This logic is based on the fallacy that casinos are run by rational people making rational decisions. They, by in large, are not.
It has also been mentioned that casinos, 'Do fine,' in markets in which everyone is on equal footing by being Legislated to be non-smoking. While that may be true, certainly some revenue is lost by way of not allowing smoking indoors because, if not, why would so many casinos choose to do it? Why would literally almost every casino in which it is allowed choose to allow it?
...In Las Vegas, I really think you have enough people in and out of the city for whom a 100% non-smoking property would be a big enough draw.
I think "literally almost every" casino allows smoking because "we've always done it that way." In the Biloxi area, all but one casino allows smoking on the gaming floor. But, those smoke-filled casinos have hundreds of hotel rooms in their 10+ story resort hotels, of which fewer than 25 percent of the floors have rooms for smokers. When I ask why the apparent disparity, no one knows. Go figure.
In Biloxi, the Palace Casino showcases the fact it is the only totally non-smoking casino, and the casino seems to be doing reasonably well. It's 234 rooms are far fewer than its competitors, but easily match others for quality. AAA gives it a 4-Diamond rating. The gaming floor has more space between machines than "average," which makes it so much easier to move around. In other casinos, friends/spouses watching a player often make passage difficult, and Palace is noticeably better in this regard. The craps tables have room for onlookers without blocking people passing by. It doesn't take long to think to yourself, "Hey, I like this!" (Unless, of course, you are one of the 20% of Americans who smoke.)
I would like to see a list on casinos that are non-smoking and not mandated to be that way. Palace in Biloxi was mentioned but I don't know of any other big ones.
I think that all Florida casinos except the seminoles are no smoking