let's get the facts straight: poker makes money

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
What's a toke?

[/ QUOTE ]
A tip to the dealer

[ QUOTE ]
Why would the house collect the bring-in?

[/ QUOTE ]
They wouldn't, that guy is wrong. The ante, bring-in and the Bad Beat Jackpot drop are returned to the players. I will say that I miss the rake structure at the Wynn.

[Small Fry]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

And what, may I ask, do you think most of these players waiting to play poker are doing?

I don't think anyone would really argue that poker rooms don't make money. The queston the casinos deal with is, with a finite amount of space what is the most profitable way to allocate it to all the various methods of gambling that a person can participate in.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Excellent counterpoint. There is no doubt poker is a lot more work + haasle for less money. But it still aint going away. Good post.

[rbnn]

Great hotels have great swimming pools too, that cost huge amounts of money to build, staff and maintain. Yet those are free to use, at least for guests. Why don't they shut down the pool and use the space for slot machines?

What about the fountains at the Bellagio, or the waterwheel in the conservatory? I am sure the Bellagio could make more money on a balance sheet by shutting those down and putting in slot machines. Yet they don't, and, surprisingly, the Bellagio is very successful.

[AWLurch]

Years before the Moneymaker era poker was the loss-leader of the casino. Just as the local grocery store sells their milk at a loss to draw people in the doors the casinos would maintain the games and the poker rooms to draw players into the room in hopes that these players will gamble in the other more profitable areas. At the time the rake was required to get the casino closer to the break even point not to necessarily provide a profit.

This is where all of these "myths" were created, I believe they were also perpetuated in some books that I recall reading that were published before the Moneymaker era. Obviously people read this and without looking at the math or using common sense they still believe that poker is not <u>profitable.</u>

On the other hand, casino suits are required to maximize the profit of their casino for the long term. In doing so, the finite amount of space available on the casino floor must be properly used to gain the full expected value of each customer. Sure there is a ton of available space for poker rooms in the desert, but the question is, if the casino can make more in the more lucrative space, on the strip properties for example, the casino will do what it needs to do as far as removing poker rooms and replacing with slots. If the casino thought it would be profitable to build a poker room in the desert off the lucrative area of the strip I am sure some would have by now.

After Chris Moneymaker made poker popular poker became such a huge draw to the common espn watching poker fan, that may not have otherwise come to the casino. It is with this craze that we saw poker rooms being expanded to hopefully lure these potentially lucrative gamblers. Also with this craze brought more action, which allowed for more open games which generates more rake, allowing rooms to finally be profitable.

Now that the poker craze is seemingly slowing down, we are seeing rooms on and off the strip, that may not have been as popular, close or downsize. Some rooms are taking away tables that rarely are filled and replacing them with machines that may rarely be used, but stand alone on their own and do not require constant labor and supervision.

Also, as poker seems to slow down, the casinos are now viewing the poker players themselves as preventing the casino from fully maximizing on their expected value from its customers. Considering most winning poker pros tend to keep their money away from table games and slots, this money from other gamblers who lost it, that the casino originally attracted in in hopes to be wagered at other games, is no longer making it to the pits. If Player A, who was planning to play Blackjack, but wants to play poker first, loses all of his money at poker, the expected value that was possible to achieve, was not maximized. Granted the poker room was able to make money off of the rake generated by Player A, they were not able to maximize the full value of the action that Player A would normally give the casino.

For this reason, some smaller casinos, that may not make a ton of money off of poker, would be likely to remove it to make the space more profitable and to eliminate who they see as a competitor for the customers money.

Without a doubt, poker is now profitable, but the bottom line is that it is not the most profitable for the casino if the trend starts to taper off.

[EWillers]

I would like to preface my post by admitting that all my analysis is simply opinion/rumour. I don't have any "actual facts" relating to the profitability of poker roooms. I've heard rumours that such facts are readily apparent and accessible, but once again, that's only what I've heard.

I'm pretty sure there are poker rooms that make money. There are probably some poker rooms that don't. I don't know.

I think a helpful way to look at this issue is to consider what the answer of casino executives would be to the following question: Would you perfer a world with no poker?

I would imagine the reasons supporting the existence of poker would fall almost entirely on an "increasing the size of the pie" argument.

It seems clear that the most popular form of gambling on TV these days is poker. Big poker tournaments like the WSOP bring in thousands of players to a property/area and I'm sure many of these players play out in the pit. The prevalence of hold'em (and other forms of gambling) on TV creates more gamblers thus increasing the bottom line for casinos.

Nevertheless, I would still belive that nearly all casino executives would rather have a world with no poker. I've played B%M poker pretty regularly for a while now. When I play, I like to think of myself as the house. I try to only play at tables where I have a +EV. When my opponents play poorly, I benifit. It's just like when anybody decides to play a house game. They are taking a certain % the worst of it as payment to the casino in exchange for the pleasure of playing the game.

I've always considered one of the worst nightmares of a casino is the large pit player who converts to poker. Take a guy who is willing to lose 10k over a weekend out in the pit. He'll give 100s of k in action at BJ, craps, whatever. And on each of those transactions the house will earn a percentage . If he converts to poker and plays at a game where he plays poorly in comparision to his opponents, then his opponents will earn that percentage. The house in that case is essentially left with a flat rate--the rake/time charge .

I heard a story 3 or 4 years ago while playing at the Mirage. Somebody was sayin' that Steve Wynn had done an interview for a newspaper or somethin' shortly after the Mirage first opened. The reporter asked Wynn if he had any plans for expanding the poker room. Wynn replied, "I didn't build the Mirage so that Doyle Brunson and Chip Reese could become millionaries."

[Eder]

[ QUOTE ]
Great hotels have great swimming pools too, that cost huge amounts of money to build, staff and maintain. Yet those are free to use, at least for guests. Why don't they shut down the pool and use the space for slot machines?



[/ QUOTE ]

Becoz they charge like $7 for a 59 cent beer + tip to hostess and most allow no coolers at pool...cabana they charge $300+ for patch of concrete...burger at pool...dont even go there....

[Adebisi]

[ QUOTE ]
I've always considered one of the worst nightmares of a casino is the large pit player who converts to poker. Take a guy who is willing to lose 10k over a weekend out in the pit. He'll give 100s of k in action at BJ, craps, whatever. And on each of those transactions the house will earn a percentage . If he converts to poker and plays at a game where he plays poorly in comparision to his opponents, then his opponents will earn that percentage. The house in that case is essentially left with a flat rate--the rake/time charge .


[/ QUOTE ]

The opposite goes too. Random mid-high stakes poker pros getting shitfaced and dropping 20-30k on blackjack or craps on a Saturday night probably isn't a rare occurance. Something that brings kids in their 20s who probably like to party and have wads of cash into the casino can't be all bad. Also, for BIG pit gamblers, there generally won't be a poker game big enough to pique their interest. A guy that plays $50,000 a hand baccarat isn't going to give a [censored] about the 400/800 mixed game going in the poker room.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]

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.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think that the problem is not the length of the waiting list, but the average length of a wait before people on the list get seated. I've seen rooms have 3 tables at a given limit and start a new table as soon as they get ten names on the list without evaluating how likely players are to leave the existing games so that thirty minutes later you have four tables whining that they each have two empty seats.

[bkkdude]

the problem here is too many of you are poker players.

casinos dont revolve around poker....lol. poker, keno, sports, just complimentary to the main attractions.