Harrahs Rake Increase

[Abe]

Whats the latest info on Harrahs rake increase to $5?

In Las Vegas;
5 Ballys
5 Paris
5 Harrahs
5 Flamingo
5 IP

4 Caesars

? Rio
? any others

And what about other Harrahs around the country?
Missouri and Tunica are still $4.

[pig4bill]

Harvey's in Tahoe was $4 plus $1 jackpot.

[schwerd2]

$4 + $1 jackpot at all the harrah's properties in atlantic city.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
$4 + $1 jackpot at all the harrah's properties in atlantic city.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats odd, I thought it went up to 5 already in AC. I hope this thread gives us a definitive answer on Harrah's rake policies, anyone know Jeffrey? Perhaps he will agree to respond.

[chaos]

I think Harrah's N.O. is $5 + $1 jackpot

[redfisher]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Harrah's N.O. is $5 + $1 jackpot

[/ QUOTE ]

For limit that's correct. For NL it's $6/down + $1/hand JP. They may not take the JP at 5/10 and 10/25 NL.

I'm not sure $5+1 is a Harrah's rake policy. It seems pretty standard in Louisiana.

[sem25]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
$4 + $1 jackpot at all the harrah's properties in atlantic city.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats odd, I thought it went up to 5 already in AC. I hope this thread gives us a definitive answer on Harrah's rake policies, anyone know Jeffrey? Perhaps he will agree to respond.

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is they want to remain competitive w/other rooms in AC, as they're still all at 4.

[canis582]

is it ten percent or like $3 at 40, $4 at 60, etc?

[Al_Capone_Junior]

The real truth of the matter is that those running the poker program in harrahs senior management don't have the slightest clue. These are not poker people, they are corporate scum who have only succeeded in leading the way backwards in all aspects of poker.

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. 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. In the long run, this will costs harrahs money, not make them more. It's a bad deal for everyone.

Because they won't ever see these effects, harrahs corporate idiots will keep patting themselves on the back anyway. Senior management has ignored any and all comments, suggestions and criticisms when it comes to poker. They don't even realize that harrahs is the laughing stock of the poker world (especially with the fiascos associated with every year they have run the wsop).

The only way complaints about higher rake will ever have any effect is if players fill out comment forms and turn them in. However, most just complain bitterly to the staff (who have no control on the matter) and then leave.

Al

[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.