"It's getting tough to make a living," I said to the video poker player in the chair next to mine. His laugh showed that he appreciated the joke, but what was gallows humor to him was, to me, a simple statement of fact.
Unless I have a hell of a day today (12/31), I will make only about two-thirds of my average annual income for the past half-dozen or so years. In the past, I would have taken this in stride, gambling being characterized by ups and downs. But now I'm pretty well convinced this is the new normal for what I've been doing.
Most of what I have been doing is playing video poker. In the past few years, games have gotten worse, my mail offers from several casinos have been cut off, and ancillary earning opportunities, such as invitational tournanents and drawings, are not what they used to be. My other game, blackjack, hasn't changed as much, but there are fewer places where I'm allowed to play.
And, I'm tired. Gambling professionally is a notoriously time-consuming pursuit. I've basically been working seven days a week for the past several years. It is not as enjoyable as it used to be.
I've thought about doing other things, inside and outside the casino. A guy I used to work with makes his living betting golf, I sport I enjoy watching. I've done a little research on this and it seems hard, but it might be worth pursuing. I've also thought about playing more blackjack for as long as I can get away with it. And I've considered taking up live poker.
I've also thought about getting a job, but there are problems with that. What's left of the profession I worked in has changed a lot, and not in any good ways. I've been out of the job market entirely for half a dozen years.
I would like to to do more writing and have a concept for a book about my experiences in Las Vegas.
I'm going to be travelling for a few days early in the new year. I've got a lot to think about while I'm gone. Things have got to start changing when I get back. At this point, I'm just not sure how.
Saturday, December 31, 2016
Monday, November 28, 2016
A better way to run a slot tournament
In the casino world, a tournament is an event that gives players an opportunity to compete against one another for a flat entry fee or on the casino's dime. Tournament formats include just about all the major casino games, including slots, live poker, video poker, blackjack, craps and other table games. In the Las Vegas area, many locals casinos offer small slot, video poker and blackjack tournaments on a regular basis, mostly weekly, often as part of their seniors' day programs. "Destination" casinos and some locals casinos sometimes offer bigger tournaments, often to attract out-of-town guests during slow weekends.
The latter used to be a significant source of income for my spouse and me. It seemed that we had at least one tournanent opportunity on many weekends and sometimes had to scramble to participate in two on the same weekend. For us, the entries to these tournaments we always free, based on our play. Prize pools of $50,000 or more were fairly common, and I was able to play in a few blackjack
tournaments at what was the Las Vegas Hilton (now the Westgate) with prize pools of $100,000. Alas, many of those tournaments have dried up since the recession of 2008.
From the players' point of view, the main problem with playing in a tournament has been the time commitment involved. Typically, you would get an invitation in the mail, to which you would have to respond by phone or e-mail to reserve a place. Then you would have to go to the casio during a specified time, usually a couple of hours during the day before the tournament, to register. At registration you would be assigned your times to play, usually in from two to four sessions during the weekend. Sometimes you would get some choice of when to play (but often sessions were linked so you could pick your morning times but the afternoons times would be set at, say, two hours later in an attempt to keep you in the casino). Sometimes you would have to take the times you were given. Often it was difficult to plan other activities, such as playing in another tournament, around these times.
The M Resort in Las Vegas has come up with what to me is a better tournament format that makes things easier not only for the participants but also for the casino's special events staff. About once a month the casino invites both local and out-of-town players to a slot tournament worth about $35,000 with a $10,000 first prize. The first great thing about these tournaments is that you don't have to call to reserve a spot, which means you also don't have to call if you need to cancel. Your plans can remain flexible right up to the first day of the tournament.
The next great thing is that you don't have to show up in person to register. In fact, you don't have to register at all. But wait, there's more! There are only two sessions, one each on Saturday and Sunday. You can play them any time you want, from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. Saturday and 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday. Before playing, you print out a ticket at a special tournament kiosk. I sure wish this format had been in effect when we were trying to play in two or more tournaments on some weekends.
Given that the traditional tournament format requires players to spend a lot more time in the casino, you might be wondering why the M would allow players to "hit and run." There are, I think, a couple of anwers. First, players know they won't be invited to these events if they don't maintain a certain level of play. They just don't have to do it on the tournament weekend. Second, the M provides some incentives to get people play during the tournament and on the day before. Starting Friday, players can earn up to two extra entries for Saturday and two for Sunday by earning 1,500 base points on slots or 3,000 on video poker for each extra entry. During the same period they can earn entries in a $5,000 drawing at 5,000 base points per entry. The same base points can count towards the extra tournanent entries and the drawing entries.
The M also has slot or video poker tournaments Tuesdays as part of its seniors' day and Thursdays for everyone. Seniors get one free entry on Tuesdays. On both days, a maximum of five entries can be earned for 250 base points each. Also on both days, you can use these same points toward a free dinner buffet, which requires 1.300 same-day base points on video poker, fewer on reels (you keep the points).
Monday, November 14, 2016
A long day at work on a huge progressive
I've written before about video poker progressives, games in which a small percentage of the money played through accumulates into an ever-growing jackpot that is paid out to the first player who hits a royal flush. Progressives can become positive for the players when the jackpot reaches a certain amount, which depends on the paytable of the game. Most progressives have such tight paytables that the jackpot has to be so huge for the game to be positive that they rarely reach that point, and even if they do, you are going to lose so much money if you're not the winner that they just aren't worth playing.
Fortunately, there are still a few progressives that I check regularly and play when they reach a certain point. The best of these is a seven-machine dollar progressive at a small casino far from the Strip and downtown Las Vegas. The best game on the multi-game machines is 16/10 NSU deuces wild, with a maximum payback at reset (when the meter goes back to $4,000 after the jackpot is hit) of 99.7 percent. (When the meter reaches about $7,000, it's actually better to play a lower-payback game, 9/6 jacks or better, because royal flushes come more often in that game.) This progressive also has a fairly fast meter, taking one-half of one percent of the money played through for the jackpot. The only negative is that the casino doesn't have a players club, so you aren't earning any points for playing.
I usually check this progressive pretty regularly but had let it slip a recently. On Thursday night, I stopped in and was surprised to see the meter at well over $7,000. My strike point on this progressive is around $6,000, so I sat down and began to play. Only one other player was there, a friendly acquaintace of mine. I played until about 1:30 a.m., losing $1,000. Because he was still playing, I knew I was taking a risk by leaving.
Whether an when to stop playing a good progressive is always a difficult decision. There is simply no way to predict when it might hit. The chance of a player hitting a royal flush on a particular hand is exactly the same, regardless of how long it has been since the last royal flush for that player or on a particular machine or group of machines. That is why there is no basis for belief that a progressive is "overdue" to be hit.
I was willing to take the risk that one player would hit the jackpot late at night to avoid possibly spending all night at the casino and not being able to play until late the next day. That turned out to be the right decision, but it just as easily could have turned out to be wrong.
Before returning to the casino the next morning, I went to get some money out the bank. Unfortunately, it was Veterans Day and the bank was closed, something I hadn't considered. I got my limit of $500 from the ATM. I could have gone to a nearby casino and cashed a check but I wanted to get back to the progressive, and hoped that, with the $500 I had left from the night before, I would have enough to play until the jackpot was hit.
As I walked into the casino, I reminded myself that I was facing three possibilities: 1. The progessive had been hit; 2. It was still there, but all the machines were taken; and 3. It was still there and a seat was available. I knew that of the three, the last was by far the least likely. If it had been hit, at least I could get some breakfast, cash a check and go about my other business. If all the seats were taken, I would ask the players about their plans and make a decision about waiting for a seat to open up.
