[DCWildcat]

[ QUOTE ]
My main problems

1) Every game is being whored to max out the rake. Huge time charges + rake at NL, full kill or strange structures at NL games. Obviously this is immediately disadvantageous to a good player (more rake obviously = bad), but the weird structures they keep on inserting often lead to...
It is good business to charge the maximum the market will bear.

[/ QUOTE ]

No [censored] it's good for business. And bad for players. You do realize you just tried to counterargue the the premise "Higher rake is bad for players," don't you?

[ QUOTE ]


2) Games necessitating strategic changes that are unclear to skilled players. For example, Caesar's dropped 2/4 in favor of 2/4-4/8 ($2 increments PF, $4 on flop & turn, $8 on river). While it's clear that this requires loose PF play, tighter flop play, looser turn play, etc., specific plays and strategies are unclear. this paragraph doesn't make any sense. I think skilled players understand how to play but that game isn't designed for skilled players, it is for loose ass donkeys that like to play every hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

How does it not make sense? Maybe re-read it. What is this stuff about who the game is designed for? Who cares? Again, these hybrid games require strategic changes for good players. Those changes aren't known right now (haven't been written about or discussed in any significant detail, as "normal" games have been). Even for the players who are intelligent enough to reason out and calculate some strategic changes, there's no empirical data to verify them, making their long-term use risky.

[ QUOTE ]

3) 1/2NL is almost unbeatable. $6 time charge every half hour + rake is absurd.
I think this is player dependant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. At those tables with sloppy, inexperienced players, you're lucky to see 25 hands/hour. With a $6/half hour time charge, it costs $48 to see 100 hands at 1/2, so you need to clear 12PTBB/100 to win in the long run. If you factor out the 2PTBB/100ish average 1/2NL rake, it's still not beatable. Add in a fraction of the $1/hand BBJ rake and it's unbeatable (a fraction because there is, of course, some chance you'll win the BBJ...but it's still -EV, though variable on how much $ is in the pot). I don't think it's player dependent



4) Wait times do suck. Yes, calling ahead is nice...when you don't get bumped off the list b/c of random sporadic I-64 or I-71 traffic, which happens all the time. Showing up in person, 1 hour waits are not uncommon at the lower limits.
I haven't waited more than an hour in a really long time other than when the WSOP Circuit events are in town, of course.

5) Comps suck. If the occasional casino-provided free meal makes a significant difference in your bank account, you're [censored] here. Caesar's offers the worst comps of any casino in the US.
Ameristar in St Charles MO used to be 50 cents an hour. I don't know the current comp rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your last two comments are valid. Calling ahead is still nice though long waits are still somewhat common. There are casinos with worse comping than Caesars, but they're very few, and aren't in Southern Indiana.

Even with all of that considered, it's still usually your best bet due to the game selection.