to play in.
With that said, a large majority of players think that protecting the main game is a good idea. Must move games are really only used in the 40/80 and larger NL games at Wynn right now. If I was to poll all of the players that play those games I would be surprised to find a single person besides Mason that thinks we should not use a must move. In fact, the conversations I am having with many of those players right now is about why we don’t leave the must move on forever. These players want the main game to remain full.
A well established room like the Commerce could go without a must move and educate the players on why it isn’t good, but a new room trying to draw customers cant.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Game Structure. Poker plays best when it is a proper balance of luck and skill. Certain structures do a pretty good job of producing this while other structures throw this balance off. Here's our comment from "Cardroom Theory."

What game structure is best? A cardroom should strive to spread games that offer a good balance of luck and skill. This balance will allow poor players to win often enough that they will continue to return. However, it will also permit the highly skilled players to do well in the long run. The games that produce the best balance between luck and skill are limit games with two fixed tiers of betting, such as $10-$20 hold ’em or $15-$30 stud. No-limit, pot-limit, and spread-limit games (providing the spread is large compared to the bet, such as $2-$10) dramatically reduce the luck factor and almost always die out. The cardroom should not encourage these types of structures to be spread.

A cardroom should be wary of spreading a limit that is too close in size to another limit. For example, spreading a $15-$30 hold ’em game when you also are spreading $10-$20 and $20-$40 hold ’em may have the effect of reducing the total number of games the cardroom will spread in the long run.

(In addition, the $15-$30 hold ’em structure most likely will have the effect of causing a weak player to lose his money faster. That is, this structure probably upsets the proper balance between luck and skill that should be present in limit hold ’em.

Also, the $40-$80 stud game with either a $10 ante or a $5 ante is bad. The right game should be $50-$100 with a $10 ante.

One final comment. The Bellagio made a decision when it opened to spread $15-$30 and $30-$60 hold 'em. Since the room is packed, it appears to be a correct decision. But I believe it appears to have worked since many of it's customers are poker playing tourists who only play this structure when in Las Vegas. I believe that they could have even more games today if they would have stuck to $10-$20, $20-$40, and $40-$80.

In addition, the Commerce Casino, the world's largest B&M poker room has, I understand, quit spreading $15-$30 and $30-$60. Given time and the choice, the players will gravitate to this structure.

Here are some additional comments about the $15-$30 structure from another essay in my book Poker Essays, Volume II.

Concept No. 2: An expert player should be able to make as much with less risk at $15-$30 hold ’em as at $20-$40. The main difference between these two limits is the blind structure. In the $15-$30 structure the blinds are two chips and three chips respectively, and in the $20-$40 structure the blinds are two chips and four chips respectively. This doesn’t seem like much of a difference but it routinely causes some of the poorer players to play their hands differently and lose at a faster rate in the $15-$30 structure. The type of errors and why they are made is beyond the scope of the discussion here, but almost all players will tell you that there is more action at the $15-$30 limit than at the $20-$40 — and my experience agrees with this. In fact, I believe that an expert will win just as much if not more in the long run at $15-$30 than he will at $20-$40 if he was to play against the exact same players — as long as they are not too tough — and his fluctuations will be smaller. The same is true for $30-$60 versus $40-$80.

By the way, there is another side to this. I have at times cautioned cardrooms about spreading the $15-$30 structure. It breaks the live ones too quickly and may be detrimental to the cardroom in the long run. And any form of poker that is detrimental to a cardroom will also eventually be harmful to the players. (If there are no games, there will be no money to win.)

No limit games are currently the rage right now. So a cardroom needs to offer them. But they also have these problems. The cap on the buy-in for the small no limit games does help.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason and I talked about this. I tend to agree, but also realize that the players are somewhat preconditioned to being able to expect certain things. Right now there are 2-4 15/30 games on any given night. To shut them down and force 20/40 would be a bad move.
Again, a well established room could make a change and get away with by educating their players. A new room cant. The current mix of limit Hold’em games at Wynn is: 4/8, 8/16, 15/30 and 40/80. It is important to be careful and offer and good range that does not overlap and/or provide too great a gap.
To switch to 20/40 would mean changing the 8/16 and maybe even the 4/8. I don’t think that the 15/30 structure is too much of a detriment to anyone right now. I am just glad to see we ended up with the 40/80 instead of the 30/60.

