The Casino Bubble

Has anyone noticed the amount of new Casinos being built, or new laws allowing table games to be played in existing casinos? I know the reasoning behind this is for States to gain revenue, but how long until there is a glut of Casinos on the market. How long until more casinos have to declare bankruptcy. It is the classic tragedy of the commons. In the end when these casinos shut down, or go out of business it will cost the taxpayers money because these gaming companies all receive huge amounts of corporate welfare. I'm pretty sure that in the next 20 years, most of these new casinos will end up dilapidated or not existing at all. I personally think that non gaming companies should be able to get in on legalized gambling. For example a bar owner should be able to buy a gaming licence and run a blackjack table or a poker game at his bar or restaurant. Just a thought, wondering if anyone had the same idea.

I believe that the main problem with your idea is that the first part of it complains of a potentially, "Flooded market," with respect to existing/new casinos while the second part proposes further flooding of the market with, what are effectively, mini-casinos! I also don't forsee casinos receiving too much, "Corporate Welfare," particularly not when nearly half of the voters are against casinos, in general, in most cases. The political backlash would be disasterous.

The keys to surviving an over-saturation of the market are simply to be better than other establishments, to achieve maximum operational efficiency without comprimising the product/service, or to somehow carve out a niche market by offering something nobody else offers. That's what the Revel is trying with their misguided 100% Non-Smoking plan, yes, I know that I may eat those words one day. The most important aspect of all is service. Dealers/Waitresses/Cashiers that are friendly, charming, attractive and offer timely service are the main difference between someone walking out on the losing end dissapointed, and someone walking out on the losing end guaranteed to return. The best part is that quality service can come at a low cost, a Manager must simply demand it of his/her employees, maybe you pay them a little extra, maybe you don't. You can encourage them in other ways such as schedule flexibility, training them in any game they wish to learn (some dealers might even agree to, "Cross-training," in their Free Time figuring it is guaranteed hours and job security) or better, yet Unpaid, vacation benefits.

Happy employees, happy customers, happy employer.

Quote: MalcomD

Has anyone noticed the amount of new Casinos being built, or new laws allowing table games to be played in existing casinos? I know the reasoning behind this is for States to gain revenue, but how long until there is a glut of Casinos on the market. How long until more casinos have to declare bankruptcy. It is the classic tragedy of the commons. In the end when these casinos shut down, or go out of business it will cost the taxpayers money because these gaming companies all receive huge amounts of corporate welfare. I'm pretty sure that in the next 20 years, most of these new casinos will end up dilapidated or not existing at all. I personally think that non gaming companies should be able to get in on legalized gambling. For example a bar owner should be able to buy a gaming licence and run a blackjack table or a poker game at his bar or restaurant. Just a thought, wondering if anyone had the same idea.

We discussed a similar subject a few weeks ago. To summarize my views, I think we're a long way from saturation in most places, but I think I'm outnumbered.

Your last point wasn't discussed in that thread, and I think it's a very interesting one. I prefer my casino gaming be in a casino, rather than being some profitable sideline at a non-casino business. I'm probably outnumbered on this one too.

P.S. Michigan has some legal poker rooms operating under a charity license. You can get a list of them here. No recommendations implied.

Unfortunately in a free market, it's impossible to know when the tipping point from perfect saturation to over saturation occurs. This is the case in every industry, not just gaming. How many shopping centers or malls were too many before some had to start closing? How many McDonald's/Starbucks can one avenue hold before none (or few) are profitable?

There will be a few states where casino gambling will never be legal. There is one state where no form of gambling will ever be legal (Utah). However, by 2020, most states will have some form of casino gambling allowed, whether it be slot parlors, table games or poker rooms. Eventually the market will be perfectly saturated, then over saturated, then it will balance and stabilize to near the right number.

As for non-gaming companies being allowed to run gaming opportunities, I don't foresee that ever being accepted country wide. Gambling is already a touchy issue, and it would be too hard to regulate rules and hold companies accountable, especially with table games and poker. Perhaps VP or slot machines could fill bars (like they do in Nevada), but I don't think you'll ever see private BJ tables being opened.

It isn't the Market for Casinos that is the problem, it is the opening of new markets. Even as late as 2000, LV and AC were esentially the only real places you could play a table game. A few places like Casino Niagra opened, so busy you had to wait at the door like at "Studio 54" when it was busy. Soon there were more and more "locals" places in more and more places.

