What the smartest Vegas poker boss will do.

[PartysOver]

better for the casinos to have 10 handed tables
1) less space needed
2) less staff needed

it's not like an online room where you get free tables and dealers.

[eof]

[ QUOTE ]

IIRC, the Wynn does have 9-handed tables.

I seriously doubt that a $3 comp rate would be +EV for the casino. Raising the comp by $2 in a room with 180 players on 20 tables costs $360/hr. Hourly rake is probably something like $3 avg. rake x 30 hands/hr x 20 tables = $1800. So, that's 1/5 of your poker income down the drain as additional comps.

It's not even good enough to draw another 36 players to open four new tables and generate $360/hr more in rake. Not only do you have to comp those players, you have to provide dealers and floor staff, and serve them drinks. You'd probably have to boost traffic by more than 50% to make this drastic rake increase worthwhile, and I think that'd be a tall order.

I also think it's untrue that Vegas customers are "almost all playing to the extent of their disposable income."


[/ QUOTE ]


it doesn't cost them quite as much because it doesn't cost them 3 dollars when you spend 3 dollars (unless its 3 dollars you would have spent anyway). if you use 15 dollars on a buffet you wouldn't have gone too anyway, that 15 dollars cost them 4-5 dollars.

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

IIRC, the Wynn does have 9-handed tables.

I seriously doubt that a $3 comp rate would be +EV for the casino. Raising the comp by $2 in a room with 180 players on 20 tables costs $360/hr. Hourly rake is probably something like $3 avg. rake x 30 hands/hr x 20 tables = $1800. So, that's 1/5 of your poker income down the drain as additional comps.

It's not even good enough to draw another 36 players to open four new tables and generate $360/hr more in rake. Not only do you have to comp those players, you have to provide dealers and floor staff, and serve them drinks. You'd probably have to boost traffic by more than 50% to make this drastic rake increase worthwhile, and I think that'd be a tall order.

I also think it's untrue that Vegas customers are "almost all playing to the extent of their disposable income."


[/ QUOTE ]


it doesn't cost them quite as much because it doesn't cost them 3 dollars when you spend 3 dollars (unless its 3 dollars you would have spent anyway). if you use 15 dollars on a buffet you wouldn't have gone too anyway, that 15 dollars cost them 4-5 dollars.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also think that some percentage of that money comes back to them (certainly not even close to 100%). IE. Some people bring $300 to the casino to spend. They leave when they run out. If they spend $20 at the buffet thats $20 less then they gamble with, if they use comps they gamble with that. Also some people save up comps to use on hotel rooms so more comps mean those people are in the casino more often.

That being said I don't see it being that profitable to casinos to up the comps. As much as I'd love for it to happen.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
it doesn't cost them quite as much because it doesn't cost them 3 dollars when you spend 3 dollars (unless its 3 dollars you would have spent anyway). if you use 15 dollars on a buffet you wouldn't have gone too anyway, that 15 dollars cost them 4-5 dollars.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am aware of some $15 buffets that cost the poker room over $20 when you use a comp there. The buffet is used to attract people so the casino takes an actual lost on it, but when it is comped they charge the comping department what it cost them per person to put out the buffet. This isn't a typical nasty buffet, but when casinos do a sea food buffet they often take a small loss on it to bring people in the door.