I was surprised to see both the meter at close to $8,000 and one seat open. I practically jumped into it and began shoving $100 bills into the machine. Of course, it was the slowest machine of the group, but I was glad to get it.
It was about 10:15 in the morning. At first things went well, but then I began to lose. A few hours in, it looked as if my $1,000 might soon run out. I called my wife, but she wasn't in a position to be able to get money to me quickly. The acquaintance who had been playing the night before heard the gist of the conversation and offered to lend me some money. I was very appreciative but wanted to avoid that if at all possible.
When I did run out of money, I took a bathroom break and stopped at the cashier's cage to see if I could cash a check. They didn't take my check cashing card but said I could get a cash advance off a credit or debit card. I had never done this -- in my mind, it was something done only by the worst degenerate gamblers -- and I knew the cost would be high. But I slso knew this play was worth hundreds of dollars an hour. Under the circumstances, taking the advance was a good business decision. At least I could use a debit card and avoid having interest start accruing immediately on a credit card. I also hoped that by using a debit card I could avoid a report that might affect my credit.
The cashier asked me how much I wanted. I thought $500 should be enough but asked for $1,000, just to be safe (I thought). She said the fee would come up on the keypad screen -- $27. I tapped "accept," got the money, and went back to play.
And play and play and play. Afternoon turned to evening and the meter reached $9,000. The casino manager announced that the progressive was setting a record for that casino, and every time a seat opened up, he made an announcement, noting the amount on the meter and saying a couple of times that the jackpot was overdue to be hit.
As the night wore on I ran out of money again and took another $1,000 advance, paying another $27 fee. Except for a few breaks to go to the restroom and get money, I hadn't been out of my increasingly uncomfortable seat all day. A few times I stood up for relief, continuing to play. At about 9:30, standing in front of my machine, I was dealt three cards to a royal flush in diamonds. I hit the draw button and the other two cards popped up. The meter was at $9,920.
The other players murmered congratulations and slinked away. A few minutes later a slot attendant showed up, called the security manager over, and began the half-hour long process of doing the paperwork by hand and getting me paid. While I was waiting, a woman playing one of the old coin dropper machines behind me asked me how much you tip on that kind of a jackpot. I had asked some of the other players the same question earlier. One had said $50, another $10, saying the work involved was the same regardless of the size of the jackpot. Normally I tip one-half of one percent, but I decided to go to $100. The smaller the casino, the bigger a jackpot of a given amount seems to the employees, and I wanted them to be happy to see me the next time I came in.
In addition to the money I won, I was given 100 paper tickets to casino's cash drawing and a chance to spin a prize wheel, which got me a dinner comp for two.
Most gamblers would be ecstatic to win $9,920. I was more relieved than excited. It was a slog, and I had lost $3,600 before it hit. Normally I don't feel it much when I don't win -- losing is a big part of the business -- but in this case it would have hurt more than usual. I have had a pretty tough year, particularly on progressives, and losing this one would have made for an unusually bad streak.
But win or lose, I did the right thing. I only wish I had checked the progressive earlier. If I had, I might have hit it earlier, making less money but saving myself a lot of time and stress.
But maybe not. The thing about progressives is, you just never know when they're going to pop.
Fortunately, there are still a few progressives that I check regularly and play when they reach a certain point. The best of these is a seven-machine dollar progressive at a small casino far from the Strip and downtown Las Vegas. The best game on the multi-game machines is 16/10 NSU deuces wild, with a maximum payback at reset (when the meter goes back to $4,000 after the jackpot is hit) of 99.7 percent. (When the meter reaches about $7,000, it's actually better to play a lower-payback game, 9/6 jacks or better, because royal flushes come more often in that game.) This progressive also has a fairly fast meter, taking one-half of one percent of the money played through for the jackpot. The only negative is that the casino doesn't have a players club, so you aren't earning any points for playing.
I usually check this progressive pretty regularly but had let it slip a recently. On Thursday night, I stopped in and was surprised to see the meter at well over $7,000. My strike point on this progressive is around $6,000, so I sat down and began to play. Only one other player was there, a friendly acquaintace of mine. I played until about 1:30 a.m., losing $1,000. Because he was still playing, I knew I was taking a risk by leaving.
Whether an when to stop playing a good progressive is always a difficult decision. There is simply no way to predict when it might hit. The chance of a player hitting a royal flush on a particular hand is exactly the same, regardless of how long it has been since the last royal flush for that player or on a particular machine or group of machines. That is why there is no basis for belief that a progressive is "overdue" to be hit.
I was willing to take the risk that one player would hit the jackpot late at night to avoid possibly spending all night at the casino and not being able to play until late the next day. That turned out to be the right decision, but it just as easily could have turned out to be wrong.
Before returning to the casino the next morning, I went to get some money out the bank. Unfortunately, it was Veterans Day and the bank was closed, something I hadn't considered. I got my limit of $500 from the ATM. I could have gone to a nearby casino and cashed a check but I wanted to get back to the progressive, and hoped that, with the $500 I had left from the night before, I would have enough to play until the jackpot was hit.
As I walked into the casino, I reminded myself that I was facing three possibilities: 1. The progessive had been hit; 2. It was still there, but all the machines were taken; and 3. It was still there and a seat was available. I knew that of the three, the last was by far the least likely. If it had been hit, at least I could get some breakfast, cash a check and go about my other business. If all the seats were taken, I would ask the players about their plans and make a decision about waiting for a seat to open up.
I was surprised to see both the meter at close to $8,000 and one seat open. I practically jumped into it and began shoving $100 bills into the machine. Of course, it was the slowest machine of the group, but I was glad to get it.
It was about 10:15 in the morning. At first things went well, but then I began to lose. A few hours in, it looked as if my $1,000 might soon run out. I called my wife, but she wasn't in a position to be able to get money to me quickly. The acquaintance who had been playing the night before heard the gist of the conversation and offered to lend me some money. I was very appreciative but wanted to avoid that if at all possible.
When I did run out of money, I took a bathroom break and stopped at the cashier's cage to see if I could cash a check. They didn't take my check cashing card but said I could get a cash advance off a credit or debit card. I had never done this -- in my mind, it was something done only by the worst degenerate gamblers -- and I knew the cost would be high. But I slso knew this play was worth hundreds of dollars an hour. Under the circumstances, taking the advance was a good business decision. At least I could use a debit card and avoid having interest start accruing immediately on a credit card. I also hoped that by using a debit card I could avoid a report that might affect my credit.
The cashier asked me how much I wanted. I thought $500 should be enough but asked for $1,000, just to be safe (I thought). She said the fee would come up on the keypad screen -- $27. I tapped "accept," got the money, and went back to play.
And play and play and play. Afternoon turned to evening and the meter reached $9,000. The casino manager announced that the progressive was setting a record for that casino, and every time a seat opened up, he made an announcement, noting the amount on the meter and saying a couple of times that the jackpot was overdue to be hit.
As the night wore on I ran out of money again and took another $1,000 advance, paying another $27 fee. Except for a few breaks to go to the restroom and get money, I hadn't been out of my increasingly uncomfortable seat all day. A few times I stood up for relief, continuing to play. At about 9:30, standing in front of my machine, I was dealt three cards to a royal flush in diamonds. I hit the draw button and the other two cards popped up. The meter was at $9,920.