LV and AC seem to be the only real "touristy" casino areas, maybe Niagra Falls, ON to a certain extent. Otherwise, most markets seem to keep growth in check. Here in Pittsburgh there are 2 places in the metro area. The area can support these 2 (the Nemacolin Woodlands soo-to-open I do not consider PIT-metro) easily. Other cities are doing the same. For years the motto in LV was "build'em out there, it just whets the appitite before they come here." But the tipping point may be here, people saying they can play tables at home, if they are not into shows or the sports book why leave? After 20 years of boom, everyone who wanted to see Vegas has, more than once. The mystique is gone.

The casinos either need to join up or individually find creative ways to market to potential tourists in countries in which gambling is still illegal, however many of those are still left. You have to hit that market hard and heavy, I would suggest. Continued aggressiveness with shows, flights, food and free play to those in the U.S. and Canada is also a must, I would suggest.

You have to continue to find ways to offer people something that they can't easily drive to. Hit the market hard and heavy with advertisements for discounts or free things on as many websites that offer free casino games as possible, it's usually pay-per-click, so it wouldn't be too difficult to do that for a year and easily track how many discounts you're giving out through that source, how many actually come, compared to what you are paying to advertise + the value of the discounts.

I really don't know what Vegas has to offer that you can't get elsewhere besides the shows, which are a complete non-mover for me because I wouldn't go to about 99.9% of them if they were free. I could care less about strippers, burlesque, people running around doing what essentially amounts to cheerleading/gymnastics, or watching comedy that is worthless compared to what is on TV for free, or listening to, at worst, C-Rate musicians and at best, washed-up former A-Rate musicians. I think it's all a bunch of crap.

That's also why surveys are important, again, free casino game sites. Make it a joint effort, create some sort of survey company and have the casinos pitch in equally (if they wish) because the general information is mutually beneficial. Figure out why someone might go to Vegas, what would make, "Might," a, "Definitely," get an idea what interests the people with the most money to lose. Most importantly, figure out what Vegas could do to differentiate itself from anywhere else where a person could gamble, which is, almost, anywhere else!

Quote: Mission146

further flooding of the market with, what are effectively, mini-casinos! .

The mini casinos are very bothersome to me. There
are two of them (one being built) in my area, owned
by a larger casino. 200 slot machines, 1 roulette and
1 craps table, and 3 BJ tables. Whats the fricking point?
30 people and the table games are maxed out. And
nobody moves cause they know if they lose their spot
it will be an hour before they find a new one. Its the
greed factor on the casinos part. Throw up a bunch of
teeny tiny casinos and it will discourage a bigger
competitor to come to the area. Screw the customer,
just so we have the market cornered.

deleted

Quote: MalcomD

I personally think that non gaming companies should be able to get in on legalized gambling. For example a bar owner should be able to buy a gaming licence and run a blackjack table or a poker game at his bar or restaurant. Just a thought, wondering if anyone had the same idea.

This is an interesting concept on many levels.

I suspect it brings forth for too many politicians the 'Wild West' vision of Poker Games leading to gunfights in saloons. That said, gaming is now a rather well-established pastime with a knowledge base nationwide. As soon as internet gaming is truly and fully legalized, the coast will be clear for this sort of decentralized approach. IMO.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

The original Kewadin Manistique casino had 2 blackjack tables, a craps table and a caribbean stud table and about 75-100 slots.

It was also in an area where nobody lived, and in the
winter, nobody visited.

deleted

Question for the group on this one......where would you rather be in the business side of the gambling?

Someone putting up new brick and mortar casinos or someone with a product that all these new casinos must have (i.e. SHFL, IGT, etc.)?

I think the suppliers to the casinos are going to make a killing over the next 5 years with all this expansion whether we have reached saturation or not, those trying to get there new property up and running will need SHFL's games and IGT et al's machines.

SHFL annouces earnings after the close today.....go Roger go!

deleted

Quote: EvenBob

The mini casinos are very bothersome to me. There
are two of them (one being built) in my area, owned
by a larger casino. 200 slot machines, 1 roulette and
1 craps table, and 3 BJ tables. Whats the fricking point?
30 people and the table games are maxed out. And
nobody moves cause they know if they lose their spot
it will be an hour before they find a new one. Its the
greed factor on the casinos part. Throw up a bunch of
teeny tiny casinos and it will discourage a bigger
competitor to come to the area. Screw the customer,
just so we have the market cornered.

I tend to disagree slightly with that, I was mainly referring to the statement of having a bar with a poker, BJ or both table. I would say that the small casinos are good for generating local revenue, especially if you put them near the far outskirts of the area that is already your market. The people that would otherwise come to your large casino once in a while will come to the closer one (within a few miles) more often. It adds time/money (well, gas) value to the customer because he does not have to travel as far to get there.

