Casino Blames Income Drop On Gamblers' Luck

[aslan]

Casino Blames Income Drop On Gamblers' Luck

POSTED: 9:35 am EDT August 1, 2008
UPDATED: 12:23 pm EDT August 1, 2008

UNCASVILLE, Conn. -- Mohegan Sun officials said the casino's net income in the third quarter dropped 89 percent compared with the same period last year, and they're placing some of the blame on gamblers' extraordinary luck.

The Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority reported net income of $5 million Thursday for the three months ending June 30.

Mitchell Etess, Mohegan Sun's president and chief executive officer, said the casino had an extremely long streak of bad luck.

Gamblers played about $611 million at table games during the quarter, a 6.4 percent increase. The casino kept about 11.6 percent of that gambling money, nearly 5 percent less than it did during last year's quarter.

Table game revenues dropped more than 25 percent to $75.3 million in the third quarter from the year-ago period.

 

[21forme]

Sounds a little fishy, doesn't it? Unless there were some BIG jackpots paid...

 

[jack.jackson]

Casino Blames Income Drop On Gamblers' Luck

POSTED: 9:35 am EDT August 1, 2008
UPDATED: 12:23 pm EDT August 1, 2008

UNCASVILLE, Conn. -- Mohegan Sun officials said the casino's net income in the third quarter dropped 89 percent compared with the same period last year, and they're placing some of the blame on gamblers' extraordinary luck.

The Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority reported net income of $5 million Thursday for the three months ending June 30.

Mitchell Etess, Mohegan Sun's president and chief executive officer, said the casino had an extremely long streak of bad luck.

Gamblers played about $611 million at table games during the quarter, a 6.4 percent increase. The casino kept about 11.6 percent of that gambling money, nearly 5 percent less than it did during last year's quarter.

Table game revenues dropped more than 25 percent to $75.3 million in the third quarter from the year-ago period.

I suppose as the popularity of BJ continues, so does the Resources, and the "once was" ploppys, who played so poorly are being slowly converted into BS players over time. Provided that this is true, it would have a Profound effect on the Overall House edge. From about 5-10% to about 1%.

Though, this wouldnt be the entire reason for the Casino's drop, I do feel it play's a role.

 

[sagefr0g]

Casino Blames Income Drop On Gamblers' Luck

POSTED: 9:35 am EDT August 1, 2008
UPDATED: 12:23 pm EDT August 1, 2008

UNCASVILLE, Conn. -- Mohegan Sun officials said the casino's net income in the third quarter dropped 89 percent compared with the same period last year, and they're placing some of the blame on gamblers' extraordinary luck.

The Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority reported net income of $5 million Thursday for the three months ending June 30.

Mitchell Etess, Mohegan Sun's president and chief executive officer, said the casino had an extremely long streak of bad luck.

Gamblers played about $611 million at table games during the quarter, a 6.4 percent increase. The casino kept about 11.6 percent of that gambling money, nearly 5 percent less than it did during last year's quarter.

Table game revenues dropped more than 25 percent to $75.3 million in the third quarter from the year-ago period.

maybe a black swan incident. or like one.
http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/GIF.pdf
could a team or a series of teams inflict near 25% of $100 million in three months?
i wonder how many standard deviations that would be.......

do you have a link for that story aslan?

 

[bjcount]

Norwich Bulletin says:

maybe a black swan incident. or like one.
http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/GIF.pdf
could a team or a series of teams inflict near 25% of $100 million in three months?
i wonder how many standard deviations that would be.......

do you have a link for that story aslan?

So which newspaper is correct?
This one blames it on energy prices..

Mohegan, Conn. — "Far less profitable than we would have liked" is how Bruce Bozsum, chairman of the Mohegan tribe, described third quarter Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority financial report this morning.

Net income for the authority was down 89 percent from the same period the previous year, a drop from $45.million to $5 million. Bozsum said the New England market is seeing some of the highest gas and energy costs in the nation, which is influencing how much gamblers are bringing to the table. Mitchell Etess, the authority's chief executive officer, said the economic woes in Connecticut are not nearly as bad as those seen in such other markets as Atlantic City.

 

[jimpenn]

Collectively Strategy?

Sounds like every Casino Financial I have read reported substantial loss. Forget the Indians and attempting to uncover paper trail. I believe it's just another part of strategy to stop the rapid approval of additional Indian casino's throughout country.

 

[aslan]

do you have a link for that story aslan?

http://www.wnbc.com/news/17060607/detail.html (Archive copy)

 

[mdlbj]

pw0nd!!!

Casino Blames Income Drop On Gamblers' Luck

POSTED: 9:35 am EDT August 1, 2008
UPDATED: 12:23 pm EDT August 1, 2008

UNCASVILLE, Conn. -- Mohegan Sun officials said the casino's net income in the third quarter dropped 89 percent compared with the same period last year, and they're placing some of the blame on gamblers' extraordinary luck.

The Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority reported net income of $5 million Thursday for the three months ending June 30.

Mitchell Etess, Mohegan Sun's president and chief executive officer, said the casino had an extremely long streak of bad luck.

Gamblers played about $611 million at table games during the quarter, a 6.4 percent increase. The casino kept about 11.6 percent of that gambling money, nearly 5 percent less than it did during last year's quarter.

Table game revenues dropped more than 25 percent to $75.3 million in the third quarter from the year-ago period.

 

[Kasi]

could a team or a series of teams inflict near 25% of $100 million in three months?
i wonder how many standard deviations that would be.......
do you have a link for that story aslan?

Here's what I think that reporter meant to say.

The $hold, as a percentage increase in actual $'s of chips bought went up 6.4% from last year to this, from $611MM last year to $650MM this year. Gamblers did not "play" $611MM which makes it sound like wagering in last last year's quarter, they "bought-in" for $611MM of chips.

Last year's quarter revenue was $611MM of chips purchased *a hold % of .165 or $100.8MM of revenue. This years quarter was $650MM of chips bought but a hold % of only .116 for $75.4MM in revenue. That's the decrease of $25MM in revenue and the 5% drop he mentions.

So, actually, table-game people actually bought in for more dollars compared to last year.

And, likely, "table games" includes alot more games than BJ anyway. So, between how meaningless "hold" is and having all table games lumped together too, I just don't see how anybody can conclude anything from it.

 

[sagefr0g]

Here's what I think that reporter meant to say.

The $hold, as a percentage increase in actual $'s of chips bought went up 6.4% from last year to this, from $611MM last year to $650MM this year. Gamblers did not "play" $611MM which makes it sound like wagering in last last year's quarter, they "bought-in" for $611MM of chips.

Last year's quarter revenue was $611MM of chips purchased *a hold % of .165 or $100.8MM of revenue. This years quarter was $650MM of chips bought but a hold % of only .116 for $75.4MM in revenue. That's the decrease of $25MM in revenue and the 5% drop he mentions.

So, actually, table-game people actually bought in for more dollars compared to last year.

And, likely, "table games" includes alot more games than BJ anyway. So, between how meaningless "hold" is and having all table games lumped together too, I just don't see how anybody can conclude anything from it.

yeah like probably the wizard of odds couldn't even guesstimate it.
so but supposedly the casino bean counters could i guess.
thing was the casino gave the impression they thought they had been unlucky and the gamblers lucky. so i was thinking if they were being real and upfront about it then it would be like one of us warriors (moi for instance in my original sagefr0g vs ghostrider conflict) taking some deep standard deviation hit and bemoaning the fact.

 

[Kasi]

yeah like probably the wizard of odds couldn't even guesstimate it.
so but supposedly the casino bean counters could i guess.
thing was the casino gave the impression they thought they had been unlucky and the gamblers lucky. so i was thinking if they were being real and upfront about it then it would be like one of us warriors (moi for instance in my original sagefr0g vs ghostrider conflict) taking some deep standard deviation hit and bemoaning the fact.

Well, I think it was the reporter who more likely made a big thing about the casino being unlucky over 3 months play based on a hold %.

I think the casinos knows if last year's quarter had been at an historical hold average and this year's quarter also had been at the historical avg they would have had $6.4MM more of table game revenue.

I have no idea what the casino bean counters can guess. I think all they really know is how many chips were bought and how many chips they cashed out and they call the difference revenue. I'm sure they know it can fluctuate wildy.

This is the way I understand hold %.

20 players show up at a BJ table with $1K in chips in their pocket. They all play for the 8 hour shift and lose all their money. Casino reports hold % of zero and zero revenue for the table game even though they made $20K.

A player comes to a table, buys $1k of chips, plays for the 8 hour shift, colors up for $500 at the end of the shift. Casino reports hold % of 50% and $500 of revenue.

Same player next day, shows up buys $10K, plays for the same 8 hours, or even 8 minutes, loses the same $500, and colors up for $9500. Casino reports hold % of 95% and same $500 of revenue.

It just seems to me such a crazy way to measure revenue in general.

Maybe I have the wrong idea.

 

[Mimosine]

I suppose as the popularity of BJ continues, so does the Resources, and the "once was" ploppys, who played so poorly are being slowly converted into BS players over time. Provided that this is true, it would have a Profound effect on the Overall House edge. From about 5-10% to about 1%.

any proof? i don't think this is the case at all. and even if seasoned players were becoming better, the new ones entering the game are just as ill-informed as their predecessors, laying the house edge around 5+% or worse. as others have mentioned, other table games play a large part in their profit margins.

sometimes, the simplest answer, really is the right answer:
it's the economy.

edit:
is the reason Vegas and Reno are doing so poorly now too because everyone learned BS?
this is an industry wide problem. if M-Sun wants to use this as free advertising, i.e. "hey we aren't doing so well because we've had soooo many lucky players" then maybe they are outsmarting everyone - and their dumb act really isn't so dumb. i'm too dumb to know which is right.... but i'll guess they aren't idiots.

