rivers casino pittsburgh

i recently took a trip from long island to pittsburgh

played blackjack with basic strategy

was a lot of fun

turned 100 into 500, luck i guess

anyone been to rivers?

many many times. I couldn't count the ways I hate that place on all 20 fingers and toes.

We were there for a few hours last month. All we played were slots, I won $100 and Mrs won $300. On that basis, we liked it okay enough.

Quote: GWAE

many many times. I couldn't count the ways I hate that place on all 20 fingers and toes.

The more you go, the less you want to go back!

Been there many times, was planning to go this weekend but their poker tourney is way over my level.

It has Meadows beat on so many levels but yet I keep ending up back at Meadows. Rivers is out if there is local football that day for the most part. Poker room is too full of maniacs. They do have some individual progressive and "progressive hit by" machines I have not seen at Meadows but I am too old and too busy to seriously vulture machines.

Rivers buffet beats Meadows clearly, the bars are about a tie. The Wheelhouse isn't bad but I would not make a special trip.

One thing I *love* about Rivers is free parking and use the shuttle to get to downtown, also free. Many is the time I met there for a carpool or worked a gig and saved $5-10 in parking, mostly in nice weather months. I parked there before a Pirate game last fall.

Rivers clearly sees themselves as a higher-level place, and based on location they are. But it is still a locals joint.

Quote: AZDuffman

Rivers is out if there is local football that day for the most part. Poker room is too full of maniacs.

I've been to both a bunch of times. Rivers seems "nicer" / "bigger" but mostly because it's in downtown. However, from my experiences I feel they have the crappiest comp system I've ever seen. I had 2 different PB's tell me at a blackjack table that your action doesn't account for any comps, only how much you buy in for, and how much you cash out with. I was astonished as it seems like they don't even know what a persons "theoretical loss" is. Can anyone else confirm they've been fed this crap too? I asked another PB because I thought the first may have been lying to me.

I'm not the biggest fan of Rivers either, but I'd like to hear some of the reasons others have...

Quote: GWAE

many many times. I couldn't count the ways I hate that place on all 20 fingers and toes.

Care to name a handful, or two? =P

Quote: Romes

Care to name a handful, or two? =P

When I get home I will for sure.

Let me say that if I were visiting the city and wanted to play, drink, and eat for 1 night it might be a decent place. It is a horrible place for low rolling locals though.

Quote: richbailey86

i recently took a trip from long island to pittsburgh

played blackjack with basic strategy

was a lot of fun

turned 100 into 500, luck i guess

anyone been to rivers?

BTW, you have been on this forum for only a few months but you should have posted that you were going here ahead of time. There are a handful of locals on this board. I would have come down for a drink or a game for a little while. Keep that in mind if you are back in town.

Just curious, why were you in Pittsburgh if you don't mind sharing?

Quote: Romes

I've been to both a bunch of times. Rivers seems "nicer" / "bigger" but mostly because it's in downtown. However, from my experiences I feel they have the crappiest comp system I've ever seen. I had 2 different PB's tell me at a blackjack table that your action doesn't account for any comps, only how much you buy in for, and how much you cash out with. I was astonished as it seems like they don't even know what a persons "theoretical loss" is. Can anyone else confirm they've been fed this crap too? I asked another PB because I thought the first may have been lying to me.

The layout of Rivers is nicer because Meadows is wide and shallow while Rivers is more square and logical IMHO. Comps are horrible at Meadows I think.

As to the buy-in, that is probably the right way to rate a player. You cannot "lose" more than you buy in for.

If this is true it seems like the best course of action is to buy in bigger and rat-hole cheques. Would have to do it at a busy table or else they will notice lots of missing cheques in their racks, though.

Quote: AZDuffman

The layout of Rivers is nicer because Meadows is wide and shallow while Rivers is more square and logical IMHO. Comps are horrible at Meadows I think.

I agree. It does look slightly more updated too. Although that could just be the average age of Meadows is like 80...

Quote: AZDuffman

As to the buy-in, that is probably the right way to rate a player. You cannot "lose" more than you buy in for.

