"Only" forty percent of revenue is still enormous.

If they make as little as you think from poker they would just close the rooms.

AC is worse than Vegas, but the areas around the Strip are pretty bad. AC hotels have been back to charging $300-400 per Sat. night for the past few years. So if what you state was mostly accurate, that would not be the case, especially since the hotels are more outdated now than then. It was the combination of the economy and nearby competition. Vegas is not imune from that.

I think your opinion of conventioneers is skewed. Sure, some get expense accounts. But many just get travel, room and reasonable meals. The extras are at their own expense. Some get less than that. Hotels are reducing room rates to attract convention business (and they always have). But if the extras are too much, attendees will balk and the conventions will insist on alternatives. Also, five day conventions can easily become four or three days to save money. So an increase in the number of convention visitors doesn't tell the whole story.

You can pick apart and poke holes in any specific argument but what Madlex said overall is true. Poker rooms are an amenity that casinos choose to offer, even if they're not big moneymakers. They are there to attract people who will spend more money on other things- it's not really any different than having a pool. As for low-limit slots, those are the true moneymakers in a casino but they're not there for the poker-only CA tourist who isn't spending any real money.

As for:

Sure there are different levels and types of conventioneers, some with an expense account and some not. That's irrelevant to the bigger argument. And the bold part is just flat-out wrong. Check the room rates at any hotel when there's a decent-sized convention on the property- they skyrocket, and the companies going to these conventions aren't getting any kind of deal. Example: take a look at Caesars Palace from April 23-26, when CinemaCon is going (which I attend). Sold out Mon-Wed, and Thurs is around 3x the price of any other Thursday that month. Conventions are an absolute jackpot for hotels.

I'm not sure what percentage is higher, but there are the affinity-based conventions where everyone dresses up in fur suits and yiffs, and then there are the corporate conventions where executives bring their subordinates on vacation and then hide in their penthouse suites dressed up in fur suits yiffing.

The companies probably agree to a bulk rate on a block of rooms in the latter case so it's probably not a huge windfall for the hotel.

Madlex was of the opinion that the casinos were happy if players like Nozsr didn't play, and I don't agree. The reason the Borgata was giving those free rooms was precisely for the reason you both cited. They needed bodies to frequent the restaurants, etc. or they would start closing.

As for conventions you're wrong. Large groups negotiate the room rates with the hotels. When I attended a union convention a number of years ago, our room rates were considerably lower than normal rates. We had over 8000 delegates, which translates to about 4500 rooms for five nights. That's a lot of negotiating power, even in Vegas. Of course it wasn't during the prime weeks (New Year's, CES, EDC, etc). And it was at second and third tier properties like the Hilton, Mirage, TI, Tropicana and such. But a lot of conventions do that. I think you're referring to trade shows like CES and events like prize fights and EDC and others without a centralized negotiating authority. The attendees at those public and semi-public events get raped. I don't consider those events "conventions", but I suppose they are in the broader meaning.

I was specifically talking about players who drive to the casino, play and leave immediately. They obviously like players who come to play and then spend money on the premises, but that's totally besides the point. The guy who cleans the toilets is generally not a fan of customers who take a dump next to the bowl. But that opinion changes drastically if said customer tips them $1mil for cleaning up that pile of poop.

As for the convention thing, I don't even know why there's a real discussion. Almost everybody in the hospitality business, Vegas or anywhere else, will tell you that convention guests are by far their favorite type of customer [except for high rollers in the case of Vegas I guess]. There are a gazillion reasons for that, including a significant higher average level of education and annual income.

Just for you, I even took the time to find some Las Vegas specific numbers. From the LVCVA website, 2016 visitor profiles:

During their visit to Las Vegas convention visitors spent an average of:
 $474.68 on food and drink.
 $147.66 on shopping.
 $54.81 on shows and entertainment.

During their visit to Las Vegas general tourists spent an average of:
 $271.33 on food and drink.
 $138.96 on shopping.
 $63.53 on shows and entertainment.

That means the average convention guest spends 43% more money on those things than a general tourist.

That makes sense. The conventioneer likely has a food expense budget much higher than what they would spend themselves, so they utilize it as fully as possible. Also because most of their trip expenses are covered, they have more personal $$ to spend.

That was my original point that George Rice disagreed with.

Lol, casinos don’t want a poker playing nit who drives there and spends zero dollars other then on rake. They will have poker rooms though because it will attract players who will stay in their hotel and bring wives who love to play slots.