 

[sagefr0g]

Well, I think it was the reporter who more likely made a big thing about the casino being unlucky over 3 months play based on a hold %.

I think the casinos knows if last year's quarter had been at an historical hold average and this year's quarter also had been at the historical avg they would have had $6.4MM more of table game revenue.

I have no idea what the casino bean counters can guess. I think all they really know is how many chips were bought and how many chips they cashed out and they call the difference revenue. I'm sure they know it can fluctuate wildy.

This is the way I understand hold %.

20 players show up at a BJ table with $1K in chips in their pocket. They all play for the 8 hour shift and lose all their money. Casino reports hold % of zero and zero revenue for the table game even though they made $20K.

A player comes to a table, buys $1k of chips, plays for the 8 hour shift, colors up for $500 at the end of the shift. Casino reports hold % of 50% and $500 of revenue.

Same player next day, shows up buys $10K, plays for the same 8 hours, or even 8 minutes, loses the same $500, and colors up for $9500. Casino reports hold % of 95% and same $500 of revenue.

It just seems to me such a crazy way to measure revenue in general.

Maybe I have the wrong idea.

i haven't the foggiest what they do. how they measure their revenue. from my own experience of watching pit boss's i have to think their measure of buy in would be way off from actual. lol half the time a pit boss is chatting up some babe in the pit or what ever. they gotta be missing a lot of buy ins.
it's like the dealer calls out a buy in a bunch of times and the pit boss turns his head not even looking and goes yeah and the dealer goes ahead and performs the transaction.
and like you say about the players comming and going buying in for this and that and coloring up or not and what the pit boss thinks they lost or won.
but revenue i could imagine it would be possible, lol probable they'd get pretty darn accurate. so yeah i think your right there just doesn't seem to be anyway they can accurately gauge the luck factor. all the differant games and house edges varying numbers of players at what game, how long, how many hands.
probably they are doing fuzzy math lmao.
maybe with those RFD chips or what ever they call them and computers they could gauge their luck factor
wow how the heck do they formulate a business plan for table games i wonder. projected number of players per table per hour with some huge fudge factor i guess.
maybe with slot machines they have a better idea of how it goes. maybe an almost exact idea?

 

[Kasi]

i haven't the foggiest what they do. how they measure their revenue. from my own experience of watching pit boss's i have to think their measure of buy in would be way off from actual. lol half the time a pit boss is chatting up some babe in the pit or what ever. they gotta be missing a lot of buy ins.

The dollar amount of any "buy-ins" drops into that box whether the PB knows it or not. That's all the bean counters will know. No money in the box, nobody bought any chips at that table.

 

[Kasi]

there just doesn't seem to be anyway they can accurately gauge the luck factor. all the differant games and house edges varying numbers of players at what game, how long, how many hands.
probably they are doing fuzzy math lmao.

Their fuzzy math is so fuzzy it actually makes your fuzzy math make complete sense in comparison :grin:.

 

[sagefr0g]

The dollar amount of any "buy-ins" drops into that box whether the PB knows it or not. That's all the bean counters will know. No money in the box, nobody bought any chips at that table.

lmao you mean the casino keeps my money when they slip it in that box and actually counts it!
well yeah then it is pretty accurate for buyins. duhh.
ok so what they really don't know is how much play dude is doing. dude colors up (maybe ratholes lol) goes to another table plays wins or loses.
cashs in his chips or goes home broke.
so but they know money in. they know what they started with. they know what they ended up with. so but they really still don't know how they ended up with what they ended up with right?

 

[Kasi]

ok so what they really don't know is how much play dude is doing. dude colors up (maybe ratholes lol) goes to another table plays wins or loses.
cashs in his chips or goes home broke.
so but they know money in. they know what they started with. they know what they ended up with. so but they really still don't know how they ended up with what they ended up with right?

Exactly.

That's what I think lol.

In total they know I guess but not a clue when it comes to table games per se.

 

[zengrifter]

any proof? i don't think this is the case at all. and even if seasoned players were becoming better, the new ones entering the game are just as ill-informed as their predecessors, laying the house edge around 5+% or worse. as others have mentioned, other table games play a large part in their profit margins.

sometimes, the simplest answer, really is the right answer:
it's the economy.

And the excess shuffling. zg

 

[Mimosine]

And the excess shuffling. zg

well the good news is with these profit losses that they won't be able to buy csms!

 

[sagefr0g]

well the good news is with these profit losses that they won't be able to buy csms!

speaking of csms man it's weird. the joints around me have done the ole switcheroo. the one joint that had virutually none now has every other table with csms. the other joint that had a slew of them has gone to none.
and the other joint has stayed the same with just a low percentage csm tables.