Today fiscal year end results should be announced

The end of the fiscal year gaming results for Nevada should be released today or tomorrow. All regions of Nevada are down from last fiscal year (July 1 through June 30).

The Vegas strip is only down -0.07% as strong baccarat numbers throughout the year have pulled it above all other regions (Reno, Downtown, Laughlin, Boulder Strip, Mesquite, etc.).

Baccarat has been fading the last two months. Personally I think the new casino in Singapore is attracting some of the big players.

Do you think they will end up on the positive or negative?

Baccarat Crash

Even with all my dire warnings that baccarat (which has been keeping the Vegas strip numbers near even) would crash, I would have had a hard time predicting how bad the June numbers would be. The casinos kept a paltry 3.51% win percent of the drop (an all time record since the average is closer to 11.5%). Baccarat earnings for the month were a mere $18.2 million (compared to over $200 million in February). Baccarat was down 61% from the same month last year.

The overall gaming earnings for the year for the strip were -0.63%. So every region of Nevada had a negative growth over the already disastrous previous fiscal year.

It shows you the danger of building something "spectacular" that only the very rich can afford. The problem is that someplace else someone will build something even more "spectacular"

You need more attractions like NASCAR that bring large numbers of people. The rich are can go anywhere.

Quote: pacomartin

The casinos kept a paltry 3.51% win percent of the drop (an all time record since the average is closer to 11.5%).

Anything suspicious about this? Or were the casinos simply unlucky? I'd think such wide swings in the hold would alert the green eye shade types and all those Al Gore's Rhythms that the MBAs keep yacking about.

Quote: pacomartin

It shows you the danger of building something "spectacular" that only the very rich can afford. The problem is that someplace else someone will build something even more "spectacular".

Yes. Any trendy or "in" spot or any fashion style is always subject to whims. This country made fortunes on the Beaver but eventually European fashions changed. Centuries ago Holland went wild over the tulip bulb mania that priced one tulip bulb at nine years wages of the most skilled craftsman at the time, a barrel maker.

Quote: pacomartin

You need more attractions like NASCAR that bring large numbers of people. The rich can go anywhere.

Its the old Peanuts versus Caviar market orientation. I agree that low brow often means high bucks. The best selling beers have the market share and marketing dollars to spread around town, but a microbrewery will always offer a better product. Nascar? Takes alot of space for the track and all that parking. Probably is profitable though. The problem is that "large numbers of people" is a phrase that doesn't necessarily translate into large numbers of gamblers and it surely doesn't always translate into large numbers of gamblers toting humungous bankrolls.

Quote: FleaStiff

Anything suspicious about this? Or were the casinos simply unlucky? I'd think such wide swings in the hold would alert the green eye shade types and all those Al Gore's Rhythms that the MBAs keep yacking about.

My personal guess is that there were probably almost no Asian gamblers playing this month. People who play a game for long periods of time tend to drive the "win percent" up since they are constantly regambling their winnings. The house advantage grinds away.

These gamblers were more likely "posers". People who read about how baccarat has taken the Asian gambling market by a storm. They play through their money one or two times, then they walk away from the tables and either switch to a different game or stop playing all together. Personally, I find the game about as interesting as flipping a coin.

Quote: pacomartin

... Personally, I find the game about as interesting as flipping a coin.

Ah, time for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to enter. Where's Dorothy today, anyway?

Quote: Doc

Ah, time for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to enter. Where's Dorothy today, anyway?

She sure ain't in Kansas anymore!
Now as to Baccarat being as interesting as flipping a coin I would perhaps be inclined to ask just how interesting do slot players find pressing that darned red button to be? Drug addicts are not addicted to the heroin, they are addicted to the needle!!

I will admit that adding up to 21 is more challenging than merely selecting Banker or Player (indeed for me its very challenging to add) but the interest is the win or lose. Or perhaps its the old "sell the sizzle not the steak"?
Baccarat seems to be a social event for young Asians. They all know each other and chat incessantly. And they mostly seem to pay follow the chip leader.

Quote: Doc

Ah, time for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to enter. Where's Dorothy today, anyway?

One of the greatest plays of post WWII. Rosencrantz, who bets heads each time, wins ninety-two flips in a row over Guildenstern.

Quote: pacomartin

One of the greatest plays of post WWII. Rosencrantz, who bets heads each time, wins ninety-two flips in a row over Guildenstern.

I have seen the film version but never a stage production. I could not remember just how many consecutive times the coin came up heads. I made reference to Dorothy because on 8/10 in the "Poor forum etiquette" thread she made a comment about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and said, "they were immortalized by those 157 consecutive coin flips that came up heads ..."

Should this discussion be moved to the "Casino game with the largest fish stories" thread?

