[Poshua]

[ QUOTE ]

This rake increase was one of the stupidest moves they have made yet. All of these rooms have lost considerable business, mostly from regular players and some from the more saavy tourists. The rooms wind up with fewer games, but the overall drop has probably remained about the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fewer games going = Lower operating expenses
Lower operating expenses + same total drop as before = +EV for Harrah's

[ QUOTE ]

In addition, there will be fewer players able to win at these rooms, and games that do get started will break faster. Non-winning players will lose faster and be more likely to give up sooner.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure this is true. Harrah's went to a 5 rake in its rooms that are primarily for tourists/conventioneers who happen to be at the property, but not at Caesar's, which is their only Vegas poker room that is actually a draw in its own right. To the extent the higher rake drives away locals and poker-driven tourists, that probably improves the casual player's EV in these games, higher rake notwithstanding.

Also, I suspect that the more casual player that Harrah's targets is a better customer for Harrah's in other ways (house-banked games, hotel, f&b) than tourists whose primary focus is poker or (especially) locals.

I'm not saying I support the rake increase; as a player, low rake is always better. I'm wouldn't assume this decision was a mistake from Harrah's standpoint, though.