Back in my pre-21 days (and before realizing the Taj did not check ID) you used to be charged for a "card" to play at Turning Stone in upstate NY. That "card" was valid for cash game play during the day...

Entrance fees are commonplace in casinos in Europe nowadays. Also they can charge 30$ max rake like Macau or 60$ max rake like in Singapore and you still find enough idiots who come and play...

Small sample size, but many Big 4 accounting/advisory firms allow their employees a per diem based on the cost of living in the city they are attending work/conferences/training in. For Las Vegas in 2017, that was $64 for meals and incidentals and hotel expenses of up to $134 per night. Higher COL cities include New York ($74) and Washington D.C.

There is a universal lookup (site below) that many HR companies use (e.g., Workday, Oracle PeopleSoft) which leverages this data to automate expenses for many conventioneers. For a 5 day convention at a firm using per diem expenses (and not actuals), they start out with (5*134) + (5*64) in their 'bank.' In my experience you could use that 'banked' money to partially subsidize a baller week (suite at the wynn, only partially out of pocket) or stay in a comped room at whatever they call the Imperial Palace this year and then rathole the rest.

All that being said, if your expense reporting for the trip required actuals (e.g., receipts for everything) instead of per diem, you were likely paying out of pocket for all your fun because you did not want to turn in a receipt from the ATM at the Spearmint Rhino.

Source: 4 yrs in Management Consulting, became the king of the rathole
Source 2: https://www.gsa.gov/

I think we all agree that low limit players (slots, tables, poker) spend money elsewhere on the properties. I don't know the habits of Nozsr, but I guess he spends some additional monies on food, drink, smokes, etc. while visiting during his poker sessions. Occasionally he might visit a high end restaurant or gamble at the slots or table games. Most regulars do. So I disagree with the statement you made that I quoted in my initial post, that casinos don't care for customers like him. And even if he doesn't spend a dime over rake, what's the alternative, an empty seat? All businesses want all their customers.

As for conventions, you raised that first. I was just pointing out that the figures you quoted don't tell the whole story. Just as the additional figures you quote don't. For example, the vast majority of conventioneers stay on or near the Strip (95%+ maybe?). The two large convention centers are at the Hilton (or whatever it's called these days) and the Sands (Venetian). Then there are the smaller ones like the Rio and whichever other Strip properties have them. Whereas, there's not much convention action downtown or at Red Rock, motels, etc. But those other areas draw their share of tourists (10-15% maybe?) which will drive down the tourists' numbers, as those other areas have lower food and shopping expenses (and rooms, which wasn't included in the figures). Also, are trade shows and special events included under the heading of conventions? If so, that dives up the numbers for conventions (possibly the former but not the latter). Better figures would compare Strip tourists to Strip conventioneers. But I agree that it has nothing to do on whether or not casinos want the business of a poker nit. So why did you bring it up?

Nonsense. They want all players. Don't some rooms cater to the regulars? Poker rooms generate income on their own. Income that won't be duplicated by adding more tables, slots, restaurants or shoppes.

Those poker players who bring their wives who play slots won't have a place to play if the regulars and nits aren't there to keep the games going.

If you don't agree, see if you can convince a poker room to limit comps to the first 40 hours per six months of play. Tourists won't care as very few play that much. But you won't have many regulars and the games will dry up and the room will be forced to close.

I don't think that ever in the history of the planet a Casino executive said "we need to cater to those backpack wearing poker nits who drive in from central California."

They also hope they spend on the parking/valet fees, which increase every year.

Kinda surprised how low those numbers are for consultants. Every time my brother has business to do in Chicago on a Friday and Monday, he stays the weekend with us and pockets $250/night for accommodation and $100 for other expenses for a total of $700/weekend. Which is pretty neat because he usually uses that money to buy cool stuff for my family while he's here.

We don't agree on that. Why? Because at least one person (me) spends exactly $0 when playing poker in one of the local casinos around here. I never play any table games or slots around here, don't smoke and if I anticipate a longer session I bring my own food because they don't even serve anything I want to eat. That might change if one of the casinos opens a clean eating restaurant, but I don't see that happening in the Midwest anytime soon.

I highly doubt there are't any Vegas regulars with a similar lifestyle than mine.

Sounds about right. Looks like Chicago is $215 a night during summers for accommodations and $74 for meals.

I stated that, "I think we all agree that low limit players (slots, tables, poker) spend money elsewhere on the properties," not, "I think we agree that all low limit players . . ." Obviously, there is a small percentage that don't. And probably most of those are indeed poker nits.