Quote: pacomartin

One of the greatest plays of post WWII. Rosencrantz, who bets heads each time, wins ninety-two flips in a row over Guildenstern.

damned if I remember that. I have a copy and will have to play it again!

Quote: odiousgambit

damned if I remember that. I have a copy and will have to play it again!

I haven't seen it in years myself. As I recall, that is how the whole adventure begins, or at least it starts in a very early scene .

Quote: Doc

I have seen the film version but never a stage production.

It is very much a theatrical drama and not a movie script. It was a little awkward as a movie. In some ways I feel that Amadeus didn't make a very good movie, but of course, the incredible musical score made up for the loss of intimacy of the theater.

A critical part of Amadeus was the audience dealing with their own feelings of inadequacy as they compare themselves to natural born genius. You really identify with Salieri. Of course in a movie you can't feel that way, and you have to view him solely as a villain.

With R&G you identify with small characters who are struggling to find their place in a world that has already been scripted for them. Typically they are played by two actors who couldn't be more different (sometimes performed by actors of different races). But they are forever condemmned to be the Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum of Shakespeare's cast of characters.

I often say that their motto is "Never Question Authority" in contrast to the bumper sticker of decades ago that prompted people to "Question Authority". They believe with all of their hearts that they should do their patriotic utmost to keep the king in power, simply because he is king. Their reward is to be seen as indistinguishable and used by every possible person in power.

Of course, they share the same end as all the important characters. Everyone must die in the end. There is no escape.

Bit of trivia. Shakespeare's only son who died at the age of 10 was named Hamnet. The play is intensely personal and may not have done as well as the more crowd pleasing Julius Ceasar which was done in reportary.

The author of R+G are Dead is also the co-author of "Shakespeare in Love" which is decidedly a movie script, and not a converted play.

This article was published four months ago. David is stating many of the same things that I have been saying about the unexpectedly high baccarat earnings. They all came true a few days ago when the baccarat earnings were published for June, and the win percent was a shockingly low 3.51%. The $18m return for the month was the lowest in over 20 years.

=================================
David G. Schwartz
April 18,2010
Gaming win is nice, but hold the celebration


The February gaming revenue numbers for Nevada caused some cheer around the state and on Wall Street. Total casino win rose 13.9 percent, the first double-digit increase in nearly three years. But if this is cause for celebration, it should be a muted one; there are still signs that the state's gaming decline is far from over, and this resurgence is resting on an increasingly narrow reed.

For one, much of the increase was due to the calendar. The Chinese New Year, always a big gambling holiday, fell in February, while in 2009 it fell in January. With much of the increase in win coming from baccarat, a favorite game of visiting Asian high rollers, it is likely that the true organic increase in gambling was far more modest.

There is some talk that the baccarat bump "spilled over" to other games. But this does not seem to be the case. Slot machines -- a far better indicator of gambling's broad-based appeal -- won about $40 million less in February 2010 than in February 2009. Blackjack won less as well.

Two games showed a rise in revenues: Craps won slightly more, and roulette tables won about $18 million more -- a big proportional increase from the previous February, but well below the 2008 and 2007 totals. Baccarat was almost solely responsible for the gain.

It is worth noting, as well, that part of the reason for baccarat's incredible month was that gamblers were unlucky -- games held more than 17 percent, by far the highest February hold in four years.

The February baccarat results were a textbook case of volatility, or a high variation in hold that comes with high-end play. If the casinos had only held 11.2 percent, closer to the usual baccarat hold, they would have won $134,764,788 -- about $70 million less than they actually did. That would have dropped the total state gaming win to about $876 million, still better than the previous year's total of about $830 million, but not the stuff of a turnaround.

There's another cautionary note: Baccarat may be getting too big for its britches. This February, baccarat accounted for 21.76 percent of all Nevada gaming revenues, an astronomical number when you consider that in 2005, baccarat accounted for only 5.71 percent of the state's total gaming revenue. The 21.76 percent total is likely the highest in Nevada history.

This is the real story. It's fantastic that the casinos had a good month, but we should be mindful that there are hazards inherent in relying too heavily on baccarat.

The limited number of high-end baccarat players (as opposed to small-stakes slot players) is one of those hazards. Volatility is another. This February, the casinos were about 6 percentage points luckier than usual; as a result they won about $205 million. But if they had been 6 percentage points unluckier instead (a hold of about 5 percent), they would have won only $60 million, and instead of seeing an increase in win for the month, casinos would have instead seen their total win drop by about $30 million.

It's said that one should never look a gift horse in the mouth. That may be true, but the ruins of Troy argue the opposite -- that one should always be wary of gift horses that look to good to be true.

David G. Schwartz is director of the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. His latest book is "Roll the Bones: The History of Gambling."