[archangel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd rather play in a nicer room with a lower winrate, than play a zoo (e.g. Foxwoods)


[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, that’s unfair. We almost never fling our poo since the new room opened.

I agree with TT. The room could be in the basement, down twelve flights of stairs, at the end of an unlit hallway, beyond the sign saying “patrons must wear protective clothing at all times,” have cockroaches scurrying across the floor, and one chair for every two players. If the games are juicy, then it’s a nice room.

[/ QUOTE ]

some people only care about maximizing winrate and seperating fish from their money.

nothing wrong with that.

here's the thing, though: a lot of us DO care about the aesthetics of a room because it's not all about the money for us. yes, we frequent the 2+2 boards because we're interested in improving our game (it's generally more fun to play a game you're good at than one where you're a consistent loser) but poker isn't our livelihood.

and there's nothing wrong with that, either.

i play poker primarily as a means of profitable entertainment, with the emphasis on entertainment. i don't get to play nearly as often as i'd like so when i do get the opportunity to play, i'd rather make .75 BB/hr in an aesthetically-pleasing environment than 1.5 BB/hr in a dingy and unsafe environment.

but maybe that's just me.

and as for my answers to the original question:

1) borgata (room & cocktail waitresses)
2) venetian
3) wynn (although i haven't been there in over a year)