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."
Monday, October 31, 2016
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
