Casino AZ now runs live single table SNGs!

[trussdude]

I'm sure any business in Arizona that requires disposable income is down right now. All construction related jobs have been having massive lay offs for the last few months.

This is the valley's first down turn in the last 15 years. I usually make trips to Las Vegas every 4 to 6 weeks and I haven't been there since June.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
SNG =$55 in revenue over the course of 1.5-2 hours for the house.
Same players would be in a live raked game if the SNG wasn't going.
Simple math, from a revenue stand point they way -EV.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's only the $60 SNGs, and that's net revenue to the house (the dealers are paid separately). And no SNG is going 2 hours. Mine was done in one hour. So the house made $95 in one table hour which is probably a lot more than they'll make from most of their low limit tables.

But yes, they'll probably increase the rake if they keep them around (another $5 wouldn't kill anyone but it would increase the house take to $145 for the $115s), and they should eliminate the $60s so they don't draw players from the $115s.

[ QUOTE ]

These things do not draw players that would normally be in the casino, they simply take players out of live play.

[/ QUOTE ]

This remains to be seen. I recognized only one player from mine. They could have been low limit players or they could have come in for the SNGs. Players love tournaments. But many people can't sit around for 6 hours playing one.

[UbinTook]

True enough regarding the 60’s, but saying “no SNG is going 2 hours is untrue”. I know for fact of one that went close to 2.5 on Tuesday night/Wednesday morning, several others have been close to 2 hours and I am told by supervisory personnel that the average for others is 75-90 minutes.

$95 is arguably about 30-40% less than the average hourly drop in a LLH game; the top section games drop $126 an hour, so even at your level that is a net loss even when considering the SNG lasts only an hour.

Part of my concern is more the long term effect on the community bankroll of the players and its long term effect on the live action games.

SNG’s redistribute and concentrate the available cash to be put in to live play to just a few players. Winners of the SNG’s tend to pocket the prize money, though they might put some back into live play, they will either take some of it and rebuy into another SNG or just retire from playing for the day. You are taking 9 buy ins’ and giving it to 3 players, most of that cash won’t get back into play. (It would ALL be in play in live action). Spreading multiple SNG’s (SIX at a time for periods Tuesday night and Wednesday) at a time exacerbates the issue.

The losers tend to take remaining funds and rather than “waste their time” trying to win it back in live action they “take another shot” in another SNG.

SNG’s make players apathetic to live play, live play becomes boring, and they would rather take the chance to win a larger payout than play for hours for a nominal win. This applies especially to the lower limit players who might see this as an opportunity for bigger payouts with the same risk.
Live action games are breaking because players are leaving to play SNG’s.
BAD, bad, bad.

As profitable as these may seem to players now, the reality is they will hurt the room long term. The number of players (that don’t already come in to the room) these will draw is nominal compared to the potential overall harm they could cause.

Just my opinion

[DesertCat]

I think you are focusing too much on the short. Sure a SNG player might win $500 in a $115 and pick up and leave. But odds are he'll be back in a few days, just like he would have if he won $500 in a cash game. And most people play for a set time period, so they rarely quit a winner after 1 hour when they came to play for 4 hours. In the end what matters is the volume of players and money coming to the games, and more variety of games attracting more players should increase that. I'll admit the first week hasn't shown any effect yet, though.

Breaking up tables is a concern, but essentially it's just changing the mix of tables. It's great for the SNG players but hurts the other games. And there are some minor benefits, more short handed play and it's easier to get into a cash game immediately.

I won't disagree with your math on the rake. Clearly they will eventually increase it for the $60s and $115s. I'm not sure what the value of the $60s are really. Can't even a 3-6 player afford a $115 tourney?

[pig4bill]

Not really. It's twice as much for something they know they have little chance to win.

[Howard Beale]

The IDEAL for any poker room is this: Everybody plays 4-8, loses $50 or so, and has a good time.

In order for that to happen the players have to sit for a while with a couple hundred. In a sng that same player can be done in 10 minutes. It's doubtful that this experience translates to a 'good time' which will keep him coming back. It's the reason that there was practically NO NL poker spread before it was on the TEE VEE. It broke players too quick and management knew it. They want you to be there for a while, paying the rake, and enjoying yourself.

They're offering these sng's for a reason and I'm wondering if the reason is that they've noticed that traffic is much less than it used to be. Years ago I remarked that a total $5 drop (rather than $4) between the rake and JP was going to have an effect sooner or later and that may just be what's happened.

[Percula]

[ QUOTE ]
The rake ... $5 to the cage (why? dunno)

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the cage does the tray setups for all tourneys. I haven't seen the SnGs but I would imagine they are also handling the payouts too.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
The IDEAL for any poker room is this: Everybody plays 4-8, loses $50 or so, and has a good time.


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you mean everyone plays 20-40, loses a couple hundred dollars, has a good time and comes back tomorrow?

[Howard Beale]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The IDEAL for any poker room is this: Everybody plays 4-8, loses $50 or so, and has a good time.


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you mean everyone plays 20-40, loses a couple hundred dollars, has a good time and comes back tomorrow?

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[UbinTook]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are focusing too much on the short. Sure a SNG player might win $500 in a $115 and pick up and leave. But odds are he'll be back in a few days, just like he would have if he won $500 in a cash game. And most people play for a set time period, so they rarely quit a winner after 1 hour when they came to play for 4 hours. In the end what matters is the volume of players and money coming to the games, and more variety of games attracting more players should increase that. I'll admit the first week hasn't shown any effect yet, though.

Breaking up tables is a concern, but essentially it's just changing the mix of tables. It's great for the SNG players but hurts the other games. And there are some minor benefits, more short handed play and it's easier to get into a cash game immediately.

I won't disagree with your math on the rake. Clearly they will eventually increase it for the $60s and $115s. I'm not sure what the value of the $60s are really. Can't even a 3-6 player afford a $115 tourney?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that focusing on the short in order to anticipate the long term ramification, unless we recognize what CAN happen before it does, it will be too late.
The key is what is going to hold the games together better, and keep the money in action; 9 players who put their buy-in into live action or 9 players, three of which end up with all the money in 75-90 minutes.

The difference in winning 5 bills in a cash game versus 5 bills in a SNG is the dynamic of how it is won, the time involved, the money flows (new money) in and out. A SNG takes and redistributes a defined amount of cash to a few people who take it out of play…in the long run, the talented players will end up with the cash, and you know it won’t be easily relinquished.

I think the issue here is long term profitability, you guys who are skilled at the game will win most of the money, but how long will it take to deplete the bankroll and kill the live games as well as the SNG's, then what do you do?
If you don’t think it can happen, think again.

3/6 players can "afford" the 115's that is the whole point, they will take that 115, most likely which is what they have
allocated for the day and "take a shot". if they lose they are gone, if they win, great, but 6 other have lost. That money that would be in live play for the day is now gone. Multiply this by 4 or 5 or 6, and what happens to the live games?