Quote:
Originally Posted by cmac0420
Because dealer's salary is left OUT of the cost and expected to be made up in gratuity. If they did pay us our full wage you would have a much higher rake, and end up paying us anyway.
Your side keeps saying this, but you simply have no information to support it.
There is little to no correlation between table rake and dealer pay. Rake is determined as
"the most money we can possible rake and still not lose players to other rooms" or
"exactly as much as we're allowed to take by law."
Casinos don't work
forward into a rake. They don't go,
"Gee, the dealers are $12/hr after we pay overhead on them, and the square footage occupied is $x/foot, so lets charge $6, which by coincidence is exactly what everyone else charges! Astonishing luck!"
No, they work forward. They can get away with taking $6, so they do, and if the projections say the space can generate revenue, they put in the room, and if it makes more money than whatever else they could use the space for, they keep it. If they didn't lose customers at $7 or $8, they'd take that too.
They then pay you as little as humanly possible, because that's the nature of the beast. If you could be paid $0, they probably would. If they could rake $10, and make you pay them to deal, they would.
....and you wouldn't be the first dealer who had to pay to deal. They're out there.
So, please, demonstrate that casinos would
have to raise rakes, or stop spouting nonsense. While you're at it, show me all the times that rake was
increased a dollar and the dealers got more -- because, you know, rake is somehow tied to dealer pay.
Oh, wait, it's not.