Dealers sharing vs keeping their own tokes

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Detroit pools, and the union(s) won't let them switch to dealers keeping their own.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes no sense. If the union represents the best interest of its members, it seems that the union would push for the elimination of tip pooling, at least for poker dealers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if your pooling with the pit. In which case if keep your own benefits the poker dealers it would be against the interestes of the union members who deal in the pits to allow the Poker dealers to keep their own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. A keep your own tips policy benefits some subset of union members, to the probable detriment of others. And most unions are all about uniformity...making sure nobody gets something that everybody doesn't get. And yet, I'd wager the overall tokes would increase in a keep-your-own system, so there would be net benefit to the members. But it'd come at the cost of having to smile more, be polite all the time, dealer faster, pay more attention. And think about poor Joe, who's been doing this job for 35 years and hates life and every player that walks in the door and makes sure they all know it--poor Joe would be left destitute by a keep your own tokes policy, so we can't have that.

[lossage]

[ QUOTE ]
Would anyone know where I could find any hard data that would show how many hands per down a dealer gets out under each of those scenarios?

[/ QUOTE ]
As others have said, most data like this would be either (a) very unscientific, (b) of a nature that casinos would like to keep secret, or most probably (c) both.

I play mostly in Indiana, and dealers keeping their own tokes at Majestic Star II in Gary has been "real soon now" since September.

Mrs. Lossage will be out of town for work quite a bit between now and Easter, so I expect to be playing a lot of B&M. I've resolved for 2007 to keep better B&M records, so I'll try and count my hands for my sessions before and after the toke distribution change. If this works out, I'll report the results.

It's not very scientific, but it's something. And, since it's one casino with more or less the same set of dealers, the results would be far and away better than comparing hands per hour between, say, Foxwoods and Wynn.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
but the ethernet ports are all empty on every shuffler I've seen, and I've seen a bunch.(We look under the tables to try and replug the shufflers in with our feet.)

[/ QUOTE ]

They know how much money is in the box when they open it up and count it. They know how long there was a game on the table. Finding out the drop per hour is trivial.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First off, no one keeps this kind of data anywhere. It just doesn't exist and never will.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure Foxwoods has a very good idea how much rake per hour they get out of a table. Even on time-charged games, the Shufflemaster might keep records.

Now getting that data from them would be a much thornier question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can tell you right now that nobody has any idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless Foxwoods is managed worse than I imagined you are wrong. I have seen figures for what different games palces I have worked drop. No, I won't be sharing those, but casinos enjoy making money and they are always looking for ways to make more money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Randy,

To the best of my knowledge, Foxwoods IS managed very poorly. I would not be surprised at anything that comes out of there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know it is managed poorly, but I can't imagine they don't keep track of how much money they make.