Atlantic City nosedive continues..

[Mr. AtlanticCity]

Revenue is up becuase casinos can put table limits at $15 and $25 during the summer and weekend and tourists will sit at them. But walk by these tables on a Tuesday in November at 11AM, and the only people at a $25 table will be a dealer. Casinos refuse to drop down table limits during non-peak times to actually get customers to sit. They would rather have a $15 table empty then a $5 table full.

[Poshua]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interestingly, according to this report, slot revenue is down 12% from same period last year, but table revenue is up 7%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Table revenue is up 7% becuase the took all the $5 tables out back and burned them.

Casinos fail to understand that you make more off $5 that are full then $10 tables with a dealer standing there with no players. A good example is watch how many players leave when the pit boss increases a craps table from $5 to $10.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand... in your first paragraph you're saying that the casinos made more money because they raised the limits; in your second you're saying they'd make more money if they lowered the limits. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[AlienBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
A good example is watch how many players leave when the pit boss increases a craps table from $5 to $10.

[/ QUOTE ]


??? At every casino I've ever played at, if you are at a craps table with minimums at 5, and they increase to 10, you are "grandfathered" at 5, only new players are at 10.


AB

[monkeymaps]

whats the over under on how much poketpaired has lost in AC?

[Mattyspin]

i'm still not sure why anyone still entertains this guy. also, what kind of person with a "sky is falling" or "the end is near" attitude didn't JUST want attention. who cares? i will continue to play poker, slots, and table games in AC regardless of whether the casinos are up 2% or down 3% from last year's revenues. quarterly reports like this have no bearing on my life.

[Mr. AtlanticCity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A good example is watch how many players leave when the pit boss increases a craps table from $5 to $10.

[/ QUOTE ]

??? At every casino I've ever played at, if you are at a craps table with minimums at 5, and they increase to 10, you are "grandfathered" at 5, only new players are at 10.

AB

[/ QUOTE ]

Very very rare to be grandfathered in in Atlantic City. Pit Boss will come around and say "next shooter - $10 minimum" and that applies to everyone.

[Mr. AtlanticCity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interestingly, according to this report, slot revenue is down 12% from same period last year, but table revenue is up 7%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Table revenue is up 7% becuase the took all the $5 tables out back and burned them.

Casinos fail to understand that you make more off $5 that are full then $10 tables with a dealer standing there with no players. A good example is watch how many players leave when the pit boss increases a craps table from $5 to $10.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand... in your first paragraph you're saying that the casinos made more money because they raised the limits; in your second you're saying they'd make more money if they lowered the limits. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I was confusing, I shouldn't type when I am on acid.

Mainly what I was saying was that revenue is up becuase tourists will pay $15 a hand for Blackjack. They don't care. But during the off-season on a Tuesday, that same $15 table sits there empty with a dealer just standing there. Instead of losing money on that table, they could drop the limit. They would make much more money off a full $5 table then an empty $15 table.

[RobTheDuck]

[ QUOTE ]
quarterly reports like this have no bearing on my life.

[/ QUOTE ]

*Ding ding ding!* You are correct, sir!

Edit: OP: do you work for the PA Gambling Board or something?

[playersare]

[ QUOTE ]
They would make much more money off a full $5 table then an empty $15 table.

[/ QUOTE ]
a few months ago I replied to a similar argument on another forum:

----------------------

there is a chapter about table game occupancy and bet limits in the textbook "Casino Operations Management".

the theory is, casino profits are tied not to the number of PLAYER hands the house plays against, rather it is the number of DEALER hands resolved where the payout (and the house advantage) occurs.

in other words, 5 players betting $5 a hand is NOT the same action to the casino as one player playing $25 a hand. the COM book shows that a 5-handed table will generate 70 DEALER hands per hour, assuming a 1% house edge (just for comparison sake) would be a net theoretical profit of $17.50 an hour ($1750 gross action x 0.01).

but by making the table limit $25 in hopes that just ONE player will sit down heads up, the DEALER hands increase to about 200 per hour. that creates a profit of $50.00 an hour ($5000 x 0.01). the variance and risk of ruin is also increased in favor of the house versus having to beat 5 players at once for 1/5 each the exposure.

for that extra $32.50 an hour, the casino is willing to risk having a dealer sit in front of an empty table in hopes of a green chipper showing up. higher bankrolled players generally like having less people at the table anyway.

it's true that low limit players make a lot of money for the casinos, but that's really only in terms of SLOTS. table games are offered at the discretion of the casino for maximum overall profit. a slight loss of fixed costs (eg. dealer at empty table) once in a while is of little significance in the long run. 21st century overhead, a full $5 blackjack table can actually be UNprofitable vs. a $15-25 table which is active only half the time, especially if there are fewer players (again, more dealer hands). this applies to virtually all table games, where more players at the table increase payout times and decrease dealer decisions per hour.

[Mr. AtlanticCity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They would make much more money off a full $5 table then an empty $15 table.

[/ QUOTE ]
a few months ago I replied to a similar argument on another forum:

----------------------

there is a chapter about table game occupancy and bet limits in the textbook "Casino Operations Management".

the theory is, casino profits are tied not to the number of PLAYER hands the house plays against, rather it is the number of DEALER hands resolved where the payout (and the house advantage) occurs.

in other words, 5 players betting $5 a hand is NOT the same action to the casino as one player playing $25 a hand. the COM book shows that a 5-handed table will generate 70 DEALER hands per hour, assuming a 1% house edge (just for comparison sake) would be a net theoretical profit of $17.50 an hour ($1750 gross action x 0.01).

but by making the table limit $25 in hopes that just ONE player will sit down heads up, the DEALER hands increase to about 200 per hour. that creates a profit of $50.00 an hour ($5000 x 0.01). the variance and risk of ruin is also increased in favor of the house versus having to beat 5 players at once for 1/5 each the exposure.

for that extra $32.50 an hour, the casino is willing to risk having a dealer sit in front of an empty table in hopes of a green chipper showing up. higher bankrolled players generally like having less people at the table anyway.

it's true that low limit players make a lot of money for the casinos, but that's really only in terms of SLOTS. table games are offered at the discretion of the casino for maximum overall profit. a slight loss of fixed costs (eg. dealer at empty table) once in a while is of little significance in the long run. 21st century overhead, a full $5 blackjack table can actually be UNprofitable vs. a $15-25 table which is active only half the time, especially if there are fewer players (again, more dealer hands). this applies to virtually all table games, where more players at the table increase payout times and decrease dealer decisions per hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very interesting. I never thought of it that way. Although I know it, I never thought to think it hands/hour in relation to number of players at the table. Thanks for the post.

I still think they should drop them down to $5, but I know the casino is not in the business of "giving" anything to customers.