[ QUOTE ]
3. Use the rail well. The rail of a poker room is a crucial tool to develop new customers. The Wynn room only has a small rail, so they must utilize it optimally to become truly successful. Here's what we say about this in "Cardroom Theory."

Proper location of games. Some games need a little extra help in ensuring that there is an additional pool of players besides the regular players. For example, unless the cardroom is very busy, locating the middle-limit games in the back of the room will only ensure that “they die.” In many cardrooms, these games need to be located “on the rail,” so that other casino visitors can get a view of the excitement and “flavor” of the gambling action that middle-limit games offer.

Very large games do not need this type of location, as those players who usually play these stakes have planned to play high all along. Very small games, since they are mainly occupied by non-regular players, also don’t need a premier location. Because of the small amount of money at risk, non-regular players don’t need the extra incentive to sit down that they would need if they were to play in a game that is still affordable but substantially larger, such as middle-limit hold ’em or middle-limit stud.

Adding a little to this, the games on the rail should be action games, and the amount of money in the pot should be an amount that interests the people watching on the rail but isn't so large that it scares them from playing. When I was at Wynn (Saturday night) the rail games were $1-$2 blind no limit hold 'em, a no action game since many rounds of betting will get checked, and $4-$8 hold 'em, a game that is too small to really interest people. They should put a $20-$40 ($5 chip) game on the rail, and a $40-$80 ($10 chip game) on the rail.

On a related note, I believe that those poker rooms, and this is probably everyone of them, that build high limit sections in the back (and which are sometimes elevated) are just being foolish. Why put these games where you are discouraging potential customers. They should be showcase games, front and center, and be used to attract customers.

One final comment. Years ago, I walked into a Laughlin casino. To my surprise, someone I knew had just been named poker room manager. He told me how he was striving to have a nice quiet cardroom where his customers would be very comfortable. I told him that if he wanted quiet, he should move it out into the desert.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to disagree with this one. The rail is for players to watch and maybe learn a game they would play. Putting larger limit games on the rail might intimidate new players. Putting reasonable stakes games that beginners might play can only help to encourage. $1/2 or $2/5 NL and $4/8 Hold’em are the right games for the rail. Showcasing something bigger on the rail would possibly work in conjunction with other smaller games.

[ QUOTE ]
4. String bet rule. According to one of the floorman, dealers are not suppose to call a "string bet" unless it is blantant. This is clearly the worse of all worlds. Dealers should either call a string bet, or not. Leaving something open to interpretation is a sure formula for disaster.

I also believe that dealers should call all string bets. (I know some California cardrooms don't do this.) Why make the player the bad guy? and what about a tourist who doesn't know what a string bet is?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am somewhat surprised that Mason used the phrase “Leaving something open to interpretation is a sure formula for disaster” when referring to this particular rule. Allowing dealers to call anything that resembles a string bet is leaving it open to interpretation by the dealer, and I think that is a sure formula for disaster.
When I went over string bets with the dealers I specifically instructed them to call string bets, but only if they were blatant string bets. Allowing a dealer to use judgment is not the right thing to do. There are very subtle movements that are made by players that could be interpreted as string bets but in reality are probably not. Giving dealers the green light to determine whether a borderline movement is a string bet or not, is, in my opinion, not the right thing to do.
The dealers call string bets when a player makes two movements.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
5. Food. At Wynn, you can get a meal at the table. But the prices are ridiculous. Someone who can only afford to play low limit can't afford these prices. Now another player told me that the poker room food service hasn't started yet and that the menu for the meals is from room service. If that's the case, then this problem should be soon improved. But I do recommend to the Wynn poker room management not to serve food and just irritate people who see the menu prices until the poker food service is ready to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right now there are two food options in the poker room. One is the Deli (Zooza Crackers) and the other is room service. Both can be delivered to the players in the room. The deli has a special poker room menu, but its not cheap. Something around $8 for a cheeseburger.
Right now room service is only available to the top section players. The room service menu is not a poker menu thus the prices are exactly what you would pay if you were staying in the hotel.
The prices are not great, but they are standard prices for the casino/hotel that is Wynn.

[ QUOTE ]
In closing, I'm going to use my administrative powers and make this post "sticky." This should ensure good discussion on these topics.

