Re: schmuck boy right but for the wrong reasons
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One local casino is running a freeroll scam.

If you read the rules the freeroll isn't free, there is a $10 fee, but the house will issue $10 to each player to enter the freeroll.

So if the freeroll is has $10,000 in prize money, and 100 players, they pay $10,000 out of the jackpot drop. But they also pay a $10 fee to the casino for each player, so they transfer $1000 from the jackpot money to the poker room revenue.

[/ QUOTE ]
"There is a $10 fee, but the house will issue $10..." You're implying, I think, but not saying, that the $10 they issue is coming out of the freeroll prize pool? If so, I'd send a letter to Gaming and ask 'em to put their noses in. Or you can tell the joint to knock it off and explain why and give 'em a couple weeks to make it so before you sick Gaming on 'em.

I just don't see much reason to put up with shenanigans in a town with 50 poker rooms and a Gaming Commission to keep 'em 10% honest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets see, abunch of Harrah's owned joints run freeroll were you win seats to events at the WSOP, now I don't know, but I'd be willing to bet they buy the seat at full price from the jackpot drop and then the WSOP takes the rake from the entry.

Re: schmuck boy right but for the wrong reasons
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One local casino is running a freeroll scam.

If you read the rules the freeroll isn't free, there is a $10 fee, but the house will issue $10 to each player to enter the freeroll.

So if the freeroll is has $10,000 in prize money, and 100 players, they pay $10,000 out of the jackpot drop. But they also pay a $10 fee to the casino for each player, so they transfer $1000 from the jackpot money to the poker room revenue.

[/ QUOTE ]
"There is a $10 fee, but the house will issue $10..." You're implying, I think, but not saying, that the $10 they issue is coming out of the freeroll prize pool? If so, I'd send a letter to Gaming and ask 'em to put their noses in. Or you can tell the joint to knock it off and explain why and give 'em a couple weeks to make it so before you sick Gaming on 'em.

I just don't see much reason to put up with shenanigans in a town with 50 poker rooms and a Gaming Commission to keep 'em 10% honest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm. This might be me not understanding the design of the freeroll, but I can see how they might be working this.

If you are essentially giving each players $10 and a seat into a freeroll for $10, that I think would be okay. Basically what they're doing is shortcutting around doing paperwork on each player that would receive $10 out of the player's pool by just having them essentially buy-in and then awarding them $10 after the tournament starts and the funds are released from the Cashier's Station. Then they write the paperwork up as the 100 players X$10 +$10,000 in prizes. There is one sheet of paper that will exhaust $11,000 from the player's pool and all $11,000 does go back to the players in form of a $10 token/etc and the prizes. It probably seems like they are doing something wrong, but I doubt they are.....unless, they say that there are actually 120 players and get some extra cash and pocket it that way. The players never get to see the paperwork and the surv usually isn't as good at the podiums as it is at the cashier's cage.
I don't know. Maybe I confused everyone more! Lol

[/ QUOTE ]

What they are doing is charging a fee to pkay the freeroll the fee goes into the houses pocket, but they pay the fee for every player out of the jackpot monies. this is in addition to the prize money coming out of the jackpot.

Re: schmuck boy right but for the wrong reasons
 

I thought it was explained you get your $10 back after signing up?

Re: schmuck boy right but for the wrong reasons
 

[ QUOTE ]
I thought it was explained you get your $10 back after signing up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct you pay the $10 into the house and they pay you back $10 from the jackpot drop (although I suspect that they don't actually do this they just make it as a paper transfer) So now what they have effectively done is moved $10 from the jackpot money into the poker drop.

Re: schmuck boy right but for the wrong reasons
 

How is money for BBJ collected? If it's only collected when there's a showdown, then that's good. However, if it's collected like a rake, then it hoses the NL players, since they don't see the showdown nearly as often as low-level limit bingo game players.

Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gaming regulations prohibit them from raking more than 10% from a game, and raking the BBJ/HHJ drop would put 'em over 10%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't that only be true if the $1 that constitutes the jackpot drop is also counted toward the raked pot?

For example, take a 1/2NL game with a 10% to $4 rake. The last dollar is taken out at $40, and the jackpot drop is taken out at $20.

Consider a gross pot of $40. $1 got taken out for the jackpot at $20, leaving $39. Only $3 got taken out for rake, because pot after jackpot drop < $40. Total rake is $3 + $.10 that will be raked from the jackpot. $3.10 < 10% * $40.

Now consider a gross pot of $41. $1 got taken out for the jackpot at $20, leaving $40. As a result, $4 was raked from the pot. Total rake is $4 + $.10 on the jackpot. $4.10 = 10% * $41.

[/ QUOTE ]

On a pot of $35 or more, the house rounds up and the rake would be $4. So the information is not correct.
The BBJ collection can be taken at what ever the house decides is a qualifying pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

With 10% to $4 + $1 for the jackpot taken at $20, a $40 pot would have $4 in rake, $1 jackpot, and $35 available to win by the players. This is very much standard, all rake and jackpot dollars count towards total pot size. If there were only $20 in the pot, $2 is for rake, $1 for jackpot, and $17 available to win by players.