The other players murmered congratulations and slinked away. A few minutes later a slot attendant showed up, called the security manager over, and began the half-hour long process of doing the paperwork by hand and getting me paid. While I was waiting, a woman playing one of the old coin dropper machines behind me asked me how much you tip on that kind of a jackpot. I had asked some of the other players the same question earlier. One had said $50, another $10, saying the work involved was the same regardless of the size of the jackpot. Normally I tip one-half of one percent, but I decided to go to $100. The smaller the casino, the bigger a jackpot of a given amount seems to the employees, and I wanted them to be happy to see me the next time I came in.
In addition to the money I won, I was given 100 paper tickets to casino's cash drawing and a chance to spin a prize wheel, which got me a dinner comp for two.
Most gamblers would be ecstatic to win $9,920. I was more relieved than excited. It was a slog, and I had lost $3,600 before it hit. Normally I don't feel it much when I don't win -- losing is a big part of the business -- but in this case it would have hurt more than usual. I have had a pretty tough year, particularly on progressives, and losing this one would have made for an unusually bad streak.
But win or lose, I did the right thing. I only wish I had checked the progressive earlier. If I had, I might have hit it earlier, making less money but saving myself a lot of time and stress.
But maybe not. The thing about progressives is, you just never know when they're going to pop.
Monday, October 31, 2016
A claim worthy of a politician
This being election season, we are hearing all kinds of partial truths, statements taken out of context, and outright lies. Unfortunately, politicians aren't the only ones who engage is various degrees of prevarication. So do gaming establishments.
The Rampart is a casino in Summerlin, a high-end suburban area west of downtown Las Vegas. One of its advertising slogans is that its points "are always worth 5X more." At the Rampart, 1,000 points = $5 cash back.
Presumably, the word "more" refers to the competition. The casino nearest the Rampart is the Suncoast, part of of Boyd Gaming's Coast Casinos group. Not far away is Station Casinos' Red Rock Resort. The Coasts and Stations are, by far, the two leading groups of locals' casinos in the Las Vegas area. The Coasts share a players club, B Connected, with Boyd's three downtown Las Vegas casinos (as well as a number of properties outside of Nevada). The rules for earning and redeeming B Connected Points are the same at all of these properties.
Fortunately for purposes of simplicity, base points at the Boyd and Station properties are earned and redeemed at the same rates, and 1,000 points = $1 cash back at both. So, at first glance, the Rampart's advertising appears to be correct; 1,000 points at the Rampart are worth five times more than 1,000 points at its main competitors.
But that isn't the full story. To know how much points are worth, you must know how much they cost, not just what you get when you redeem them. That cost is usually expressed in terms of how much coin-in it takes to earn a point. Here's where the Rampart's claim begins to fall apart. At both Stations and Boyd casinos, base points are earned at a rate of 1 per $1 of coin in. At the Rampart, it takes $2 of coin-in on video poker to earn one point. Beacause the Rampart's points cost twice as much, it would be more fair at this point to say its points are worth 2-1/2 times the competitions'.
But this is not the full story. At Stations, all players earn 3 times points every day. At Boyd casinos, Sapphire players earn 2 times points every day and Emerald players earn 3 times points every day. So a top-level player at Suncoast and everyone at Red Rock earns six times as many points per dollar played as a video poker player at the Rampart.
To make a fair comparison, we need to look at the cash back per dollar of coin-in, not per point (because Rampart video poker players get fewer points per dollar of coin-in than players at the other casinos). As we have seen, the Rampart gives $2.50 cash back per $1,000 of coin in, based on 500 points earned. At Stations and Boyd (for Emerald players), the rate is $3 cash back for $1,000 coin-in, based on 3,000 points earned.
So, taking into account the cost of earning the points (up to six times as high at the Rampart as at the other casinos), the Rampart's points not only are not worth 5 times as much as much as the points at the other casinos, they are not even worth as much (for all Stations players and Boyd Emerald players).
The bottom line is that cash back as a percentage of coin in at the Rampart is 0.25. At Stations and Boyd (Emerald players), it's 0.3. And that is the standard way of expressing the value of points, which allows a relatively easy comparison between systems at different casinos. (Sometimes the rate at a given casino varies by game or other factors). The value of points for most casinos can be found on VPfree2.
In deciding which casino offers the best deal, the value of points is a major factor. Another is the return from the game you plan to play, also available on VPfree2. Both the Suncoast and Red Rock have video poker games with signficantly higher returns than the best game at the Rampart, the cost of playing at the latter can be more than just the difference in the value of the points. Of course, casino promotions and offers to individual players can alter the comparison on any given day, but discounting these factors, the Rampart doesn't stack up to its competition in Summerlin.
In the spirit of the campaign season, I'd given the Rampart's advertising claim "four Pinnochios" or a "Pants on Fire."
The Rampart is a casino in Summerlin, a high-end suburban area west of downtown Las Vegas. One of its advertising slogans is that its points "are always worth 5X more." At the Rampart, 1,000 points = $5 cash back.
Presumably, the word "more" refers to the competition. The casino nearest the Rampart is the Suncoast, part of of Boyd Gaming's Coast Casinos group. Not far away is Station Casinos' Red Rock Resort. The Coasts and Stations are, by far, the two leading groups of locals' casinos in the Las Vegas area. The Coasts share a players club, B Connected, with Boyd's three downtown Las Vegas casinos (as well as a number of properties outside of Nevada). The rules for earning and redeeming B Connected Points are the same at all of these properties.
Fortunately for purposes of simplicity, base points at the Boyd and Station properties are earned and redeemed at the same rates, and 1,000 points = $1 cash back at both. So, at first glance, the Rampart's advertising appears to be correct; 1,000 points at the Rampart are worth five times more than 1,000 points at its main competitors.
But that isn't the full story. To know how much points are worth, you must know how much they cost, not just what you get when you redeem them. That cost is usually expressed in terms of how much coin-in it takes to earn a point. Here's where the Rampart's claim begins to fall apart. At both Stations and Boyd casinos, base points are earned at a rate of 1 per $1 of coin in. At the Rampart, it takes $2 of coin-in on video poker to earn one point. Beacause the Rampart's points cost twice as much, it would be more fair at this point to say its points are worth 2-1/2 times the competitions'.
But this is not the full story. At Stations, all players earn 3 times points every day. At Boyd casinos, Sapphire players earn 2 times points every day and Emerald players earn 3 times points every day. So a top-level player at Suncoast and everyone at Red Rock earns six times as many points per dollar played as a video poker player at the Rampart.
To make a fair comparison, we need to look at the cash back per dollar of coin-in, not per point (because Rampart video poker players get fewer points per dollar of coin-in than players at the other casinos). As we have seen, the Rampart gives $2.50 cash back per $1,000 of coin in, based on 500 points earned. At Stations and Boyd (for Emerald players), the rate is $3 cash back for $1,000 coin-in, based on 3,000 points earned.
So, taking into account the cost of earning the points (up to six times as high at the Rampart as at the other casinos), the Rampart's points not only are not worth 5 times as much as much as the points at the other casinos, they are not even worth as much (for all Stations players and Boyd Emerald players).
The bottom line is that cash back as a percentage of coin in at the Rampart is 0.25. At Stations and Boyd (Emerald players), it's 0.3. And that is the standard way of expressing the value of points, which allows a relatively easy comparison between systems at different casinos. (Sometimes the rate at a given casino varies by game or other factors). The value of points for most casinos can be found on VPfree2.
