Vegas sucks

[Jack_Black]

I'm gonna go out on a limb, but Aslan can correct me if I'm wrong. I've talked to a few a accountants at my company, and looking at sales breakdowns by demographics, and for my industry, it is the massive amount of small customers that makes the most revenue for my company. I would say that this is generally true across most industries. Of course we have some amazing corporate accounts that generate 20% of sales/month from buying one item, but the main slice of the pie comes from the small customers. The one that nitpick me about the $5 credit that didn’t show on their accounts, or the ones that will go to my competitor because they offer the same product for $1 cheaper. So I will make this comparison to Vegas in that the tourist gambler base is whom most of the revenue is generated from, the uninformed gambler that doesn’t know the truth about 6:5 games.
There are two business philosophies to take when times are tough. One is to get tight, offer less for more money, or get loose and offer more for less money. The latter is generally more popular in most industries as it is generally more successful. But yet again, evil casinos show their ugly side by taking the former philosophy and tightening up. This gives me yet more motivation to gladly take the money from their hands.

 

[aslan]

I'd agree to an extent. Accountancy is of course indispensible to a business; but one should not pretend accountancy and entrepreneurship are the same things. There are many dangers inherent in overmathematicizing complex and nondeterminative systems (like an economy), such as constructivist rationalism, "risk modelling" and the like.

And, unfortunately, it seems our current economy has become so dominated by bureaucratic, risk-averse corporations that love mathematical formulations and accountancy... Schumpeter's Nightmare.

EDIT: Oh, who am I kidding? It was worse in the 50's. Still, its a danger that needs to be watched for.

There's a danger in making it too complex, as well.

We all know someone who can build a business out of spit and chewing gum, who have a knack for dealing with people, who can make'em line up at the door waiting to get in--and who will go down in flames if they don't have someone to mange the money--because money is not what they're all about. Bills, taxes, expenses, savings, records, etc., etc. are not their bag. Building business is what they're all about and business is people and they are people people.

Accounting is a necessary service, a useful tool--but it is not a business builder, not a people pleaser. It will bring a business down faster than a house of straw on a windy day.

"Have you noticed, they cut back on their portions?" "When did they start serving hour-old coffee?" "Remember when they had cloth tablecloths?" "When did they cut back on the number of waiters?" "They used to be so friendly here, until they got short-handed."
​

"When did they go to 8-deck?" "I don't remember "no double down after splitting" before?" "Two deck cut--since when?" "Whatever happened to $10 games?" "6:5--when did that start?"

​

And so it goes. In my opinion, the casinos that continue to give customers what they want will prosper. Those who switch their focus from gambling to party places will find a niche, for sure, but it won't be the big time gamblers. Many are trying to split the baby--party pits for the lower limit ploppies and good rules for the high roller ploppies.

One niche they will miss are the low limit players who are nevertheless attuned to the playability of the game. These are not restricted to low limit APs--there are a large number of discriminating non-AP players who would rather play poker or take the family to Disneyland than play against a high house edge where they feel they are being suckered by greedy corporate scammers. The price of entertainment is one thing, but what kind of entertainment is it when you feel you have no chance whatsoever to win?

 

[shadroch]

When the economy improves, Vegas will be just fine. Casinos are doing what every other business is doing. Tightening their belts and going into survival mode. Which do you really think has more to do with the drop in casino revenue? Their moving to bad games or the near ten percent unemployment?

 

[aslan]

When the economy improves, Vegas will be just fine. Casinos are doing what every other business is doing. Tightening their belts and going into survival mode. Which do you really think has more to do with the drop in casino revenue? Their moving to bad games or the near ten percent unemployment?

The unemployment for sure has more to do with the drop. But the fiscal steps taken, and some must be taken, should be weighed against the probability of losing even more revenue.

It's the same argument we're having with federal taxes. Federal taxes will bring in more revenues, but at what point can it actually result in a shrinking of the economy and less revenues overall? I don't want to get into such a discussion, my point being that everything is so connected that an act of fiscal responsibility may have unintended consequences.

 

[Mr. T]

shadroch
When the economy improves, Vegas will be just fine. Casinos are doing what every other business is doing. Tightening their belts and going into survival mode. Which do you really think has more to do with the drop in casino revenue? Their moving to bad games or the near ten percent unemployment

?

The unemployment for sure has more to do with the drop. But the fiscal steps taken, and some must be taken, should be weighed against the probability of losing even more revenue.

It's the same argument we're having with federal taxes. Federal taxes will bring in more revenues, but at what point can it actually result in a shrinking of the economy and less revenues overall? I don't want to get into such a discussion, my point being that everything is so connected that an act of fiscal responsibility may have unintended consequences.

