[EWillers]

Clearly, in the west, whatever the market will bear is "fair". That will always be the best (if not most helpful) answer.

I think it's an interesting question for the Vegas market in particular (though I'm sure other markets are in similar circumstances).

I had always (at least since the current boom--since around 2002) heard (total 2nd hand rumour, but makes sense) that pretty much every card room along the strip (save the Bellagio) is pretty much a loss-leader (and the B isn't just rakin' it in hand over fist).

If it's the case that many houses only open up card rooms because they're a full service property and one of the things full service properties are sposed to have these days is a card room; if that's the case, then the question as to a "fair" rake kinda takes on a different light.

I think if that's the situation, one could make a pretty good case that fair could be defined as anything less than unconscionable. Basically, this is a situation where the seller is only offering the product because a sizeable number of their consumers desires it. The seller will never make as much off of this product as it does off of other, but provides it nontheless so the consumer will not choose a different property.

[ QUOTE ]
By fair I mean enough for the room to pay its employees a living wage and turn a profit. And low enough that good players can still win at poker.


[/ QUOTE ]

If this is offered as your opinion on how to define "fair", ok. I disagree.

If this is a parameter as to how you want "fair" defined in the discussion on this thread, then disregard all I have to contribute.