The facts

[Carcounter]

I just had about 15 family members go to Vegas for 4 days. None of them are gamblers. They went for the food, shows, spectacle etc.I had the option of going with them or with the grandkids to Disney. I opted for Disney primarily because I knew the Vegas gang where staying on the strip and not venturing to local casinos. Since there isn't any good VP on the strip, I figured why bother. But I'm sure they spent plenty of money even if they didn't gamble.

[Eduardo]

Absolutely, that's called vacation.

I never went to Hawaii expecting to come home a winner!

Gambling is just one activity for me while on vacation and it's fun because you might (but probably won't) win something.

I'm sure it is different for people who play locally or much more often. I can see why casinos struggle to be appealing to both very different markets. But you should never pretend they are in business for the sake of making you money. Leave that to investment companies (who of course want their piece of the enchilada too).

That isn't being cynical. It's just the nature of business. And it's up to you whether you want to take part or not.

What is frustrating is seeing casinos make bad decisions like reducing pay tables or games available thinking lower player returns will certainly mean more profit. If you chase away the players, you aren't helping anyone.

So I guess it's a gamble on their part that enough people don't know or care enough about pay tables that they come out ahead in the long run with the profits of the other players. I tend to think a game just isn't much fun if you lose your money too fast, and really bad pay tables will get less play in the end based on that alone, whether the player understand a pay table or not. But I don't have any numbers to base that on, just a personal opinion.

[notes1]

eduardo, agree with your comments.  the one area that i have had trouble dealing with is how much the reduced paytables and any other mechanical adjustments some casinos may have made to the machines, has affected the cost of playing. i never expected to be an overall winner, but i got used to losing at a certain rate and that rate has increased, at least for me. as a result, i just play less. so far this year, only 3 trips in 2 months. that is the adjustment to the new reality, i have had to make.

[Eduardo]

Yes, I think that's the problem. Casinos are struggling with revenue so they drop pay tables, but if people visit less often as a result then they lose even more (not just on gambling profits, but food and whatever else people would spend money on, not to mention what people say about a place to others). They lose a customer.

It's no different than cutting back quality of any product out there to save money. You can only go so far before people start to notice.

While it may seem "smart" to say "Hey, if we take out 2 ounces of meat from every burrito we'll save a million bucks!" that doesn't turn out so well when people start chowing down on someone else's burrito.

[notes1]

i have mentioned a couple of times that i found it hard to believe that casinos could make up the profits generated by casino games, by selling over priced food and drinks. i just don't see how someone buying a fancy drink and a burger can equal the profit generated by someone banging on a slot machine for hours at a time. other than the outlay for the machine, they don't get health care, vacations and all the other costs that a human has. the only resolution i see is either a new, lower cost casino model or a dramatic reduction in the number of casinos, on a national basis. 

[FloridaPhil]

All the reasons we don't go to Vegas anymore. We don't go to shows and for sure don't care about hooking up at a club. We also don't expect to win all the time.  What we want from a report/casino are decent paying VP games, a friendly staff, clean quiet rooms without the drunk kids in the hall and decent comps that make us feel like we are getting something for the money we pump through their machines.   A good sound system with 60s music playing is also good.  While we're dreaming, how about non smoking too?   Come to think about it, I just described Black Hawk Colorado.  It's that time again... 

[Tedlark]

DaBurglar I disagree with your comment regarding income disparity in Las Vegas, have you looked into the cost of bottle service at someof the higher end clubs there? Not even taking bottle service into account;how about just a night of regular drinking at one of these clubs? My guess would be bottle service would be in the $2,000.00- $3,000.00 range and just a regular night without bottle service would be between a range of $250.00 - $500.00.

Just what clubs are paying EDM d.j.'s is a HUGE nut, much less the other overhead costs.

[case]

FloridaPhil
The strip in Vegas is designed for the "younger" generation. They don't care about good paying VP. Give them good places to party (like the strip) and a credit card.

Older people who are more into what you are after head off strip. Good pay tables, quiet rooms very few drunks (most of the time) and decent comps. This is why Vegas survives because of its diversity.


I remember reading a question and answer many years ago with Jackie Gaughan who used to own the El Cortez in Vegas. They asked Jackie why not offer full pay VP as most players don't play perfect anyway. He replied no they don't. However you might get an average of 98-99% average play on those machines. So tell me how I make money on that? He said most people forget I have to pay for hydro...air conditioning....booze... cashiers.....waitresses...maintenance people....cost of machines to buy or rent....upkeep....taxes..ect...ect... Jackie said we do offer some full pay VP but we lose money on them. They are just a come-on to get people in the door and hopefully they play other games.

This was not word for word but what I remember from the article. It sort of made me think that sometimes we forget all the costs associated with running a casino.

We would all like full pay games and often wonder why casinos reduce pay tables and sit half empty. Maybe there is more to it than we realize.

DaBurglar....I used to think the biggest threat to Vegas was competition when casinos started to pop up all around the country. However I think it might have helped them. People play at local casinos and get an itch to gamble. They then often make the trip to Vegas because Vegas offers the complete package. It is something more than a local casino can offer.

[DaBurglar]

Yes, I think that's the problem. Casinos are struggling with revenue so they drop pay tables, but if people visit less often as a result then they lose even more (not just on gambling profits, but food and whatever else people would spend money on, not to mention what people say about a place to others). They lose a customer.

It's no different than cutting back quality of any product out there to save money. You can only go so far before people start to notice.

While it may seem "smart" to say "Hey, if we take out 2 ounces of meat from every burrito we'll save a million bucks!" that doesn't turn out so well when people start chowing down on someone else's burrito.With this post, and the others you made previously, you essentially echoed all the points I have made over the years regarding WHY AC has gone down the tubes.....shortsighted, unimaginative, cynical management decisions made by the people at the top.   

[DaBurglar]

For those out there who have studied economics and business, you all should know the typical cycle(s) that most industries follow, with the LAST stage in any cycle being MATURITY......or saturation.When Industries reach full maturity, that essentially means you have the same number (or even greater) of companies (i.e. casinos in this case)  competing for the same sized pie, with the pie actually shrinking instead of growing.    Hence, the point Notes1 made about the only solution being a "downsizing" on a national basis of the total number of casinos being an actual possible solution (or likely outcome/result)......But VEGAS has defied this to a certain extent simply by diversifying to the extent that it has.    It's profit MARGIN is obviously way down with people gambling less, but revenues remain steady or even rising due to more dough on non gaming stuff that is NOT nearly as profitable, but nonetheless ensures survival and continuance.AC did a half arse attempt to replicate the Vegas strategy, but there was no way possible they could do so, given the fact that the state of NJ and the city of AC are not even remotely as supportive of the concept, and the casinos, as Nevada is.....Vegas is a unique situation that really cannot be duplicated.As stated before by several people besides myself, the days of HUGE revenue and profit growth for casinos are gone.....this is another feature of MATURE industries.   The primary goal(s) now for Vegas casinos and the LARGE corporations that own them is to attain, and then SUSTAIN, a modest growth and profitability rate (for arguments sake say 5-10% per annum), which will more than enough pay for annual executive pay raises and bonuses (which is a PRIORITY on the part of the decision makers in these companies, whether they or anyone else wants to admit it or not) as well as general upgrading and improvements.   In other words, SURVIVAL is the main objective in a mature, competitive market/industry.