I checked out the site you cited and it has a lot of interesting information on it.

Attended a convention, trade show or corporate meeting: 10.5%
Lodged along Strip corridor: 75.3%
Conventioneers who lodged along Strip corridor: 86.2%
Strip corridor Lodgers who attended conventions: 12%

During their visit to Las Vegas Strip Corridor lodgers
spent: an average of:
o $358.08 on food and drink.
o $173.69 on shopping.
o $75.43 on shows and entertainment.

(The above numbers include conventioneers and non-conventioneers, but is more relevant than comparing to "tourists", as a higher percentage of tourists stay off Strip.)


Convention visitors are self-defined convention attendees. Nearly two-thirds
(65%) of convention visitors paid a convention rate, 18% paid a regular room
rate, 3% received a casino complimentary room, 7% paid a package rate, and
6% received some other kind of rate.

(I suspect the percentage of conventioneers who paid a convention rate is much higher if you removed those who attended the large trade shows where most attendees book for themselves.)

I don't think the fact that the 'old' casino business model doesn't cater to my lifestyle at all, makes me a nit. But that's up for interpretation I guess.

If I go to one of the three local casinos here, 80% of the customers are 60+. Those are the people who are regular gamblers. There are barely any people under 40 on the casino floor and most of them don't look like they are in a higher tax bracket. I don't know why younger people don't gamble nearly as much as people their age did 30-40 years ago, but that seems to be a fact.

OTOH, the 'new' Vegas casino business model is exactly tailored to people like me. They offer plenty fine dining options, every resort has at least one place for people who want to eat clean, there are state of the art spas and fitness centers and lots of upscale entertainment and nightlife options.

If low rolling locals would still fit into that target audience, they would offer free parking for locals. Since they don't, it's fairly obvious that resorts don't care for locals who don't spend enough money to earn a status that qualifies for free parking.

I think it would be an interesting study to survey the reasons people gamble, broken down by age. I wouldn't be surprised if this had been done already, but a quick Google search didn't turn anything up.

I hypothesize that for older people "vices" like gambling and drinking would be more tied to socialization. Think everyone at the Cheers bar yelling "Norm!" Younger people might be in the same bar but they're taking selfies and posting them to their friends on Instagram.

I'd expect the number of gamblers in the 60+ age group is high is because they have the time, most being retired or semi-retired, or they accumulated wealth over their lifetimes. Most 30-60 year olds have jobs and younger families. Twenty-somethings don't have much money for the most part and still hang with their buddies. They'll travel to Vegas in groups, hit the night clubs and pool clubs, have bachelor parties, etc. But they'll only do that once or twice in their lifetimes. Those are all generalizations, of course, and the poker rooms won't necessarily reflect the same. Poker rooms also attract those who can make a living off of it, and those who think they can. So you'll see more of a cross section there. More generalizations.

When I first visited Vegas in the early '90s the smaller poker rooms were populated by mostly older folks. The big room (Mirage, back then) had a cross section of all ages, and the better players. Also the economy was better then, so more people in all age groups had expendable income. Now, not so much.

Back in the '90s the Atlantic City casinos catered to the older folks with slot promotions and buffets, who were bussed in from NYC and Philly with SSA checks in hand. Now, not so much. Those types have closer options. Even more generalizations.

As for Vegas these days, they have a host of draws other places do not (except for proximity). But they also have a higher overhead. They keep renovating, upgrading, expanding, etc. and have to charge more to cover that. Certainly, the locals aren't paying much of that, as they have little use for hotel rooms. But they no doubt frequent the casinos and restaurants from time to time. And charging for parking is essentially putting up a sign stating "locals not welcome," as the locals will just visit other establishmens. Except for the regular poker players, who need the proximity to the tourists, and can qualify for free parking (so far).

As for older folks visiting Vegas these days, I suspect there's been a sharp drop off from the past couple of decades. Airline seats get smaller while we get bigger, making the trip uncomfortable. Hotel room prices are too high, and they want "resort" fees on top of that, even though few of us will use a pool, salon or weight room. And we'd rather rent a car than walk the long distances between properties, but now they want to charge us to park too. And who wants to walk in the hot summer sun, anyway? There are closer options? Good, we'll go there.

Vegas is clearing catering to the younger crowds. Not a lot of older folk visiting the night or pool clubs, or dropping a few $K for a prize fight, or chilling at EDC. That's for the younger crowd and the well-to-do. But are there enough of those to pay for all that glitter? I don't think so. But I realize that others do. Time will tell who's right. But the smarter executives try to cater to everyone, rather than leave money on the table. When you charge for parking you turn away a percentage of your customers. Do you make enough on parking fees to cover it? Maybe in the short run. But people are creatures of habit. And if revenue is down from today's sources and they need some of their former customer base back, that might be too steep a hill to climb.

