|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Re: If you ran the poker room...
If I ran a poker room I'd bump up the rake to 7 or 8 dollars a hand an have a bunch more promotions targeted at weak, gambly players. Something like win a hand with 72 get $50. Try and cycle as much money as possible from winning players to losing players. I would run a poker room that I as a winning player would hate to play at. Good business and keeping winning players happy are often at odds with each other.
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: If you ran the poker room...
Why do people assume that if they are running a card room they can dictate what games people will play?
The reason the games are running at all is because that's what the people came to play. Card rooms are service providers, if they don't provide the service customers want they will just look somewhere else to play. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: If you ran the poker room...
[ QUOTE ]
Why do people assume that if they are running a card room they can dictate what games people will play? [/ QUOTE ] In Missouri, its my understanding that the casino has to be licensed for a particular game and my regular room chose only to get a Hold'em license. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: If you ran the poker room...
[ QUOTE ]
If I ran a poker room I'd bump up the rake to 7 or 8 dollars a hand an have a bunch more promotions targeted at weak, gambly players. Something like win a hand with 72 get $50. Try and cycle as much money as possible from winning players to losing players. I would run a poker room that I as a winning player would hate to play at. Good business and keeping winning players happy are often at odds with each other. [/ QUOTE ] This is a terribly interesting mentality. I've always considered myself the 2nd best kind of player a poker room could have: a player who plays a ton and wins. The best kind of player a poker room could have is a player who plays a ton, plays horribly, and never runs out of money. The only reason I consider myself 2nd best is because without losing players, it's impossible to get most winning players. You won't find me at a table full of decent/good players for very long. The kind of room described above would probably be the kind of room I would like to play in. That mentality is fish 1st. If the lake is well stocked and maintained, the dedicated fisherman is willing to pay a premium to cast his net there. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: If you ran the poker room...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If I ran a poker room I'd bump up the rake to 7 or 8 dollars a hand an have a bunch more promotions targeted at weak, gambly players. Something like win a hand with 72 get $50. Try and cycle as much money as possible from winning players to losing players. I would run a poker room that I as a winning player would hate to play at. Good business and keeping winning players happy are often at odds with each other. [/ QUOTE ] This is a terribly interesting mentality. I've always considered myself the 2nd best kind of player a poker room could have: a player who plays a ton and wins. The best kind of player a poker room could have is a player who plays a ton, plays horribly, and never runs out of money. The only reason I consider myself 2nd best is because without losing players, it's impossible to get most winning players. You won't find me at a table full of decent/good players for very long. The kind of room described above would probably be the kind of room I would like to play in. That mentality is fish 1st. If the lake is well stocked and maintained, the dedicated fisherman is willing to pay a premium to cast his net there. [/ QUOTE ] It is based on bad logic. That because good players seek out good rakes, that bad players will flock to high rakes. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: If you ran the poker room...
A smart player would flock to a place with more fish and juicier games if he knew what was truly good for him.
|
|
|