In deciding which casino offers the best deal, the value of points is a major factor. Another is the return from the game you plan to play, also available on VPfree2. Both the Suncoast and Red Rock have video poker games with signficantly higher returns than the best game at the Rampart, the cost of playing at the latter can be more than just the difference in the value of the points. Of course, casino promotions and offers to individual players can alter the comparison on any given day, but discounting these factors, the Rampart doesn't stack up to its competition in Summerlin.
In the spirit of the campaign season, I'd given the Rampart's advertising claim "four Pinnochios" or a "Pants on Fire."
Friday, September 16, 2016
Sam's Town no longer feels like home
From my earliest days in Vegas, Sam's Town has been one of the casinos I have played at regularly. It offered good video poker, progressives in particular, and strong promotions. Recently, a lot has changed.
Like most Vegas casinos, Sam's Town has been graduatlly removing or downgrading its best video poker games for a long time, but very gradually. Until quite recently, it still offered 9/6 jacks or better for $2 and $5, games rarely found at locals casinos. Two bars offered a $1 9/6 jacks or better progressive, which occuasionally turned positive, especially with point multipliers.
In the past couple of years the big attraction for me at Sam's Town has been senior days. Each Wednesday there is a mystery point multiplier and drawing for those 50 and older. The point multipliers, limited to 10,000 base points a day, range up to 30 times for video poker (50 times for slots). (Boyd Gaming's other Coast and downtown Las Vegas Casinos have similar programs.)
Getting 30 times points was rare -- I think it happened only once at Sam's Town -- but for quite a while I was reglarly getting 10 times point and occasionally 15 times points. Ten times brings the return on 9/6 jacks to 100.5 percent without a progressive. That's an expected $50 profit on the $10,000 coin in needed to earn 10,000 base points, the maximum to be multiplied. On $2 jacks, that takes a little over an hour, for a pay rate (not including any winnings in the drawing) of about $40 an hour. Plus a free lunch and dinner buffet.
The first big blow, a few weeks ago, was the removal of all four of the machines that had the $2 and $5 jacks on them. Around this time, the point multipliers took a noticable dip not only at Sam's but at the other Boyd properties. Instead of 10 times or more, they become mostly 5 or 6 times, making jacks or better break-even or a smidge better. Still, the $1 progressive could be an attractive game, depending on the jackpot amount. And there was the drawing.
The final blow, a couple of weeks ago, was the downgrading of the jacks progressive to 8/5, making it unplayable, even with a huge jackpot. There are still a few machines with $1 9/6 jacks and a couple of $1 8/5 bonus poker progressives that occasionally become attractive, but nothing else for the $1 and up video poker player.
At the same time this was happening, Sam's Town closed its Mexican restaurant, Willy & Jose's, and its Billy Bob's steakhouse, one of my favoriites. At the new steakhouse, called the Angry Butcher, the menu is a la carte, where Billy Bob's threw in a salad and potato with your steak.
My read on the video poker situation at Sam's Town is that marketing game away too much in points, and the slot director fought back by taking out the games on which players could easily earn their maximum multiplied points on Wednesdays (and other days Sam's Town offered 7 times points to the public, in most recent months once a week). Of course, the casino is now losing the revenue from the higher-denomination games when there is no point multiplier and the return to all players is negative.
Whatever the reason, the combination of lower point multipliers, lower denomination games and the loss of a good progressive makes Sam's Town a much less attractive place to play. I'm now spening most of Wednesdays at Stations properties, which offer a better $1 game and no limit on the number of points you can earn with a multiplier.
Like most Vegas casinos, Sam's Town has been graduatlly removing or downgrading its best video poker games for a long time, but very gradually. Until quite recently, it still offered 9/6 jacks or better for $2 and $5, games rarely found at locals casinos. Two bars offered a $1 9/6 jacks or better progressive, which occuasionally turned positive, especially with point multipliers.
In the past couple of years the big attraction for me at Sam's Town has been senior days. Each Wednesday there is a mystery point multiplier and drawing for those 50 and older. The point multipliers, limited to 10,000 base points a day, range up to 30 times for video poker (50 times for slots). (Boyd Gaming's other Coast and downtown Las Vegas Casinos have similar programs.)
Getting 30 times points was rare -- I think it happened only once at Sam's Town -- but for quite a while I was reglarly getting 10 times point and occasionally 15 times points. Ten times brings the return on 9/6 jacks to 100.5 percent without a progressive. That's an expected $50 profit on the $10,000 coin in needed to earn 10,000 base points, the maximum to be multiplied. On $2 jacks, that takes a little over an hour, for a pay rate (not including any winnings in the drawing) of about $40 an hour. Plus a free lunch and dinner buffet.
The first big blow, a few weeks ago, was the removal of all four of the machines that had the $2 and $5 jacks on them. Around this time, the point multipliers took a noticable dip not only at Sam's but at the other Boyd properties. Instead of 10 times or more, they become mostly 5 or 6 times, making jacks or better break-even or a smidge better. Still, the $1 progressive could be an attractive game, depending on the jackpot amount. And there was the drawing.
The final blow, a couple of weeks ago, was the downgrading of the jacks progressive to 8/5, making it unplayable, even with a huge jackpot. There are still a few machines with $1 9/6 jacks and a couple of $1 8/5 bonus poker progressives that occasionally become attractive, but nothing else for the $1 and up video poker player.
At the same time this was happening, Sam's Town closed its Mexican restaurant, Willy & Jose's, and its Billy Bob's steakhouse, one of my favoriites. At the new steakhouse, called the Angry Butcher, the menu is a la carte, where Billy Bob's threw in a salad and potato with your steak.
My read on the video poker situation at Sam's Town is that marketing game away too much in points, and the slot director fought back by taking out the games on which players could easily earn their maximum multiplied points on Wednesdays (and other days Sam's Town offered 7 times points to the public, in most recent months once a week). Of course, the casino is now losing the revenue from the higher-denomination games when there is no point multiplier and the return to all players is negative.
Whatever the reason, the combination of lower point multipliers, lower denomination games and the loss of a good progressive makes Sam's Town a much less attractive place to play. I'm now spening most of Wednesdays at Stations properties, which offer a better $1 game and no limit on the number of points you can earn with a multiplier.
Gambling goes national -- is that a good thing?
My, have public attitudes toward gambling changed during my lifetime (62 years).
I can remember when New Jersey became the second state to legalize casino gambling, and only in Atlantic City, not a major population center.
Then Indian gaming took off, and other states began legalization. Now, just about every state has some form of legalized gambling. The exceptions are Hawaii (a major source of customers for Las Vegas casinos) and Utah, which borders Nevada.
Gambling was promoted as a way to boost local economies, increase tax revenues and provide relatively well-paying jobs.
Now, the latecomers to the game are playing defense. According to my brother who lives in New York, the industry's argument in that state was not that gambling would provide a huge boost, but that establishing casinos in New York would keep money and jobs in that state that were going to neighborhing states and Canada.
In the 21st century the United States has entered a new era concerning gambling. It is no longer a scarce commodity. Is this a good thing?
I would say yes and no. But mostly no.
First the yes part: Gambling has helped the economies of many states, cities and Indian tribes. The economy of Las Vegas, where I live, is still based almost wholly on gaming and related industries. Tunica, Mississippi, was part of one of the poorest, most backward regions of the country before gambling arrived. Atlantic City never realized the revival it had hoped for, but gambling has provided many good jobs for people living in towns along the Jersey Shore.