I disagree with this on many levels. So if I buy in for $100, and play $100/hand for a while and get lucky enough to break even, then I shouldn't get comped anything? What if I bought in for $1,000 and played $100/hand and broke even? The idea of Buy In rating is retarded. Most players don't put their whole bankroll on the table, they reach in their pocket and buy more chips if they need. The casino has ZERO way of knowing how much potential money is in anyone's pockets. The only thing they DO know is how much money the person is betting on average. The whole idea of comping to the theoretical loss is you don't care what the person does on this one particular session, because that's insignificant to the overall statistical effect they'll have in the long run. ANY casino that comps on a 'per session' basis is just showing their complete lack of understanding of statistics and the math involved with the game. Theoretical Loss deals with this long run.

Theoretical = Total Action * HE, where Total Action = Avg Bet * Hands Played, and HE, at least for blackjack, is generally taken anywhere from 1-2% because the majority of players don't even play close to basic strategy. To get a comp value simply multiply by .20 at the end is because your comps are generally 20% of your theoretical loss. I.E. They're paying you with your own projected losses, which is why they offer comps lol.

Easy example: A guy flat betting $10/hand has REALLY good luck and makes $200 over a couple hours, while another guy is betting $1,000 per hand, but ends up coming out EVEN after a couple hours... Who do you give the comp to? The $1,000 guy of course! If he comes back and keeps doing this then you're going to make TONS more off of him than you would off the $10 player.

Theoretical Losses
***PRETEND BOTH PLAYERS BOUGHT IN FOR $1,000***
Assuming 2 hours, and 80 hands per hour.

Theoretical of $1,000 player: $1,000*160*.02* = $3,200 ...Comp Value (20%) = $640
Theoretical of $10 player: 10*160*.02 = $32 ...Comp Value (20%) = $6.40

So while the $10 player "buy in / cash out" fluctuated more, the bigger player (whom broke even this time) gave a TON more action and in the long run will lose A TON MORE to the casino.

Quote: AZDuffman

If this is true it seems like the best course of action is to buy in bigger and rat-hole cheques. Would have to do it at a busy table or else they will notice lots of missing cheques in their racks, though.

That's precisely what I attempted to do for my session, but since I never bothered to get a card there before and I was "new" I was told I was pretty much screwed... Even though I had a lot of action over about 4-5 hours of play in 1 day. Total crap, in my opinion.

Quote: Romes

Theoretical Loss deals with this long run.

I understand the concept, but the bigger and simpler concept is unless the money walks in the door it is all just "churn" and meaningless. I can bet roulette all night (like I would!) betting red or black and win then lose, over and over. But the most I can "lose" is $100.

Put another way, you and I go in individually to run a doey-don'ty on the craps table. We each buy in for $500 and play all night, no 12s come up. We might easily run $10,000 though each. But in the end we could only lose $1,000 in total.

Quote: AZDuffman

I understand the concept, but the bigger and simpler concept is unless the money walks in the door it is all just "churn" and meaningless. I can bet roulette all night (like I would!) betting red or black and win then lose, over and over. But the most I can "lose" is $100.

If you only in fact have $100 in your pocket. My point was the casino has NO CLUE how much ANYONE has in their pocket(s). Thus, that is a completely worthless rating system. So you're telling me when someone buy's in, they never buy in again, or go to another table/game and buy in there?

If I take $1K to the casino, and I buy in for $400, and never have a losing streak enough to rebuy, then the casino looks at me as if I'm $400. However, I'm totally willing (if needed) to play that entire $1K in my pocket, so I should 'really' be worth $1,000 to them. THIS is my point and why buy in rating is seriously stupid. They can't possibly rate my pocket, but what they CAN rate is my play, which shows them my average bet, how long I've been playing, and what disadvantage they think I'm playing at.

We could only lose $1,000 total if I don't break out the other $10k I have in my pocket.

My thoughts on the Rivers - PGH

1. They have some pretty good PLO at times.

2. I don't like the 8 decks, but it is better for lucky ladies AP players.

3. The food is better than the Meadows.

4. I was given food comps when I asked for them.

5. There are too many hoodlums.

6. It is usually crowded.

7. I saw a guy beating up a lady in the Parking Garage. Several people reported it to security and they seemed to not be too concerned. Finally, after about 15 minutes they went out. People were gone. Maybe he finished her off and stuffed her in the trunk!

