Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd Terry
Let's see, Matt stated that casino managers usually view tournaments as loss leaders. Matt works with a lot of casino managers, his statement of their view of tournaments is probably accurate! It's in accord with my limited experience in discussing the issue with people.
If you're taking issue with the term "loss leader" being used in a less than uber-precise manner by casino managers, I have no idea why. And I've never authored a business strategy textbook, but I think the use of the term for the practice of running events that aren't profitable standing alone in order to attract people who will spend more money in the casino seems perfectly reasonable.
I'm good w/all this TT, here is my issue with using the term regarding live MTTs. Matt stated that tournament dealers aren't well compensated, and that 6% vig to dealers/staff shouldn't be considered unrealistic. He then stated that tournies are viewed as loss leaders.
Well, if tournies are loss leaders,
the casino is the one that needs to worry about properly compensating the dealers. It's illogical to imply that players need to be taxed extra so that dealers are properly compensated b/c having the casino compensate them properly cuts into their profit margin too much.
Basically, if tournies are loss leaders then casinos can't use the argument that compensating their employees themselves makes the tournies unprofitable, since "loss leaders" are by definition unprofitable.
Last edited by PujolsOfPokr; 08-01-2010 at 03:53 PM.
Reason: I still <3 Matt obviously, just not a fan of the loss leaders argument..