But in recent years gambling has become an unstable industry and more jurisdictions allowed it. Atlantic City went into decline as Pennslyvania legalized casinos in the Philadelphia area. Reno has suffered from competition from California.
An industry that traditionally thrived because of scarcity is now operating in an environment of competition and, in some cases, oversupply of its product. At the same time, it is having trouble attracting younger customers -- a combination that can lead only to disaster for some operators. As we have seen with Atlantic City, contraction of gambling centers can and will happen.
I believe the more recent expansion of gambling has been due mostly to one factor: anti-tax sentiment. Gambling is seen as a form of voluntary taxation. Politicians get more money to work with, without rasing taxes and losing votes.
As noted concerning New York, this is no longer likely to work in many areas.
I believe in legalized gambling, just about everywhere. But it seeing it as a cash cow or engine of economic development isn't realistic.
So why should casinos be allowed? For one thing, people will gamble anyway. Legalization offers a degree of protection to gamblers and casino operators.
For those who can gamble responsibly, its a legitimate form of enteratainment. For those with certain disabilities, gambling may be one of the few recreational activities they can participate in fully. For those who work odd schedules, most casinos are open 24 hours a day. And casinos are among the few entertainment venues to which people can feel comfortable going by themselves.
On the negative side, gambling is not a productive activity (except for the miniscule number of professional gamblers). Banging away at a slot machine is not good excercise, physically or mentally. Even though very few gamblers are considered addicted, many spend more time and money in casinos than is good for them or their families.
As someone who as observed gamblers for a decade, I believe most of them would be smarter, healthier and happier if they spent some of their gambling time doing just about anything else.
I can remember when New Jersey became the second state to legalize casino gambling, and only in Atlantic City, not a major population center.
Then Indian gaming took off, and other states began legalization. Now, just about every state has some form of legalized gambling. The exceptions are Hawaii (a major source of customers for Las Vegas casinos) and Utah, which borders Nevada.
Gambling was promoted as a way to boost local economies, increase tax revenues and provide relatively well-paying jobs.
Now, the latecomers to the game are playing defense. According to my brother who lives in New York, the industry's argument in that state was not that gambling would provide a huge boost, but that establishing casinos in New York would keep money and jobs in that state that were going to neighborhing states and Canada.
In the 21st century the United States has entered a new era concerning gambling. It is no longer a scarce commodity. Is this a good thing?
I would say yes and no. But mostly no.
First the yes part: Gambling has helped the economies of many states, cities and Indian tribes. The economy of Las Vegas, where I live, is still based almost wholly on gaming and related industries. Tunica, Mississippi, was part of one of the poorest, most backward regions of the country before gambling arrived. Atlantic City never realized the revival it had hoped for, but gambling has provided many good jobs for people living in towns along the Jersey Shore.
But in recent years gambling has become an unstable industry and more jurisdictions allowed it. Atlantic City went into decline as Pennslyvania legalized casinos in the Philadelphia area. Reno has suffered from competition from California.
An industry that traditionally thrived because of scarcity is now operating in an environment of competition and, in some cases, oversupply of its product. At the same time, it is having trouble attracting younger customers -- a combination that can lead only to disaster for some operators. As we have seen with Atlantic City, contraction of gambling centers can and will happen.
I believe the more recent expansion of gambling has been due mostly to one factor: anti-tax sentiment. Gambling is seen as a form of voluntary taxation. Politicians get more money to work with, without rasing taxes and losing votes.
As noted concerning New York, this is no longer likely to work in many areas.
I believe in legalized gambling, just about everywhere. But it seeing it as a cash cow or engine of economic development isn't realistic.
So why should casinos be allowed? For one thing, people will gamble anyway. Legalization offers a degree of protection to gamblers and casino operators.
For those who can gamble responsibly, its a legitimate form of enteratainment. For those with certain disabilities, gambling may be one of the few recreational activities they can participate in fully. For those who work odd schedules, most casinos are open 24 hours a day. And casinos are among the few entertainment venues to which people can feel comfortable going by themselves.
On the negative side, gambling is not a productive activity (except for the miniscule number of professional gamblers). Banging away at a slot machine is not good excercise, physically or mentally. Even though very few gamblers are considered addicted, many spend more time and money in casinos than is good for them or their families.
As someone who as observed gamblers for a decade, I believe most of them would be smarter, healthier and happier if they spent some of their gambling time doing just about anything else.
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Parking at an MGM property
On Saturday my spouse and I went to the Luxor, one of the MGM Resorts properties on the Strip where parking charges have been instituted. I knew I wasn't going to have to pay -- locals can park free through the end of the year, and I have a pearl-level players card, which also allows free parking. Belt and suspenders.
I had never played or parked at the Luxor before. Finding the garage entrance, which is behind the hotel, required a fair amount of guesswork. The signage is terrible. Strike one.
Three empoyees were stationed at the entrace/exit to the garage. This in itself indicates that the process is not self-explanatory. I showed one of the employees my players card. He stuck it in a slot in a machine and gave it back to me. No ticket, which concerned me a little. I asked what I would have to do to get out. Just stick the card in the machine, he said. Later I would find out that there is more than one machine.
After leaving the casino, approaching the garage, I saw a machine and a sign saying, "Pay for parking here." I didn't know whether this was the machine a should stick my players card in (there was a slot, apparently for credit and debit cards). I did insert my card, and the little screen said something like "card fully debited." I don't know what that meant. Maybe it thought it had a debit card and couldn't find any money in the account. Maybe it took all my points.
At the exit, I asked the empoyee if I had to use the "pay for parking here" machine. He said no, I would just have to insert my players card in the machine at the exit. He did it for me and we were allowed to leave.
I don't think it's possible to tell based on my experience whether the parking charges have reduced the number of people parking at the Luxor. The first floor of the garage had lots of cars, but was not full. I have no basis for comparing this to when parking was free.
One more thing: Throughout the garage, there are now signs hanging from the ceiling saying, "Have you paid for parking?" Besides seeming vaguely threatening, they are likely to be confusing, especially to drivers who have just entered the garage and might be wondering if they were supposed to pay at the gate.
For people are parking in that garge for the first time, the whole process is likely to be confusing. With "pay to park," MGM has managed to institute a policy that is both substantively and procedurally annoying.
I had never played or parked at the Luxor before. Finding the garage entrance, which is behind the hotel, required a fair amount of guesswork. The signage is terrible. Strike one.
Three empoyees were stationed at the entrace/exit to the garage. This in itself indicates that the process is not self-explanatory. I showed one of the employees my players card. He stuck it in a slot in a machine and gave it back to me. No ticket, which concerned me a little. I asked what I would have to do to get out. Just stick the card in the machine, he said. Later I would find out that there is more than one machine.
After leaving the casino, approaching the garage, I saw a machine and a sign saying, "Pay for parking here." I didn't know whether this was the machine a should stick my players card in (there was a slot, apparently for credit and debit cards). I did insert my card, and the little screen said something like "card fully debited." I don't know what that meant. Maybe it thought it had a debit card and couldn't find any money in the account. Maybe it took all my points.
At the exit, I asked the empoyee if I had to use the "pay for parking here" machine. He said no, I would just have to insert my players card in the machine at the exit. He did it for me and we were allowed to leave.
I don't think it's possible to tell based on my experience whether the parking charges have reduced the number of people parking at the Luxor. The first floor of the garage had lots of cars, but was not full. I have no basis for comparing this to when parking was free.
One more thing: Throughout the garage, there are now signs hanging from the ceiling saying, "Have you paid for parking?" Besides seeming vaguely threatening, they are likely to be confusing, especially to drivers who have just entered the garage and might be wondering if they were supposed to pay at the gate.
