LV Hilton closing poker room 10/17

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
n every city there is one constant, poker is strong 24-7 in markets where there is consolidation

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just plain wrong. Foxwoods is the only room in its region, and it's a giant clusterf**k. In LA the rakes are humongous.

[/ QUOTE ]

consolidation is different from monopolization (Foxwoods). With the exception of Canterbury I agree all monopoly markets are poor for the player (although game selection is fantastic). LA rakes are humongous because California rakes are humongous, your confusing the subject. Also get used to it, the trend over the next 2 years will be to increase the rake to a 5 dollar max nationwide.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now imagine if 8 of these tiny strip rooms closed. O'Sheas, the Strat, Monet Carlo, Luxor, etc and all of their business consolidated to create one giant low-limit room. Pretty hot eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

This theoretical room would almost certainly be able to get away with a $6 rake due to the lack of competition from other rooms. Pretty hot eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

nope, the max would remain 10% up to $5 because thats what the market has dictated is the top end. By the end of next year its assumed almost all rooms in Vegas will max rake at $5 for these limits, the downward slide has already started and its inevitable no matter what we say or do because corporations have to increase the bottom line to maintain poker rooms. We wont see $6 rakes for low-limit games for at least another 6 years I would estimate, if not longer.

[psandman]

The Hilton picked up many of the Stardust regulars when the Stardust closed, I think the freeroll was a factor in that, as well as the fact that I think the daytime shift manager (at the time of the Stardust closing) had once worked at the Stardust and seemed to know many of them.

[malo]

Any chance there might be a decrease in the (over)abundance of 2/4 limit, and a return to 4/8 as the most common low-limit game?

That's another differnece between now and 3 years ago--2/4 wasn't spread on the Strip. The 1/3 and 2/6 spread at Excal (along with 3/6 at Mirage and CircusCircus) were the smallest games.

[psandman]

I find it odd that many of the posts in this thread seem to have an attitude that tye small rooms are out there huirting the large rooms only and that the best scaenario is that the small rooms close and benefit the large rooms.

In fact the market will shake itself out. Rooms will close, and not just the small rooms. There is a place for small rooms in the poker economy (just not this many). Exactly what the Las vegas poker scene will look like after the next couple year don't know, but I doubt that it will be a scene of 5 successful large rooms.

[malo]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it odd that many of the posts in this thread seem to have an attitude that tye small rooms are out there huirting the large rooms only and that the best scaenario is that the small rooms close and benefit the large rooms.

In fact the market will shake itself out. Rooms will close, and not just the small rooms. There is a place for small rooms in the poker economy (just not this many). Exactly what the Las vegas poker scene will look like after the next couple year don't know, but I doubt that it will be a scene of 5 successful large rooms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Psandman, I may be off base here, but it seems the smaller rooms actually hurt each other.

The small rooms often appeal to the players who, for whatever reason, don't care to play in the larger rooms. And small rooms were successful on the Strip pre-boom. Just not as many.

If small rooms want to attract a closing room's customers (helping to insure they continue to thrive) they will have to be doing the right things. (Whatever those things may ultimately be.)

But there will always be a place for smaller rooms on and off Strip. Hopefully, fewer rooms would mean they'd be more likely to keep games going during off-hours, and full rooms at peak times. That improves game selection for the players also.

[Moneyline]

[ QUOTE ]
The small rooms often appeal to the players who, for whatever reason, don't care to play in the larger rooms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Insofar as rooms like the Hilton are concerned, much of the poker traffic comes from hotel guests. Some will venture to other casinos specifically to play poker, but a large portion of them will just gamble at some other game inside the hotel. So when small rooms close, this portion of (usually terrible) players is lost.


[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully, fewer rooms would mean they'd be more likely to keep games going during off-hours, and full rooms at peak times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, a contraction of the poker market will likely lead to more game selection, but those games will also likely see rakes skyrocket.

[psandman]

I agree with what you say,

but the thing about small rooms is that they also offer an entrance to the world of poker to tourists who don't come looking to play poker, but might give it a try if there is a poker room where they happen to be staying or visiting.

Joe tourist comes out here with his wife plans on doing a little low limit gambling, seeing some shows, has no plans to play poker and isn't going to go out of his way to go to a casino just to play poker.

He has no reason to seek out the few large poker rooms in town, but if he wanders across a room he may very well play. And some beginners are scared away by the big rooms and need to get there toe into the poker water in a small room.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with what you say,

but the thing about small rooms is that they also offer an entrance to the world of poker to tourists who don't come looking to play poker, but might give it a try if there is a poker room where they happen to be staying or visiting.

Joe tourist comes out here with his wife plans on doing a little low limit gambling, seeing some shows, has no plans to play poker and isn't going to go out of his way to go to a casino just to play poker.

He has no reason to seek out the few large poker rooms in town, but if he wanders across a room he may very well play. And some beginners are scared away by the big rooms and need to get there toe into the poker water in a small room.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your both right and partially wrong, because it contradicts traditional casino management theory. Lets use BJ as an example, if you stick a lone BJ table in the middle of slot machines you can expect the table to wither away and die. Tourists generally crave action, they want to be surrounded by people who are playing the same game. Most tourists feel more comfortable in a large room than they would in a small room because in a small room they fear sharks praying off of tourists (a silly concept, but thats generally their thought process). In the end your more right than wrong of course, and that is the reason why there is plenty of room for small cardrooms in Las Vegas just like there is room for smaller card rooms in LA and AC.

The small card rooms are really in competition with one another however, and the result is a fragmentation of low-limit poker that does not benefit the consumer or the card rooms since they cannot maintain a steady flow of games. Remember this isn't the first poker boom and it wont be the first B&M downsizing either, history is repeating itself (on a bigger scale of course).

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, a contraction of the poker market will likely lead to more game selection, but those games will also likely see rakes skyrocket.

[/ QUOTE ]

as previously explained the rakes wont skyrocket any more than they already are. Between BBJ and Rake many small stakes rooms are already a max $5 drop (Harrahs is $5 + BBJ drop! already, thats HUGE but on par with California), which is higher than what you will find at Bellagio which doesnt have a BBJ.

[Moneyline]

[ QUOTE ]
LA rakes are humongous because California rakes are humongous, your confusing the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

IIRC one of the LA casinos recently raised the house take on poker. Lack of competition is what allowed this to happen, not state law.

[ QUOTE ]
Also get used to it, the trend over the next 2 years will be to increase the rake to a 5 dollar max nationwide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if there is sufficient competition and the player base isn't brain dead. The abundance of poker rooms in LV is what caused Station Casinos to bring the rake back down to $4. If the player base didn't have other poker options, they would have had to deal with it.

[ QUOTE ]
nope, the max would remain 10% up to $5 because thats what the market has dictated is the top end

[/ QUOTE ]

Without sufficient competition it doesn't matter what the market dictates. The poker rooms will rake whatever they can get away with so long as there isn't somebody across the street offering poker players a better deal.