You guys are right mostly. It is not just the casino but many small business that are in survival mode now.

But whether more federal taxes is good is an ongoing debate by many economist. No doubt CPA and others have opinion too. Even guys from Singapore have opinion too. I watch more American TV here than some of you do.

Greenspan was anti-regulation and look what he has done to the economy. And he was suppose to be so smart few doubt the correctness of what he said. How about some casinos going bankrupt and the government come in and bale them out. The socialist Obama would say it would save thousands of jobs.

 

[kewljason]

When the economy improves, Vegas will be just fine.

I don't agree with this thought, shad. Their problems aren't entirely related to the bad economy. The Vegas economy is completely dependant on 2 businesses. Casinos and construction. Neither can rebound to their past levels. Casinos, because Vegas no longer has the monopoly that they enjoyed along with AC up until 10 years ago. With increased gambling locations, their piece of the pie continues to shrink each year. Vegas isn't going to dry up and go away. It will still be a top tourist location, but it will cease growing and begin to shrink. There will be some consolidation of weaker, smaller locations. Now on the construction end, Vegas will continue to re-invent itself every few years with new casinos replacing older outdated ones, but I don't think it will be like it has been for the last 30 years. Vegas has been one of the fastest growing city for more than a decade now, but with nevada's 14.7% unemployment rate highest in the nation, what is going to draw new residents?? They have already severely overbuilt housing-wise, so construction has to slow down. Unforetunately I think it's a case of all your eggs in one basket, or two baskets and in this case the basket has a hole in it. :laugh:

 

[shadroch]

The construction business will work itself out as construction workers move on to places with jobs. It's not like they were Vegas natives who were there their whole lives. Both my friends with construction businesses say the vast majority of their workers moved to Vegas for worK.

 

[aslan]

I don't agree with this thought, shad. Their problems aren't entirely related to the bad economy. The Vegas economy is completely dependant on 2 businesses. Casinos and construction. Neither can rebound to their past levels. Casinos, because Vegas no longer has the monopoly that they enjoyed along with AC up until 10 years ago. With increased gambling locations, their piece of the pie continues to shrink each year. Vegas isn't going to dry up and go away. It will still be a top tourist location, but it will cease growing and begin to shrink. There will be some consolidation of weaker, smaller locations. Now on the construction end, Vegas will continue to re-invent itself every few years with new casinos replacing older outdated ones, but I don't think it will be like it has been for the last 30 years. Vegas has been one of the fastest growing city for more than a decade now, but with nevada's 14.7% unemployment rate highest in the nation, what is going to draw new residents?? They have already severely overbuilt housing-wise, so construction has to slow down. Unforetunately I think it's a case of all your eggs in one basket, or two baskets and in this case the basket has a hole in it. :laugh:

There is so much that other gambling locations do not provide. The fine hotels, the world class entertainment, the fine restaurants, the complete fantasy world of gambling and luxury and high rollers. The vacation with so many entertaining things to do. No, I believe the rest of the country is a long way off from displacing Vegas. The growth will resume, the building will resume, and jobs will return. Also, other industries will locate there. The film industry has been growing in Vegas for a number of years now. The convention facilities are among the best in the world. It's a gambling vacation, a golfing vacation, a shopping vacation, an entertainment vacation, a romantic vacation, and an enormous retirement community. Don't count Las Vegas out just yet. I think it has many good years ahead, as it slowly transforms itself from a gambling mecca to a city of many facets.

As I survey the valley, there are still many areas unbuilt, even though construction does extend from one side to the other in all directions. And even now we see the building slowing in the horizontal plain and growing in the vertical plane. Ten years ago you could count the high rises on one hand; now they are getting all too commonplace. I see the desert all the way from Las Vegas Blvd. to Pahrump built to the hilt. And there are other directions outside the valley for increased growth.

But I do tend to be an optimistic sort. :laugh:

 

[Automatic Monkey]

When the economy improves, Vegas will be just fine. Casinos are doing what every other business is doing. Tightening their belts and going into survival mode. Which do you really think has more to do with the drop in casino revenue? Their moving to bad games or the near ten percent unemployment?

Neither. I think the biggest thing hurting the casinos is the switch in their target demographic from guys like you and I, to much younger people whom they believe can be satisfied a lot cheaper and taken for a lot more. Add to this a large immigrant demographic that is accustomed to being treated poorly. Both LV and AC have become mostly unpleasant, Third World experiences and if you're a sophisticated person who isn't an AP it is difficult to justify a trip to either.

The bad games I consider to be just one of many symptoms of a general coarsening and lowering of standards in the casino venues. It's true there are still some good hotels and restaurants, and good entertainment, but just like the BJ games there is more bad than good being offered and unless you['re a regular who knows what's where, you're likely to be disappointed.