For people are parking in that garge for the first time, the whole process is likely to be confusing. With "pay to park," MGM has managed to institute a policy that is both substantively and procedurally annoying.
Access to cash
Cash is the gambler's raw material. As the saying goes, it takes money to make money. Specifically, for my purposes, it takes a daily bankroll of roughly $3,000 to $5,000.
When I'm at home in the Vegas area, I usually keep this much money or a little more in the house and take it with me when I go out. Yes, I habitually walk around with thousands of dollars in my wallet. I take reasonable precautions and stay mostly on casino property when carrying cash, and in more than 10 years as a gambler I have never had a problem.
Sometimes the money I have with me is not enough, due to a large loss. If I need to replenish a large part of my daily bankroll to continue playing, the ATM is of no use. This limit on daily withdrawals at my bank is too low. Paying casino ATM fees -- or any ATM fee, except in the most dire emergency -- is out of the question. And don't even think about an exhorbitantly expensive credit card advance. (For a more detailed and highly entertaining discussion of options for obtaining access to cash in a casino, see Max Rubin's book, Comp City.)
If the bank is open, great. But if it isn't, or I'm too far away, that could be a problem.
One potential solution is casino credit. The good thing about casino credit is that it's free if you qualify. You have 30 days to pay your markers. The problem with casino credit is that it must be established in advance, separately, every place you want to use it. Plus, I just don't like the idea of borrowing money to gamble, even without interest. But if you can handle it, play at a limited number of places and qualify for an adequate line, credit can be a good solution.
Another option is depositing front money at a casino where you plan to play. This is what it sounds like, giving the casino your money in advance and drawing it down when you arrrive. Like casino credit, this requires advance planning and isn't helpful for taking advantage of spur-of-the-moment opportunities.
I recently became aware of what in many cases is a better option, though not without its limitations. A company called Global Payments offers a check cashing card that is accepted at many casinos. I recently signed up, a very simple process. You just provide a blank check and your ID at the cage of a participating casino. You also must give your Social Security number. I assume they checked my credit (good) and checking account balance (about $10,000 at the time). I was given an initial limit of $4,000 a week. This is not as much as I could conceibably need, but it's a lot better than the $300 limit set by the last casino where I tried to cash a check, years ago.
There's no charge for this service, and you don't even need to bring a check to the casino, just the card the company gives you. Of course, if your check bounces, you'll be liable for fees and possibly costs of collection. I plan to use it a few times rather than going to the bank to withdraw money and then ask for an increase in my limit. I will write about what happens, and whether there any unanticipated downsides to using this service. But for now, it looks like a valuable piece of the puzzle posed by unexpected needs for cash.
Monday, July 25, 2016
Consolidation in the Vegas locals casino market
Some major changes in the ownership of Vegas-area locals casinos have been announced in the past few months. The two major owners of locals casinos, Stations (whose official corporate name is now
Red Rock Casinos) and Boyd Gaming, are about to expand their empires. Stations has bought the Palms, just west of the center of the Las Vegas Strip. Boyd, which owns the Coast chain of locals casinos, has bought Aliante, the northeast part of the valley; the Cannery, in the northwest, and the Eastside Cannery, on Boulder Highway.
The first effect of these transactions is likely to be a strengthening of Boyd's position in relation to Stations, its main competitor. Boyd now operates four casinos in the locals market -- Sam's Town, the Gold Coast, the Orleans and the Suncoast. The recent acquisitions will give Boyd a total of seven, compared with Stations' 10, including the Palms and the two Fiesta-branded properties. It will also expand Boyd's reach to the northern part of the valley, from which it has been absent.
Aliante has been struggling since it was built because the recession nearly halted development in its vicinity. But a huge electric car plant is planned for the area, which should eventually spur development and increase that casino's customer base.
The original Cannery is well-located, without a lot of competition in the area. I'm sure it's the main reason Boyd bought Cannery Resorts. The Eastside Cannery is in a less desirable area and has a lot more competitors nearby -- including Boyd's flagship locals property, Sam's Town, which is right across the street.
It will be interesting to see how Boyd positions and markets these two properties. There's a precedent, provided by Texas Station and Fiesta Rancho, across the street from each other and both owned by Stations. The Fiesta brand is aimed at a little bit lower demographic, with, for example, less-expensive restaurants and lower table game limits. Sam's Town and the Eastside Cannery appear to have a similar customer base but the properties are somewhat complementary in their facilities. Sam's Town has movie theaters, a bowling center, a poker room and a food court; the Eastside Cannery does not. But there's also some overlap -- both have large Bingo rooms.
The restautant situation at the two casinos appears to offer opportunities for synergy. Sam's Town is replacing its steakhouse, Billy Bob's, with a barbeque restaurant, and opening a new restaurnt called the Angry Butcher in the space formerly occupied by Willy & Jose's. The Eastside Cannery had a Mexican restaurant when it opened; the closing of Willy & Jose's would seem to all but require the reopening of a Mexican eatery in the Eastside Cannery, given the population of the neighborhood. The Eastside Cannery also has a steakhouse, which might fill some of the void left by the closing of Billy Bob's.
The big question is whether Boyd will fold any or all of its new properties into its Coast chain. I haven't heard or read anything about this. It might make sense for Boyd to reorganize its locals casinos under two brands, as Stations has done. This might help differentiate two of its properties that are very close together, the Orleans and the Gold Coast, as well as Sam's Town and the Eastside Cannery. Boyd also has three downtown properties, Main Street Station, the California and the Fremont. These serve mostly tourists, including the Hawaiian market, but one or more of them might be marketed at least in a limited way with another division of reorganized Boyd properties in Vegas.
Stations' acquisition of the Palms raises the question of how that casino will fit in to the existing Stations lineup. There seems to be general agreement that Stations will market the Palms as part of its luxury properties, Red Rock and Green Valley Ranch, and that the Palms will become part of the Stations brand for players club and marketing purposes.
But the Palms, when it was owned by George Maloof, occupied a unique niche in the locals market. Its nightclubs, high-end restaurants and loose video poker drew customers from a larger area than the typical Stations property could. Presumably, Stations acquired the Palms marketing database.
The question in my mind is how, if at all, Stations will market the Palms to players who live closer to and play at other Station casinos. My guess is that Stations will not to to get these players to continue playing at the Palms as well as their nearby Station property; to do so would require duplicate offers. There is precedent, however; Stations and Fiesta send separate offers to customers of both. But the problem is that the Palms no longer has games that are likely to draw customers from, say, Summerlin or Henderson. My guess is that Stations will not try to compete with itself for play, but will tout the Palms as a new place to use points for dining, entertainment and other options not available at the company's other properties. If successful, this would increase the value of playing at Station casinos in general, though not specifically at the Palms.
Another question is whether and how quickly Stations will be able to change certain things at the Palms. For example, the Palms has a Cantor Gaming sportsbook; I'm sure Stations wants to install its own book, there must be a contract that gives CG the right to operate a book at the Palms for some specified period. Similarly, Stations might want to replace the world's largest Hooters with something more suitable for a high-end property, but how long will it have to wait?
Something I'll be interested in watching is the effect of Station's takoever of the Palms on the Gold Coast, which has benefitted from mismanagement at the Palms in recent years. I expect the Palms to be a much more formidable rival to the Gold Coast under the control of Stations, which already competes for the same Asian players with its Palace Station casino. The Gold Coast (and Palms and Palace Station) also will soon face compeitition from a new casino on Sahara Avenue, the Lucky Dragon.