There is no rounding up. A $19 pot takes $1 in rake ** and nothing for the jackpot because it does not qualify. Rounding up would exceed the 10% max.

Al

** assumes there is no breakage below $1 chips, i.e. no coin is used

Re: schmuck boy right but for the wrong reasons
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One local casino is running a freeroll scam.

If you read the rules the freeroll isn't free, there is a $10 fee, but the house will issue $10 to each player to enter the freeroll.

So if the freeroll is has $10,000 in prize money, and 100 players, they pay $10,000 out of the jackpot drop. But they also pay a $10 fee to the casino for each player, so they transfer $1000 from the jackpot money to the poker room revenue.

[/ QUOTE ]
"There is a $10 fee, but the house will issue $10..." You're implying, I think, but not saying, that the $10 they issue is coming out of the freeroll prize pool? If so, I'd send a letter to Gaming and ask 'em to put their noses in. Or you can tell the joint to knock it off and explain why and give 'em a couple weeks to make it so before you sick Gaming on 'em.

I just don't see much reason to put up with shenanigans in a town with 50 poker rooms and a Gaming Commission to keep 'em 10% honest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets see, abunch of Harrah's owned joints run freeroll were you win seats to events at the WSOP, now I don't know, but I'd be willing to bet they buy the seat at full price from the jackpot drop and then the WSOP takes the rake from the entry.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about the whole 10% scam. If someone would like to pm me with the details, I might inquire about it.

Harrahs taking the full $10k from freerolled entries to the wsop is pretty much a certainty (I know someone who should know, so I can try and find out for sure). Since a casino can take a fee from a tournament entry, they can undoubtedly take a fee from a tournament entry regardless of the source. And yes, this is side-stepping the 100% return to the players rule regarding jackpot rake. And yes, this is essentially transferring jackpot money to the drop. Dirty and underhanded? Of course. Illegal? Doubtful. I'm quite sure harrahs has high powered lobbyists to ensure such loopholes in gaming law remain open.

Al

Re: schmuck boy right but for the wrong reasons
 

[ QUOTE ]
Harrahs taking the full $10k from freerolled entries to the wsop is pretty much a certainty (I know someone who should know, so I can try and find out for sure). Since a casino can take a fee from a tournament entry, they can undoubtedly take a fee from a tournament entry regardless of the source. And yes, this is side-stepping the 100% return to the players rule regarding jackpot rake. And yes, this is essentially transferring jackpot money to the drop. Dirty and underhanded? Of course. Illegal? Doubtful. I'm quite sure harrahs has high powered lobbyists to ensure such loopholes in gaming law remain open.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have seen this done quite a bit. I don't really like it i, but I am sure it is legal.

Re: schmuck boy right but for the wrong reasons
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Harrahs taking the full $10k from freerolled entries to the wsop is pretty much a certainty (I know someone who should know, so I can try and find out for sure). Since a casino can take a fee from a tournament entry, they can undoubtedly take a fee from a tournament entry regardless of the source. And yes, this is side-stepping the 100% return to the players rule regarding jackpot rake. And yes, this is essentially transferring jackpot money to the drop. Dirty and underhanded? Of course. Illegal? Doubtful. I'm quite sure harrahs has high powered lobbyists to ensure such loopholes in gaming law remain open.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have seen this done quite a bit. I don't really like it i, but I am sure it is legal.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may be legal, but it certainly destroys any zero sum claims.

Re: Bad Beat Jackpots = Zero Sum?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gaming regulations prohibit them from raking more than 10% from a game, and raking the BBJ/HHJ drop would put 'em over 10%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't that only be true if the $1 that constitutes the jackpot drop is also counted toward the raked pot?

For example, take a 1/2NL game with a 10% to $4 rake. The last dollar is taken out at $40, and the jackpot drop is taken out at $20.

Consider a gross pot of $40. $1 got taken out for the jackpot at $20, leaving $39. Only $3 got taken out for rake, because pot after jackpot drop < $40. Total rake is $3 + $.10 that will be raked from the jackpot. $3.10 < 10% * $40.

Now consider a gross pot of $41. $1 got taken out for the jackpot at $20, leaving $40. As a result, $4 was raked from the pot. Total rake is $4 + $.10 on the jackpot. $4.10 = 10% * $41.

[/ QUOTE ]

On a pot of $35 or more, the house rounds up and the rake would be $4. So the information is not correct.
The BBJ collection can be taken at what ever the house decides is a qualifying pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

With 10% to $4 + $1 for the jackpot taken at $20, a $40 pot would have $4 in rake, $1 jackpot, and $35 available to win by the players. This is very much standard, all rake and jackpot dollars count towards total pot size. If there were only $20 in the pot, $2 is for rake, $1 for jackpot, and $17 available to win by players.

There is no rounding up. A $19 pot takes $1 in rake ** and nothing for the jackpot because it does not qualify. Rounding up would exceed the 10% max.

Al

** assumes there is no breakage below $1 chips, i.e. no coin is used

[/ QUOTE ]

Last night while dealing at a casino with a relatively cheap rake (10%, $3 Max, Jackpot $1 on $20) I had a player complaining about the rake point to the drop slot and announce "That's the Second Most Expensive Hole in the World"