let's get the facts straight: poker makes money

[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.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
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.



[/ QUOTE ]

Believe it or not, poker made money for the house back in those "ancient days" before the Chris Moneymaker era, too.

[bkkdude]

in vegas the majority of people dont choose which casino to go to coz of its poker room.

you guys r hilarious.

look at it this way how many, percentage wise, go to vegas to play poker.

and of this small amount how many take entourages....lol.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
in vegas the majority of people dont choose which casino to go to coz of its poker room.

you guys r hilarious.

look at it this way how many, percentage wise, go to vegas to play poker.

and of this small amount how many take entourages....lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what your point is...what has that got to do with the matter under discussion, may I ask?

Does anyone think that Mirage poker room ran for ~10 years before Chris Moneymaker arrived on the scene, yet didn't manage to show a profit during all those years? Or that Commerce and Bicycle Club don't make a TON of money off poker?

A full (or nearly full) running poker table pulls in over $100 per hour for the house. Do the math and please explain how expenses are greater than that?

"Loss leader" is not the right way to look at poker because it is not a loss for the house. At most it is just less profitable than they might otherwise earn if they could more effectively otherwise utilize that available space. For some casinos, poker might not be so great because their space or resources are severely limited, or because they don't get many customers for it. For other casinos, it is just additional profit to add to the take from table games and/or slots.

If you own a fine and profitable restaurant, and at the checkout counter where people pay their bill you decide to add a glass case and offer for sale some cartons of fancy chocolates, mints and cigars under glass, that doesn't mean you are losing money on the extra items. Yes, it may take up some extra room and it will delay the checkout hostess a bit, but it is still extra profit: it just probably isn't as profitable as serving a Chateaubriand dinner for four. But unless you are severely limited for space or hired help, you might as well be selling both as long as the market will support it.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
in vegas the majority of people dont choose which casino to go to coz of its poker room.

you guys r hilarious.

look at it this way how many, percentage wise, go to vegas to play poker.

and of this small amount how many take entourages....lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what your point is...what has that got to do with the matter under discussion, may I ask?

Does anyone think that Mirage poker room ran for ~10 years before Chris Moneymaker arrived on the scene, yet didn't manage to show a profit during all those years? Or that Commerce and Bicycle Club don't make a TON of money off poker?

A full (or nearly full) running poker table pulls in over $100 per hour for the house. Do the math and please explain how expenses are greater than that?

"Loss leader" is not the right way to look at poker because it is not a loss for the house. At most it is just less profitable than they might otherwise earn if they could more effectively otherwise utilize that available space. For some casinos, poker might not be so great because their space or resources are severely limited, or because they don't get many customers for it. For other casinos, it is just additional profit to add to the take from table games and/or slots.

If you own a fine and profitable restaurant, and at the checkout counter where people pay their bill you decide to add a glass case and offer for sale some cartons of fancy chocolates, mints and cigars under glass, that doesn't mean you are losing money on the extra items. Yes, it may take up some extra room and it will delay the checkout hostess a bit, but it is still extra profit: it just probably isn't as profitable as serving a Chateaubriand dinner for four. But unless you are severely limited for space or hired help, you might as well be selling both as long as the market will support it.

[/ QUOTE ]

There were a number of rooms (not the big rooms) that did lose money. Those days are gone for the time being.

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]

Believe it or not, poker made money for the house back in those "ancient days" before the Chris Moneymaker era, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

In 2002, how many LV strip casinos had poker rooms?
MGM? No.
Venetian? No.
Caesars? No.
Guess why.

It's not about making money. It's about making the most money.

[SenatorKevin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Believe it or not, poker made money for the house back in those "ancient days" before the Chris Moneymaker era, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

In 2002, how many LV strip casinos had poker rooms?
MGM? No.
Venetian? No.
Caesars? No.
Guess why.

It's not about making money. It's about making the most money.

[/ QUOTE ]

The earliest any of those rooms opened was April `05 with MGMs room.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Believe it or not, poker made money for the house back in those "ancient days" before the Chris Moneymaker era, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

In 2002, how many LV strip casinos had poker rooms?
MGM? No.
Venetian? No.
Caesars? No.
Guess why.

It's not about making money. It's about making the most money.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP and issue under debate are about making money or not, not about making the most money or not.