As a player, I have to believe that all this consolidation will shrink opportunities for customers overall, although competition in some ways will be increased. Since almost all of the changes are yet to come, I can still hope I'll be pleasantly surprised.
Red Rock Casinos) and Boyd Gaming, are about to expand their empires. Stations has bought the Palms, just west of the center of the Las Vegas Strip. Boyd, which owns the Coast chain of locals casinos, has bought Aliante, the northeast part of the valley; the Cannery, in the northwest, and the Eastside Cannery, on Boulder Highway.
The first effect of these transactions is likely to be a strengthening of Boyd's position in relation to Stations, its main competitor. Boyd now operates four casinos in the locals market -- Sam's Town, the Gold Coast, the Orleans and the Suncoast. The recent acquisitions will give Boyd a total of seven, compared with Stations' 10, including the Palms and the two Fiesta-branded properties. It will also expand Boyd's reach to the northern part of the valley, from which it has been absent.
Aliante has been struggling since it was built because the recession nearly halted development in its vicinity. But a huge electric car plant is planned for the area, which should eventually spur development and increase that casino's customer base.
The original Cannery is well-located, without a lot of competition in the area. I'm sure it's the main reason Boyd bought Cannery Resorts. The Eastside Cannery is in a less desirable area and has a lot more competitors nearby -- including Boyd's flagship locals property, Sam's Town, which is right across the street.
It will be interesting to see how Boyd positions and markets these two properties. There's a precedent, provided by Texas Station and Fiesta Rancho, across the street from each other and both owned by Stations. The Fiesta brand is aimed at a little bit lower demographic, with, for example, less-expensive restaurants and lower table game limits. Sam's Town and the Eastside Cannery appear to have a similar customer base but the properties are somewhat complementary in their facilities. Sam's Town has movie theaters, a bowling center, a poker room and a food court; the Eastside Cannery does not. But there's also some overlap -- both have large Bingo rooms.
The restautant situation at the two casinos appears to offer opportunities for synergy. Sam's Town is replacing its steakhouse, Billy Bob's, with a barbeque restaurant, and opening a new restaurnt called the Angry Butcher in the space formerly occupied by Willy & Jose's. The Eastside Cannery had a Mexican restaurant when it opened; the closing of Willy & Jose's would seem to all but require the reopening of a Mexican eatery in the Eastside Cannery, given the population of the neighborhood. The Eastside Cannery also has a steakhouse, which might fill some of the void left by the closing of Billy Bob's.
The big question is whether Boyd will fold any or all of its new properties into its Coast chain. I haven't heard or read anything about this. It might make sense for Boyd to reorganize its locals casinos under two brands, as Stations has done. This might help differentiate two of its properties that are very close together, the Orleans and the Gold Coast, as well as Sam's Town and the Eastside Cannery. Boyd also has three downtown properties, Main Street Station, the California and the Fremont. These serve mostly tourists, including the Hawaiian market, but one or more of them might be marketed at least in a limited way with another division of reorganized Boyd properties in Vegas.
Stations' acquisition of the Palms raises the question of how that casino will fit in to the existing Stations lineup. There seems to be general agreement that Stations will market the Palms as part of its luxury properties, Red Rock and Green Valley Ranch, and that the Palms will become part of the Stations brand for players club and marketing purposes.
But the Palms, when it was owned by George Maloof, occupied a unique niche in the locals market. Its nightclubs, high-end restaurants and loose video poker drew customers from a larger area than the typical Stations property could. Presumably, Stations acquired the Palms marketing database.
The question in my mind is how, if at all, Stations will market the Palms to players who live closer to and play at other Station casinos. My guess is that Stations will not to to get these players to continue playing at the Palms as well as their nearby Station property; to do so would require duplicate offers. There is precedent, however; Stations and Fiesta send separate offers to customers of both. But the problem is that the Palms no longer has games that are likely to draw customers from, say, Summerlin or Henderson. My guess is that Stations will not try to compete with itself for play, but will tout the Palms as a new place to use points for dining, entertainment and other options not available at the company's other properties. If successful, this would increase the value of playing at Station casinos in general, though not specifically at the Palms.
Another question is whether and how quickly Stations will be able to change certain things at the Palms. For example, the Palms has a Cantor Gaming sportsbook; I'm sure Stations wants to install its own book, there must be a contract that gives CG the right to operate a book at the Palms for some specified period. Similarly, Stations might want to replace the world's largest Hooters with something more suitable for a high-end property, but how long will it have to wait?
Something I'll be interested in watching is the effect of Station's takoever of the Palms on the Gold Coast, which has benefitted from mismanagement at the Palms in recent years. I expect the Palms to be a much more formidable rival to the Gold Coast under the control of Stations, which already competes for the same Asian players with its Palace Station casino. The Gold Coast (and Palms and Palace Station) also will soon face compeitition from a new casino on Sahara Avenue, the Lucky Dragon.
As a player, I have to believe that all this consolidation will shrink opportunities for customers overall, although competition in some ways will be increased. Since almost all of the changes are yet to come, I can still hope I'll be pleasantly surprised.
Saturday, March 19, 2016
Poetic license
The other day I saw this on a license plate: AKQJ10. That's a royal flush. Another one I see from time to time: 21 I WIN. Pretty clever.
Our prediction addiction
Over the years I have occasionally thought about what's behind the lure of gambling.
There can be no doubt that gambling is basic human urge, as evidenced by the numbers of people in casinos, betting online and participating in office football pools and kitchen table poker games.
My one college psychology course taught that behavior that is reinforced is repeated. Wins reinforce gambling behavior. Video poker and old-fashioned slot machines show "wins" that are just a return of the player's bet; newer penny slots go a step further, showing as a win any money returned on a spin, even if it's less than the amount wagered.
It's been reported that, to addicted gamblers, "near misses" on slot machines -- 7, 7 on the payline, then a 7 just above or below it -- are as reinforcing as actual wins.
I recently heard an interviewer with a slot game designer, who said players of today's machines are looking for "entertainment and escape." Sounds reasonable to me, based on the mesmermized masses I see every day, drinks and cigarettes at hand as they gaze blankly into their screens.
Lately it's occurred to me that our need to gamble might be tied in with another basic need. Following the elections, I've been struck by how much time the media spend on trying to predict the outcomes of elections. Analysts opine on the air constantly; polls are taken and released almost daily. All this effort to come up with a predictions that mean nothing until they are dashed or confirmed by the actual election!
The media's focus is the same in sports and entertainment coverage. Who will win the Super Bowl? Which movie will get the Oscar for best picture? The game will be played, the awards handed out. But we can't wait.
Some of this, I think, is ego. If I can predict correctly, especially is my position is unpopular, I must be pretty smart. And if you predict incorrectly, you aren't as smart as I am. But more than just ego seems to be involved. We just want to know, before we really can know.
Much of gambling is involves predicting. Which horse will win the race? Will the roulette ball land on a red space or a black one? Will the shooter make his point or seven out? Even that most passive of gamblers, the slot player, must decide when to play and select a machine presumably with a prediction (or at least a hope) of a winning session in mind.
Gambling, like many of our other obsessions, is about the future and our compulsion to know it before it arrives.
There can be no doubt that gambling is basic human urge, as evidenced by the numbers of people in casinos, betting online and participating in office football pools and kitchen table poker games.