It wasn't that long ago that I was getting the first two nights a visit free at the Borgata, with no stipulations. And that was the smart move, as a few casinos that didn't offer that had to close down. The influx of gamblers (however small) helped them keep their head above water in tough times, enough to wait out the economic downturn, and wait for some of the competition to go under. It can happen in Vegas, too. Discouraging a portion of your customer base increases the likelihood of that happening.

You're probably right. But I don't think ever in the history of the planet has anyone claimed they have.

That's exactly the point most people in this thread are trying to make. I thought you disagreed with that, looks like that was a misunderstanding.

Nobody knows if that approach will help or hurt them in the long run.

FWIW, I think most people who are willing to drop $300 for a meal for two at a Strip resort wouldn't care too much if they had to pay for parking. But I can certainly see why some wouldn't visit those places out of principle.

No, no, I think their policies have that effect, but not necessarily by design. And I think they know it could, because I suspect their initial wavier for locals was intentionally designed to spread out the objections so it wouldn't seem like such a big deal. And it wouldn't surprise me if the wavier for having their credit card and/or whatever level of their player's card qualifies, will be changed for the worse. By then the objections by other groups will have died down and the regulars will be standing alone.

Years ago, Coca Cola was looking to replace the sugar in their products with high fructose corn syrup. The public wanted no part of it, no matter that Coke claimed it both cheaper and that it taste the same. Shortly thereafter, Coke came out with New Coke, with a significantly different formula and taste, touting it as even better tasting. The public disagreed, and complained. So Coke responded to the complaints by returning the old formula under the name of Classic Coke. The public was appeased and eventually New Coke went the way of the Dodo, and they eventually dropped Classic from the name of Coke. Except that Classic Coke wasn't the same old formula, as it no longer had, or just had, sugar in it. The new formula was made with high fructose corn syrup. I think they labeled it as "sugar and/or hfcs," and maybe replaced the sugar gradually, but eventually it was completely replaced. The few objections there were had no legs, as the public in general breathed a collective sigh of relief that they had their old Coke back, the modified version tasting close enough to the original to be noticed. [And if anyone is interested, you can compare the two. In markets with a large Mexicans population, you can find Coke imported from Mexico that's made with sugar. In markets with a large Jewish population, and during the Passover season, you can find bottles made with sugar (no corn during Passover). They usually have a different colored cap and are stamped KP (Kosher for Passover). Pepsi does the same. I find that the sugar version quenches my thirst (and tastes better), while the hfcsv version doesn't in the same quantities.] Anyway, the way the casinos rolled in the parking fees reminded me of the Coke situation, finding a way to minimize complaints. They did that by stretching out the implementation, by promising an enhanced parking "experience", and by starting at a relatively low rate. They've already included locals and have increased the fees. And I can only imagine how bad the parking experience is, lol.

I treated my nephew to dinner at Emeral's in the MGM when they first started the fees. The parking fee didn't stop me from doing that, but effected my behavior while there. Instead of checking out the casino and shoppes, and probably drop some coin somewhere, I immediately left the property after eating. I didn't want to give them any more money than necessary, and that includes additional parking fees for more time spent there. And yes, it was the principle. When inserting the money in the machine, I wondered how one could render the machine inoperable (Gum, water or other debris forced into it? How well can it handle a stun gun? What if I accidentally backed over it?). The probable presence of cameras in the area (or inside the machine) discouraged further thoughts of such things.

So basically the parking fee tilted your balls off and ruined your night. Instead of enjoying a nice meal with your nephew, you were focused on how much every minute of conversation was costing you in parking.

To be clear, I don't understand the parking fees either - as part of thr huge MGM financial package to increase revenue, taking away free parking was less than 10% of the revenue but created 90% of the hatred. So yeah from a purely practical perspective it seemed silly to put up with all that public outrage for such a little amoynt.

But what I understand even less is why people respond by letting it ruin their lives. "I'm going to Vegas less!" "I'm not going to do things I enjoy doing!" "I'm parking in Death Valley and walking in to Vegas!"

Surely this has not been the first time in your life that someone has raised prices on you in a dickish fashion. What do you do on Valentine's Day, write your loved ones ranty cards about how they're not getting flowers because **** the flower industrial complex?