[blueodum]

I don't know about the Vegas casinos, but in the two casinos I have experience with (Fallsview and Rama in Ontario), slots take up close to 80% of the floorspace. It's obvious to me that slots are the most profitable gambling "game" per square foot, as they require an absolute minimum of staff to maintain them.

But ...

I have never ever seen close to full capacity at the slots at these two casinos. There is literally no such thing as having to wait to play slots, unless the patron wants to play a specific machine among the thousands.

Thus, the higher profitability of slots is not a relevant issue, in that there is ample spare capacity and no money is being lost by the casino because people who want to play slots, can't (because the casinos have in essence created spare slot capacity by choice).

Contrast this to the small poker rooms these establishments have (17 at Fallview, 12 at Rama). About 5 to 8 hours out of every day there are lengthy waiting lists, representing income lost by the casino because people who want to play poker (and I agree with Al that the poker rooms are profitable) have to wait.

So I think it's misleading to state that since slots are the top earners, this is what should matter most. No - it's the loss of potential income that should be the focus of the casinos.