My one college psychology course taught that behavior that is reinforced is repeated. Wins reinforce gambling behavior. Video poker and old-fashioned slot machines show "wins" that are just a return of the player's bet; newer penny slots go a step further, showing as a win any money returned on a spin, even if it's less than the amount wagered.
It's been reported that, to addicted gamblers, "near misses" on slot machines -- 7, 7 on the payline, then a 7 just above or below it -- are as reinforcing as actual wins.
I recently heard an interviewer with a slot game designer, who said players of today's machines are looking for "entertainment and escape." Sounds reasonable to me, based on the mesmermized masses I see every day, drinks and cigarettes at hand as they gaze blankly into their screens.
Lately it's occurred to me that our need to gamble might be tied in with another basic need. Following the elections, I've been struck by how much time the media spend on trying to predict the outcomes of elections. Analysts opine on the air constantly; polls are taken and released almost daily. All this effort to come up with a predictions that mean nothing until they are dashed or confirmed by the actual election!
The media's focus is the same in sports and entertainment coverage. Who will win the Super Bowl? Which movie will get the Oscar for best picture? The game will be played, the awards handed out. But we can't wait.
Some of this, I think, is ego. If I can predict correctly, especially is my position is unpopular, I must be pretty smart. And if you predict incorrectly, you aren't as smart as I am. But more than just ego seems to be involved. We just want to know, before we really can know.
Much of gambling is involves predicting. Which horse will win the race? Will the roulette ball land on a red space or a black one? Will the shooter make his point or seven out? Even that most passive of gamblers, the slot player, must decide when to play and select a machine presumably with a prediction (or at least a hope) of a winning session in mind.
Gambling, like many of our other obsessions, is about the future and our compulsion to know it before it arrives.
Saturday, January 16, 2016
Pay to park? In Vegas?
In what is likely to become a public relations disaster for the company and possibly for the Las Vegas Strip as a whole, MGM Resorts International announced yesterday that it will start charging for parking this spring at its major resorts.
Resorts near MGM properties, including the Tropicana, Paris and Bally's and Caesars Palace, will probably have to start charging as a defensive move. If that happens, it will likely create a tipping point, and free parking on the Strip will be gone.
In a way it is suprising that this idea hasn't been attempted before as casino executives have tried, with a great deal of success, to wring profits out of operations that traditionally supported their casinos, such as restaurants, hotels and nightclubs.
And it's not unreasonable that people who come to, say, the Bellagio just to eye the fountain show and the conservatory should pay something, especially if their vehicles are occupying spaces that could be used by gamblers or diners or nightclub patrons. Further, it appears that MGM will allow some customers to park for free.
Still, this does not seem to be a good idea. Americans have an entitlement mentality about free parking, especially at places where they're expected to spend their money, such as shopping malls -- and casinos. But in Vegas, it's more than that. Many people drive to the city -- half of all visitors come from California -- and often are here for only a few days. They have their cars here anyway, and free parking helps them make the most of their time and money.
MGM also announced that it's going to build a new parking garage at the Excalibur, to serve the new sports arena, the adjacent park and commercial area, and the theater at the Monte Carlo. These are the kinds of attractions at which customers in other cities are used to paying for parking. It might have made sense and been widely accepted if MGM had limited parking fees to just this facility.
But MGM says it will charge for parking at all its Strip properties, except for self-parking at Circus Circus, where it will charge for valet parking. (Assuming customers will not want to tip as much, or at all, when they're paying a parking fee, this looks like an attempt by the company to steal from its valet parking employees.) It justifies these fees by promising improvements in parking facilities, incluing technology that will allow customers to check on availablity of spaces before they arrive and that will guide them to open spots.
Given the choice of this technology, and even enhanced lighting and signage (also promised), or free parking, I think I'd take ... let me think ... the free parking! In an online poll in the Review-Journal today 70 percent of respondents said they'd no longer go to the Strip if they had to pay for parking. (This is not a scientific poll.) But people don't like "resort fees" either, and the casino industry continues to get away with those.
If this parking policy sticks, I think the beneficiaries will be the big outlying casinos, from Sam's Town to the Golden Nugget to Red Rock Resort, I just got back from a trip on Southwest Airlines, and its magazine had an add for Station Casinos with a headline like "Strip blackjack pays 6 to 5. Our blackjack pays 3 to 2." Free parking will be another advantage they can advertise.
As someone who is part of the Vegas economy, it bothers me that one of the leading companies in the leading industry doesn't seem more concerned about ticking off customers, who enjoy more options for their gaming and entertainment dollars in other regions than ever before. Gaming is having trouble attracting younger patrons, and this policy is likely to keep some new customers out of the casinos because free parking apparently will have to be earned over tine through the players club.
My prediction is that MGM's newly announced policy won't stick, at least not without major modifications.
Resorts near MGM properties, including the Tropicana, Paris and Bally's and Caesars Palace, will probably have to start charging as a defensive move. If that happens, it will likely create a tipping point, and free parking on the Strip will be gone.
In a way it is suprising that this idea hasn't been attempted before as casino executives have tried, with a great deal of success, to wring profits out of operations that traditionally supported their casinos, such as restaurants, hotels and nightclubs.
And it's not unreasonable that people who come to, say, the Bellagio just to eye the fountain show and the conservatory should pay something, especially if their vehicles are occupying spaces that could be used by gamblers or diners or nightclub patrons. Further, it appears that MGM will allow some customers to park for free.
Still, this does not seem to be a good idea. Americans have an entitlement mentality about free parking, especially at places where they're expected to spend their money, such as shopping malls -- and casinos. But in Vegas, it's more than that. Many people drive to the city -- half of all visitors come from California -- and often are here for only a few days. They have their cars here anyway, and free parking helps them make the most of their time and money.
MGM also announced that it's going to build a new parking garage at the Excalibur, to serve the new sports arena, the adjacent park and commercial area, and the theater at the Monte Carlo. These are the kinds of attractions at which customers in other cities are used to paying for parking. It might have made sense and been widely accepted if MGM had limited parking fees to just this facility.
But MGM says it will charge for parking at all its Strip properties, except for self-parking at Circus Circus, where it will charge for valet parking. (Assuming customers will not want to tip as much, or at all, when they're paying a parking fee, this looks like an attempt by the company to steal from its valet parking employees.) It justifies these fees by promising improvements in parking facilities, incluing technology that will allow customers to check on availablity of spaces before they arrive and that will guide them to open spots.
Given the choice of this technology, and even enhanced lighting and signage (also promised), or free parking, I think I'd take ... let me think ... the free parking! In an online poll in the Review-Journal today 70 percent of respondents said they'd no longer go to the Strip if they had to pay for parking. (This is not a scientific poll.) But people don't like "resort fees" either, and the casino industry continues to get away with those.
If this parking policy sticks, I think the beneficiaries will be the big outlying casinos, from Sam's Town to the Golden Nugget to Red Rock Resort, I just got back from a trip on Southwest Airlines, and its magazine had an add for Station Casinos with a headline like "Strip blackjack pays 6 to 5. Our blackjack pays 3 to 2." Free parking will be another advantage they can advertise.
As someone who is part of the Vegas economy, it bothers me that one of the leading companies in the leading industry doesn't seem more concerned about ticking off customers, who enjoy more options for their gaming and entertainment dollars in other regions than ever before. Gaming is having trouble attracting younger patrons, and this policy is likely to keep some new customers out of the casinos because free parking apparently will have to be earned over tine through the players club.
My prediction is that MGM's newly announced policy won't stick, at least not without major modifications.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