Best wishes,

Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

[Michael O'Malley]

[ QUOTE ]

Right now room service is only available to the top section players. The room service menu is not a poker menu thus the prices are exactly what you would pay if you were staying in the hotel.
The prices are not great, but they are standard prices for the casino/hotel that is Wynn.


[/ QUOTE ]

FYI, a poker player may order a bottle of Hennessy Timeless off of the room service menu for a mere $8,000. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Vegas Poker:

I'm going to be really blunt here. Part of the reason, and this does not apply to Wynn, that poker rooms are run so badly is that both players and management don't understand what's really good for their business and repeat the same errors that are always made. Furthermore, many players who don't understand will often argue loudly for irrational policies mainly because that's the way they have always seen it done.

[ QUOTE ]
First, I think Wynn has a pretty respectable rail-size.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't. At best it's moderate size given the number of tables. Compare their rail to either The Mirage of The Bellagio where the rail goes much of the way around the room.

[ QUOTE ]
I also think that Wynn is putting the right games by the rail. In particular, I think the lower limit games are the correct games to put there.


[/ QUOTE ]

Read what I wrote. I proposed putting a $20-$40 game and a $40-$80 game on the rail. That would still leave room for some other games. In general, small limit games don't need help in getting players to sit down. Neither do the ultra-high limit games (which Wynn doesn't have anyway). It's the games in the middle where help is most needed and that is specifically the limits I propose should go on the rail.

[ QUOTE ]
But, there are a LOT more poker newbies that will sit down at a $4/8 game.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not talking about the Stardust (which is right down the street) or The Frontier (across the street). You're talking about the most fabulous and expensive place ever built.

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree because I think the high stakes players want (perhaps demand) a certain degree of privacy

[/ QUOTE ]

If people who play games like $20-$40, $40-$80, or $80-$160 want privacy, then they have no understanding how poker works, particularly in the games they play. Virtually all the players I know at these limits look forward to fresh live money. It's the lifeblood of a cardroom. You remind me of an ex-Las Vegas manager who ruined a fair number of rooms. His attitude was keep the games small, have everyone roughly break even, and collect the rake. A successful poker room doesn't work that way.

I remember a number of years ago Poker Digest put the former manager of Circus on the cover since he was retiring. In my opinion that couldn't of been more stupid. I pointed out to them that if all cardrooms would have been run with this person's "keep it small" mentality there wouldn't be any poker magazines, (or lots of other positive poker things happening). Owner Phil Field, after thinking about what I said replied "I think you're right Mason."

[ QUOTE ]
Case in point -- Bobby's Room at the Bellagio. I don't think that the Bellagio built "Bobby's Room" without doing their homework. The high stakes players probably expressed to Bellagio management that they would like a place to play, that is, for the most part, private.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find statements like this irritating. You need to read what I wrote. There is a big difference between $40-$80 and $4,000-$8,000. I do agree that if you want to have $4,000-$8,000 games then a private room makes some sense. It sure doesn't for $40-$80. This is as illogical as it comes.

[ QUOTE ]
I could not imagine a poker room that did not call string bets, especially a higher-end poker room such as Wynn.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a California rule. There are some very big poker rooms that do it like this.

[ QUOTE ]
This is sort of a branding issue. Wynn is high class. You don't go to Wynn for a $9.99 prime rib dinner, or a 99 cent breakfast.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understood from interviews with the cardroom manager that there would be a limited food menu that was reasonably priced. I've also been told that the poker room food service hasn't started yet. So what I'm saying is that they would probably be better off not offering any food until they can do it right.

[ QUOTE ]
Remove a few poker tables! My biggest issue with Wynn is the space allocation. It feels like there is less space between the tables at Wynn than at the Mirage, or any other poker room in Vegas for that matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

This shows a complete lack of understanding of the casino/poker business. A place like Wynn is incredibly expensive. Because of that, every square foot of gaming space becomes precious, and it better produce it's share of income or it will become something else.

One of the problems with poker when compared to other casino games/machines in these ultra-expensive casinos is simply that it doesn't produce the same amount of revenue per square foot (assuming the other casino games/machines are being utilized).

But something unique has happened today. A lot of people want to play poker. Therefore places like Wynn have included a pretty nice poker room. But if it doesn't produce it's share of revenue per square foot, it will be gone. If anything the right advice is to do those things that make the room the best possible because that will fill all the tables, and then squeeze in a few more.