 

[aslan]

How's that for several interesting and quite different perspectives on the Las Vegas scene? Now, is there anyone out there willing to attempt summing it up and make some sense out of all these different points of view?

 

[StudiodeKadent]

?
Greenspan was anti-regulation and look what he has done to the economy. And he was suppose to be so smart few doubt the correctness of what he said.

Greenspan may not have regulated the derivative market, but that 'non-regulation' can hardly be called the cause of the GFC. The financial industry was, even pre-GFC, the equally most-regulated industry in the US (tied with Healthcare).

And Greenspan's "won't regulate derivatives" attitude was hardly proof of "radical free market fundamentalism." The guy ran the Fed in accordance with mainstream neo-Keynesian macroeconomics. Indeed, there is a strong case that it was the unprecedented credit expansion post-tech-wreck/9-11 that caused this entire mess in the first place.

Back on topic, I do agree that the behavior pattern casinos are exhibiting is indeed indicative of short-term belt-tightening. But yes, like Aslan I do agree this short-term penny-pinching is quite likely to result in long-term blowback from the smarter segments of the low limit and mid limit (red and green chip respectively) markets.

Automatic Mokey's statement about shifting target demographics is one I also agree with, but I believe there is significant evidence that this "appeal to the Cali Douchebag Party Crowd" is a short term measure. However, this measure is damaging the brand of the Wynn, for instance.

I should also say that when I was in Vegas, it was never hard for me to find the "good blackjack pit." I simply asked a staff member and they pointed me in the right direction. Yes, there are sucker games, but the smarter segments of the market can still get reasonable games if they ask around.

 

[Mr. T]

Did you hear what Elizabeth Warren the new Consumer Commision Chair said about Greenspan.

"Greenspan told the Americans that they all own a Bank. It is their house. They can go and unlock the Bank and take the money out and spend it. They can refinance their mortgages." He is in fact telling the Americans that they can use the equity in their house as an ATM for all their spending needs.

In 2006/2007 I heard him say on prime time TV that the exiting 30 years fixed term mortgages is an out-dated idea. The country could do with " new innovative mortgages". I just shook my head as he describe these " innovative mortgages". Shortly thereafter up crops the no downpayment loan, adjustable rate loan, set you own monthly rate loan, etc.

 

[21forme]

There is so much that other gambling locations do not provide. The fine hotels, the world class entertainment, the fine restaurants, the complete fantasy world of gambling and luxury and high rollers.

Part of the problem is the world class entertainment and the fine restaurants are way overpriced. The shows are more money than on Broadway. The "celebrity chef" restaurants like Wolgang Puck, Michael Mina, etc. are just ridiculous, not only in LV, but AC, too.

As I was walking in and out of some of the lower-end Harrahs joints, I saw lots of young couples arriving with their bags. These are blue collar people on their "big" vacation. They don't have the money for the shows or restaurants, and surely have very small gambling budgets. They don't contribute to the massive debt service of the marble palaces.

 

[SystemsTrader]

Perhaps casino gambling has just run its course. With a casino on every corner in this world now, the novelty has warn off for a lot of people. Remember when everyone used to go to the horse races, now nobody ever does that anymore. Maybe people have just moved on to other sources of gambling and entertainment. Nothing good lasts forever.

Whenever I hear somebody went to Vegas, I always ask them what they thought and if they would go again? I usually get the same responses, it was nice to see and a lot of fun but no I won't be going back. People used to go repeatedly for the gambling, now they go to see all the glitz and glam and its a one off vacation destination now.

Vegas got to the point of overkill with new palaces opening every month. Nobody cared or noticed anymore when a new mega casino opened. I remember the first time I walked into the Wynn I was expecting something amazing and all I could think was "meh, this is it, what's the big deal I can't tell the difference from any of the other places".

 

[aslan]

Part of the problem is the world class entertainment and the fine restaurants are way overpriced. The shows are more money than on Broadway. The "celebrity chef" restaurants like Wolgang Puck, Michael Mina, etc. are just ridiculous, not only in LV, but AC, too.

As I was walking in and out of some of the lower-end Harrahs joints, I saw lots of young couples arriving with their bags. These are blue collar people on their "big" vacation. They don't have the money for the shows or restaurants, and surely have very small gambling budgets. They don't contribute to the massive debt service of the marble palaces.

This is true, but you don't take the wife on a vacation to the Parx in PA. There has to be something that "couples" can do, to make the numerous new gambling options competitive. I have attended many shows in Vegas through comps and through "time share presentation" gifts.