8. PB's seemed smug.

9. Dealers seemed competent and friendly.

Quote: Dynamite

My thoughts on the Rivers - PGH

1. They have some pretty good PLO at times.

2. I don't like the 8 decks, but it is better for lucky ladies AP players.

3. The food is better than the Meadows.

4. I was given food comps when I asked for them.

5. There are too many hoodlums.

6. It is usually crowded.

7. I saw a guy beating up a lady in the Parking Garage. Several people reported it to security and they seemed to not be too concerned. Finally, after about 15 minutes they went out. People were gone. Maybe he finished her off and stuffed her in the trunk!

8. PB's seemed smug.

9. Dealers seemed competent and friendly.

thanks for all the replies

and funny you say that i bet lucky ladies every time with a $5 chip and hit id say 3 out of 10 times it was ridiculous

As far as these urban "city center" casinos I think Horseshoe Cincinnati has done it the best so far. Good spacious layout, large variety of games, walking distance of city center, good buffet, and nice variety of restaurants (Margaritaville, Jack Binion's Steak, Bobby's Burger Palace, Starbucks). Diamond lounge has a hot buffet at mealtimes which is pretty awesome, and it's one of the bigger lounges. If I were a Cincinnatian, I'd be proud to call this my home. Also good for out-of-towners. Only downside is lack of an attached hotel but they have good hotel partners. (You must stay at the 21c Museum Hotel at least once).

To say a casino believes in comping only actual losses instead of theoretical losses is to say they are vulnerable to a Don Johnson tactic.

I really do wonder how many casinos might be vulnerable to the suggestion of "hey, you guys only have to rebate when I actually lose". Unfortunately, a guy needs to be a high roller to find out, ruling me out.

I'm surprised by this system as it is obviously flawed and could mean total forfeiture of any players that get lucky. Faking losses is so easy I'm surprised they set themselves up for manipulation.

I'm surprised by this system as it is obviously flawed and could mean total forfeiture of any players that get lucky. Faking losses is so easy I'm surprised they set themselves up for manipulation.

Quote: onenickelmiracle

I'm surprised by this system as it is obviously flawed and could mean total forfeiture of any players that get lucky. Faking losses is so easy I'm surprised they set themselves up for manipulation.

I'll bite. Why are you going around bumping threads that are several years old?

Quote: sabre

I'll bite. Why are you going around bumping threads that are several years old?

I'm bored and am reading old threads. Perhaps I'm not big on traditions, customs, etc. Perhaps I'm a 400 pound hacker sitting in bed and can't get into the DNC. I'm bored.

Pittsburgh's Rivers Casino outlines $51.5 million hotel plan on North Shore

Not sure how I feel on this one. Will kill lots of the open space that makes that part of town nice. OTOH, it gives the place more backbone. OTOOHIMHO the money might have been better spent on a show room, though Stage AE is right up the street so might be overkill. OTOOOH I don't see casino patrons crossing over to Stage AE.

Quote: AZDuffman

Pittsburgh's Rivers Casino outlines $51.5 million hotel plan on North Shore

Not sure how I feel on this one. Will kill lots of the open space that makes that part of town nice. OTOH, it gives the place more backbone. OTOOHIMHO the money might have been better spent on a show room, though Stage AE is right up the street so might be overkill. OTOOOH I don't see casino patrons crossing over to Stage AE.

I don't have a problem with it, if you want to give the appearance of a legitimate, 'Resort Casino,' then you need to have some sort of hotel attached to the property. I saw the signs in Rivers that they were voted best, 'Resort Casino,' for 2016 and all I could do was laugh...how can you be a resort without a hotel? Besides that, anything that creates jobs is a positive, and judging by the hotel rates on the North Shore, as well as Downtown, there is certainly room in the market for another hotel to open. Most importantly, it will create jobs, some temporary and many permanent.

Finally, they are probably trying to even better compete with The Meadows which, as you know, recently has a Hyatt physically attached to the casino via walkway. Furthermore, Meadows (in my opinion) is also convenient to more hotels than Rivers and their (Meadows') security staff will take patrons to about five or six of the hotels, so drinking, not a problem.