[ QUOTE ]
it will be very interesting to see whether Caesars Entertainment will rise to the ocassion, and join the high-class poker room party, with its new poker room at Caesars Palace.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very important to Las Vegas poker. If Wynn is highly successful, and it certainly has a chance to be, there should be more than just Caesars coming on board. If Wynn doesn't work, I'm not optimistic.

MM

[Mike Souchak]

Mason's post and Michael O'Malley's response concerning must move games bring up an important point in poker room procedures. It is possibly true that must move games made some sense 15 years ago when several tables of the same limit above 30-60 were starting to be spread. For better or for worse, the situation today in most rooms is quite different; one key change in player attitudes is that few people are willing to play short handed. This one difference makes the must move system a liability and not an asset for both the players and the house. A situation that occurs frequently is this: 12 players are willing to play a given game, 40-80 Hold'Em as an example; under a must move system this requires one game to be 9 handed and one to be 3 handed. Today it is unlikely that the 3 handed game would remain intact; this was not true in the 1980's when many players were willing and even happy to play short handed. In the current environment, two balanced games of 6 players are more likely to survive and possibly fill up. The must move system produces an inferior result for both the players and the house; the players lose the ability to choose from two games, and the house loses the drop from an extra game. While neither procedure is perfect, balancing games is significantly better than the outdated must move system in today's poker rooms.


Mike Souchak

[chucksim]

[ QUOTE ]
When I was at Wynn (Saturday night) the rail games were $1-$2 blind no limit hold 'em, a no action game since many rounds of betting will get checked, and $4-$8 hold 'em, a game that is too small to really interest people. They should put a $20-$40 ($5 chip) game on the rail, and a $40-$80 ($10 chip game) on the rail.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Mason's right about putting some bigger games on the rail. Before I started playing casino poker about 5 years ago, I remember walking by Bellagio's poker room, scared to go in for fear of the sharks, and seeing a game on the rail where the players had stacks and stacks of higher value chips. I don't remember the limit (maybe $20/40 or even higher), but I do remember it was a super attention grabber for anyone who's not a player but who knew how much each chip was worth.

To say the $4/8 games are "too small to interest people" is a bit presumptious, though. That will be the game people get their feet wet with.

I know it gets lost in the glow of playing upper-middle limits, but to beginning players and those trying to build a bankroll the right way, it needs some attention too.

Don't forget that some people even find $4/$8 too big for their comfort levels. I'm not saying Wynn or Bellagio should spread $2/$4 or anything, but please don't just dismiss the lower tier games either.

As a newbie, I wasn't jumping into that $20/40, but if I see a $4/8 right next to it, I might get up the courage to try. If a newbie only sees big games, he'll look, but most likely won't touch anything in the poker room, and that's the worst thing that could happen.

As long as the rail is big enough, let the newbies see the big games and the ones they'll be willing to try at the same time. Everybody wins.

[mrbaseball]

I can't really disagree with any of this.

As a tourist and recreational player here is my take after spending a few hours in the Wynn on the day it opened. The room is "uncomfortable". The tables seem smallish and they are way too crowded together. I have similar issues with Mirage and Bellagio. Although new Bellagio tables seemed larger to me. I hate the sardine can feel of the place.

It also has an undesirable tourist location unless you are actually staying there. Unlike MGM, Mirage or Bellagio it isn't surrounded by several other large properties to draw on.

I really really really hate must move games. And as a tourist and recreational player (who really wants to win!) I place the highest premiums on comfort and friendliness. I didn't spend enough time there to get a feel for friendliness but I did find the room uncomfortable.

I was absolutely won over this trip though by the MGM. Pure comfort and extremely well run. They don't have the higher limits like Wynn, Mirage and Bellagio but I don't need those to have a good time on vacation. This last trip will be my last stay for a while at the Mirage and I will move down the street to the MGM. This will make the Wynn all the more inconvient for a guy like me.

[BigRedAce]

I'm interested in everyone's thoughts regarding the uncapped buy in for the low blind no limit games at the Wynn. I was there last week, and there was no max buy-in for $1/2NL, a game I tend to consider to be beginner NLHE. I would think a max buy-in would generate more action and be more amenable to newbies.