It fits completely with Wynn's operating strategy- cater to people with more money than sense (and this is coming from a Wynn regular). Most people who can afford to hang at the Wynn don't know or care they're not getting the most gamble for their buck. Sure, the Wynn would like all the action they can get but the type of person who will go to the effort to play at a place where they get 0.5% more EV is not their customer base and they know it.

A few anecdotes, personally witnessed, that typify the Wynn gambler-

1. Friend of mine- we're hanging out poolside (this is when they had 3/2 BJ inside). He wants to play blackjack, and he's done with the pool. He can't be bothered to go inside and play 3/2 so he just deals with 6:5. He knows the difference but doesn't care.

2. Whale playing craps making 5000$ pass line bets and NO ODDS. Rack is filled with flags.

3. Whale playing BJ, betting 1-5k per hand. Always doubles for less bc it's "bad luck". Always takes insurance.

These people literally don't know or don't care about EV. But they probably don't want to gamble next to your typical coupon hunter who would only frequent places with generous payouts. My guess is the Wynn makes MORE money by keeping the sharpies present to a minimum + increased hold on existing players vs amount lost from people who won't play there anymore.

Where is the Wynn sexual harassment thread please?

I don't think I am being clear.

When Trump or Weinstein speak for their brand, they literally speak for their brand. As private companies, they typically have minimal oversight and do not speak for a large group of individuals. Trump could limit his shareholders to people he deems winners, or Republicans, or have other inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Wynn, and Walmart, and other branded public companies, are buffered by virtue of the public market. The leadership speaks for the shareholders, and anyone van be a shareholder. There is a mechanism by which you - or anyone - can voice dissent about Wynn not representing your interests. But there is no such mechanism for Trump or Weinstein. So if you think Wynn is a creep, you can boycott but your effect is diluted by all the other shareholders; whereas if you think Weinstein is a creep, you can boycott and hurt him almost exclusively.

I still don’t get it totally. Steve Wynn and his ex-wife together own a little over 20% of $WYNN. Harvey Weinstein owns 19% of The Weinstein Company.

Why does a TWC boycott hurt Harvey Weinstein ‘almost exclusively’ but a Wynn boycott doesn’t hurt Steve Wynn?

2x craps is outrageous. Terry Benedict would never tolerate it.

You are already fighting the house. Squeezing players more when the house is still ahead felt insulting.

I can't figure out what point you're trying to make. Is it that consumers will clearly delineate between Wynn the man and Wynn the company (or Weinstein or Trump) and never conflate the two when making a purchasing or business decision? Because that's clearly ridiculous.

Because TWC is private so the ownership is determined by the founders. Weinstein may not own all the stock but he's hand picked everyone who does.

Wynn is a public company. There are probably a few 2p2ers who own Wynn stock. They probably have zero connection with Wynn.

I understand that. I just think that boycotting TWC mostly hurts Bob Weinstein (who is the biggest shareholder) and the remaining shareholders who own close to 60%, some of who already lost an absurd amount of money by putting over $1bln into several failed TWC ventures. Besides that, TWC has over $500mil debt.

So Harvey Weinstein’s shares were not that valuable before the scandal broke and the way it looks now, if they sell the company for a rumored $500mil, he’s getting less than $50mil. OTOH, Steve Wynn already gave up his potential $330mil severance payout and if a Wynn boycott would only result in a 2% drop in stock price, that would cost him another $50mil.

Shares in private companies are not always equal. For example, some people (sometimes founders who are able to command sweetheart deals from investors, sometimes investors who have massive leverage over the founders) have preferred shares, meaning that the preferred shares can cash out at a higher valuation than common shares.

If you want to invest money in TWC, you need to go to Weinstein personally and give him a happy ending massage or whatever. Wynn would be more than happy to get a happy ending massage from you but you can go onto Etrade and buy shares of his company if you want to skip the HJ.

I see your point in that Wynn personally stands to lose more financially. And I guess if your metric is to make them lose yhe most amount in dollar terms, making Wynn stock drop 2% is "better." But from a proportional sense, making Wynn plus random members of the public lose 2% of 10 gazillion doesn't hurt as much as making Weinstein and all the people close to him lose 20% of 1 gazillion.

That might be true, I don't know how their LLC is formed. But that wouldn't be "standard" language?

In the companies I co-founded, language is that if a shareholder wants to sell equity, he has to offer his shares to exisitng shareholders first. If nobody calls dibs, the shareholder is allowed to sell his shares to a third party. In other words, we have shareholders that we didn't want to have which really sucks.

callipygian, what you fail to realize is that the average consumer neither knows nor cares about this arcana.

But now I'm a little intrigue as to what "Hitler Resorts" or a "Hitler Hotel & Casino" resort would look like. I'm assuming in this scenario that this particular Hitler and Adolf are of no relation.

Wasn't that the old Imperial Palace?

Lol

Well, the owner used to throw birthday parties on old Adolf's birthday. Haven't heard if he ever attended.

Yes, lots of documentation he was alive in Argentina well after the war.

except the russians have his skull....

So if I’m following correctly you guys are saying the old owner of I.P. was a Hitler enthusiast who threw parties on Adolf’s birthday? Man Vegas was full of colorful characters for casino owner/operators in the old days

No, I fully understand it.

The discussion came from someone saying how the casino/company might be renamed because Wynn's actions reflected badly on his company. That's very unlikely to happen with a publucly traded corporation.

Now I agree people are stupid and may or may not boycott because they think it matters. But for a publicly traded stock if you artificially push down (or artifically push up) the stock price all you do is enrich someone on Wall Street because there are fundamentals and mechanisms to put positive or negative pressure on the stock price. I get that people do it but it's not very productive and possibly counterproductive.

fyp

The SS told them they cremated Hitler and pointed to a pile of burned bones.

If nothing else, the place was a lot more fun before it became Corporate.

Cake with a swastika design, old Ralph in a Nazi uniform. Made the employees work the party, which might have been what got him the big fine from gaming.

He claimed he was just a history buff.

Something like that obviously won’t happen, but if all major hotel booking sites told Wynn they wouldn’t list their properties anymore as long as they carry his name, said name would be gone in no time.

There are lots of examples of successful consumer boycotts, for example when US colleges cut their ties with Fruit of the Loom over some sweatshop issue. By the time FOTL gave in, they had lost $50million already. I also remember Johnson & Johnson had to reformulate their whole line of baby products after some major retail stores threatened to delist them.

That said, Wynn’s target audience isn’t very #metoo, so the average customer probably doesn’t care anyway. I wonder how many of their regular high-rollers called their host to ask if they aren’t allowed to behave inappropriately towards female employees anymore.

Re Imperial Palace, didn’t Ralphi also have one of Adolf Hitler’s parade cars in his collection?

Eco,

Thanks for the history lesson that’s hilarious. History buff lol words

LOL at all that. You have really gone off the rails. Normal people aren't going to get that riled up over an unproven accusation.

...