Saturday, November 29, 2008

Where I play

One of the questions that sometimes pops up in emails or the comments is where I play most frequently. So as I was entering some data in my spreadsheets just now, I thought I'd check the records and see.

The place where I have played the most turns out still to be the Hilton, even though it closed its poker room over a year ago. Moreover, my total number of sessions there dwarfs the nearest competitor by a factor of five! That gives you some idea of how concentrated my play was there prior to its closing, and why it felt like a home away from home. Because my play is now so much more spread out over the city's 50+ rooms, it will probably be two or three years before any other place catches up to the total number of Hilton sessions.

Second place is a tie between the Venetian and the Palms. Third place is the Golden Nugget (though the bulk of my sessions there were early on in my Vegas life; I'm there less often now). Fourth place is a tie between the Orleans and the Rio. Fifth place is a tie between Planet Hollywood and Caesars Palace.

Following those, we have, in descending order:

Binion's
Bill's, Mandalay Bay, and Treasure Island (three-way tie)
Excalibur, Flamingo, and Stratosphere (another three-way tie)
Suncoast
Sahara
Harrah's, Hard Rock, and Luxor (tie)
Riviera

There are a bunch more, of course, but the rest are all fewer than ten sessions each, so I didn't bother putting them into the order here.

So there you have it.

A related question, while I'm looking at the spreadsheet, is which places have been most profitable for me? That depends on how you do the accounting. In total dollars won, Hilton is first. But that's not a very useful figure, given its huge lead in number of hours and sessions. The purest read would be in dollars per hour, but, though this may seem strange, I actually don't keep track of that separately for each casino. Figuring it out would mean going through every session I have put in at a given casino and then going back through another spreadsheet to look up how many hours I put in there that day, and add them all up. Way too much work. I do, however, keep track of average profit or loss per session, so let's check that.

In order to eliminate outliers, I'm limiting this to places I've played at least five times. If I didn't, then Boulder Station would be in the lead, with an average per-session gain of $320--but since I have played there only once, that's not a fair representation. So with that limitation in mind, here's my top ten list (giving you the order only, and keeping the actual figures private):

1: Tuscany
2: Sahara
3: Suncoast
4: Bill's
5: Planet Hollywood
6: Binion's
7: Caesars Palace
8: Palms
9: Venetian
10: Imperial Palace

Kind of an odd assortment, eh? There is no logical overall explanation for the ordering, as far as I can tell. I mean, Bill's and Tuscany and Sahara definitely have among the worst players in town. But I'd put Imperial Palace right alongside Tuscany and Sahara in that regard, yet it's several notches down the profitability list. That may be because I haven't had many sessions there, and its average is therefore pulled down by a couple of times when I've played the I.P. mixed game and been a net loser (as I expected to be going in).

Players at Suncoast are not, on average, terrible. Its place on the list might be kind of a quirk, skewed by a few really enormous sessions there where I either got completely run over by the deck or had a maniac at the table just giving away his chips, or both. For example, one memorable day there I made $903 in an hour and a half--just completely off the charts in dollars per hour. I was winning an absolutely absurd percentages of the pots with a string of big hands that should have alerted security to check for collusion between me and the dealers, including quad 8s that busted two other players and got me a high-hand jackpot to boot. The other players that day might have been tempted to go with Worm's line from "Rounders": "F--- you and your never-ending string of boats!"

The typical quality of play at Binion's, Caesars, Palms, and Venetian is unquestionably higher than that at the names toward the top of this list, so it's not surprising that they average less profit per session. On the other hand, I can't explain why they have been more profitable for me than many of the ones that didn't make my top ten, such as Harrah's, Orleans, or Stratosphere, where the average opponent is clearly inferior to the Binion's/Caesars/Palms/Venetian level. It's mostly a mystery to me.

3 comments:

Grange95 said...

Although I hate to nitpick, that is sort of the theme of your blog ... and as a nitpicky sports fan, I feel the need to point out that your ranking list does not handle ties properly. If two teams tie for second place (or second best), the next team after is not third, but rather is fourth (since the two tied teams account for second and third places). Using this traditional convention for handling ties allows the reader to recognize that a team well down the list is actually, say, the 20th best team, rather than the 12th best team as it might appear using your method.

Using the traditional ranking method, your list would read:

1. Hilton
2t. Venetian
2t. Palms
4. Golden Nugget
5t. Orleans
5t. Rio
7t. Planet Hollywood
7t. Caesars Palace
9. Binion's
10t. Bill's Gamblin’ Hall
10t. Mandalay Bay
10t. Treasure Island
13t. Excalibur
13t. Flamingo
13t. Stratosphere
16. Suncoast
17. Sahara
18t. Harrah's
18t. Hard Rock
18t. Luxor
21. Riviera

Still a fairly impressive array of poker rooms!

Anonymous said...

Interesting. By the way, one of the other 'FAQ's that I'm looking forward to hearing you answer is the "Why do you play 1/2?" question... I've always thought that thinking players can do much better at 2/5 than 1/2, since there are more 'moves' possible -- given that the average player is much more likely to be paying attention to more than the strength of their own hadn...

Anonymous said...

Fantastic post. I love hearing where others play and their results.

You made the point at the end,
"The typical quality of play at Binion's, Caesars, Palms, and Venetian is unquestionably higher than that at the names toward the top of this list, so it's not surprising that they average less profit per session. On the other hand, I can't explain why they have been more profitable for me than many of the ones that didn't make my top ten, such as Harrah's, Orleans, or Stratosphere."

I think it has a lot to do with your playing style. I've gone back to read a lot of your previous posts (several hours reading) and I think your style is very close to my own.

My profits are higher when I play against stronger competition (Venetian, Binions, Hard Rock). Players who are playing at a higher level, I seem to be able to figure out what their bets mean. My profits tend to come from one or two big pots where I've successfully trapped my opponent with a made hand or hit my draw.

Lower level players found at some of the touristy casino's give off a lot more tells, but their bets are often confusing, because they are totally confused themselves. My profits from these players tend to be by winning more, but smaller pots. Grinding up my stack bit by bit.

Also, there seem to be more periods of variance that slap you in the face when you play against these weak players. When I am struggling through one of these periods, I look for a tougher game. Its totally counter-intuitive, trying to find a less soft game, but that works for me.

yyzgeddylee@safe-mail.com