I have eaten at fine restaurants in Vegas and AC through table comps. I remember some of my first trips to Vegas before I got into AP. We visited the Ethel M candy factory store. We went to the outlets in town and in Prim; the wife found the Buffalo Exchange and a few consignment stores. We visited all the fabulous underground shopping malls (Aladdin, Venetian, Caesars, Paris, etc.) not buying mind you, but the wife did find some incredible sales which is all she's interested in anyway in the final analysis anyway). We went sightseeing (the water fountains at the Bellagio, the M&M store, The Pirate show at Treasure Island, the new downtown when it was built with the shows in the promenade. We ate at the bargain eating places like Arizona Charlie's and the comped buffet at the Aladdin where we stayed--we also found Omelet House and Blueberry Hill and In and Out Hamburgers, and lots of little places not far from the strip when we weren't in the mood for PF Chang or the expensive steakhouses. We oohed and awwed through the Bellagio and other fine casinos with all their finery and artwork on display. One of our first shows was "O" at the Bellagio, paid for by a three hour presentation for some time share. Vegas can be a fun place to visit, even on a tight budget. And even before I gambled much, we received free rooms at casino hotels for return visits.

I think you are underestimating the draw and value of a Las Vegas vacation. You need to get out of the casinos more. :laugh: :joker: j/k:whip:

 

[Billy C1]

If and when--------

Like Shad, I think Las Vegas will make a comeback that will be directly proportionate to the economy. Many states have had Native American casinos for MANY years that didn't hurt Vegas much. Most of them offer headline entertainment, good food and most everything Vegas has (yes, I've even seen "working girls" at some).
As they say, there's only one Vegas, and I think comparing it to other venues is like comparing a shopping mall to a convenience store.
Some things I dislike about present day Vegas as compared to the past are:
1. Many ridiculously bad games offered.
2. Food and drink prices that USED TO BE dirt cheap.
3. Kids and babies crying in casinos (I cry enough).

Having said that, it's still the mecca for compulsive gamers like me.

BillyC1

 

[shadroch]

Let us not forget that in the fifties thru the seventies and even into the ninties in some cases, casinos offered some terrible table games that have now been retired. Faro anyone? Chuck a luck? Care for an hour or two of Sic Bo?

 

[StudiodeKadent]

Did you hear what Elizabeth Warren the new Consumer Commision Chair said about Greenspan.
"Greenspan told the Americans that they all own a Bank. It is their house. They can go and unlock the Bank and take the money out and spend it. They can refinance their mortgages." He is in fact telling the Americans that they can use the equity in their house as an ATM for all their spending needs.

This was a sensible thing to say, according to the assumptions of neo-Keynesian macroeconomics, during the housing boom.

So, what caused the housing boom? Oh, lets see... we have George W Bush encouraging "the American dream of home ownership" in his first term of office and creating two government-sponsored enterprises (read; arms of the government arranged as corporations) to do it.

This is clearly not a "free market" thing. Rather it is hardcore corporate statism.

We also have the fact that credit was cheap. After the tech wreck and 9-11, Greenspan cut the Federal Funds Rate to 1% and left it there for a whole year. This made borrowing money unprecedentedly cheap.

Again, Greenspan's actions are in accordance with the mainstream neo-Keynesian economics that dominates central banking.

In 2006/2007 I heard him say on prime time TV that the exiting 30 years fixed term mortgages is an out-dated idea. The country could do with " new innovative mortgages". I just shook my head as he describe these " innovative mortgages". Shortly thereafter up crops the no downpayment loan, adjustable rate loan, set you own monthly rate loan, etc.

Plenty of countries, including mine (Australia) have had very flexible financial markets (including many innovative mortgage products) for a long time; since way before 2006/2007 even. If your hypothesis (that these flexible loan products created the GFC) is correct, then why did Australia suffer very little of the GFC's impact?

Additionally, innovative mortgage products are not the same thing as mortgage derivatives. They are different classes of financial product.

I am not saying "Greenspan is not to blame." What I am disputing is that 1) Greenspan's non-regulation of the derivatives market is to blame, and 2) that Greenspan's non-regulation of the derivatives market was somehow due to 'free market fundamentalism.'

Points 1 and 2 are both incorrect.

Regardless, this is off topic. If you want to continue this discussion, please do so via PM.

 

[Mr. T]

Let us not forget that in the fifties thru the seventies and even into the ninties in some cases, casinos offered some terrible table games that have now been retired. Faro anyone? Chuck a luck? Care for an hour or two of Sic Bo?

Tell me. How could anybody in their right mind play your double zero roulette game with a 5.4% house advantage.

 

[bj21abc]

Perhaps the same people who play slots ? or Keno ? ....

Tell me. How could anybody in their right mind play your double zero roulette game with a 5.4% house advantage.