I would assume that they analyzed the market pretty extensively because you have to make sure that the small casinos don't draw blood from the larger one, in other words, both are going to have operating costs and you have to make sure that the Revenue - Operating Costs - Revenue that would have went to the large casino if not for the small one = Some amount greater that the revenue that would have just went to the larger casino.

I can also understand discouraging a larger competitor from hitting that area, even if the above equation results generally in slightly less profit. If you have a large competitor that comes to the outskirts of your usual market area, then they get the outskirts, some of that which is outside the outskirts, as well as reaching in past the outskirts for a part of your core market which is now closer to the new casino. If the casino is just as good, and people don't have a certain tier/comps level they have to try to maintain at the pre-existing casino, they'll generally go the closer one, unless the hotels/restaurants around (or the neighborhood) is a lot worse. In other words, you lose the casual gamblers, which are a huge segment of your market. Even without losing your heavies, though, it should always be remembered that your heavies WERE casual gamblers before they became your heavies.

I personally think it is win-win, except for the larger casino that was thinking about moving into the area. Yeah, maybe the locals are in the losing end in terms of being within spitting distance of a large casino, but that would have taken some time to actualize anyway, plus, one way or another, at least they still have something closer to home.

Already the major contention points are competition related.
Florida has lobbyists talking about exclusion zones. Some Indian casinos in a number of states are stalled by other tribes who want to maintain their preferential geographic hold on gaming.
Already many casinos are being viewed as being parasitic to existing casinos.

Its a question of desperation. Politicians desperate for tax revenue even if its illusory are desperate for any solution.

Cosmopolitan in Vegas is oft compared to Revel in ACY. Posh, poorly focused, image of opulence and decadence but reduced actual emphasis on The Casino per se. Sort of "An Experience" rather than gambling. Does this mean that the remaining gamblers have to be purchased with more and better perks? Sawdust, drinks and broads used to be all that was needed, now you got carpets, gold doorknobs, gold toilets and dozens of broads sashsaying around the place and that is just to hope gamblers show up.

But you can't win if you don't play the game... so everyone wants to have a toehold in the market in case it takes off bigtime.

Quote: EvenBob

The mini casinos are very bothersome to me.

The problem in PA is that with the 55% tax rate on slots, there is very little incentive to grow the business. Because the Pennsylvania casinos can't be within 15 miles of one another (and as a practical matter the only ones close to 15 miles apart are in Philadelphia area) they are virtually guaranteed a fairly high level of play. But there is no motivation to do the serious marketing of trying to bring people to play slots from more than 2 hours by car (at an extreme maximum) . To bring people from that distance you need slot contests, hotel rooms, entertainment, etc. Marketing in PA casinos is done for table games and poker, where the casino keeps 86%.

The mini-casino in PA was supposed to be an adjunct to full service resorts where moneyed people were already willing to spend several hundred on a room, plus spa treatments, greens fees, and the cost of fine dining. The casino was just another way for them to dump some money.

But the state has now found itself peaked on tax revenue. They used the first mini-casino in Valley Forge to bring in more money. Valley Forge convention center is not the luxe resort, but within easy drive of a million upper middle class people.

So I would attribute the "greed" more to the state, which is now severely addicted to gaming taxes.

Quote: pacomartin

So I would attribute the "greed" more to the state, which is now severely addicted to gaming taxes.

Of course. Casinos are as big a windfall as lottery
tickets. If you can't tax people directly, get them to
buy something thats worthless and take half the
money.

In the end it just becomes another tax on the poor, does it not?

deleted

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

And in some cases, the stupid.

Too many equate being poor with being stupid.

Quote: buzzpaff

Too many equate being poor with being stupid.

But as any blackjack player can tell you, rich people can be just as stupid..

-B

I do not believe the myth that a higher tax rate, whether corporate or personal, is a disincentive to making more money.
Ask anyone who is subject to a high tax rate if they would like to make more money in spite of paying half of it in taxes.
I doubt you would find many people who would say "no, I prefer to make less, since my taxes are so high".

Quote: WongBo

I do not believe the myth that a higher tax rate, whether corporate or personal, is a disincentive to making more money.
Ask anyone who is subject to a high tax rate if they would like to make more money in spite of paying half of it in taxes.
I doubt you would find many people who would say "no, I prefer to make less, since my taxes are so high".

No, but high tax rate does influence where you put your efforts. In the case of PA casinos, I think that almost all efforts are into table games because the payback is so much higher.

It also influences your bottom line when you write a proposal to raise capitol for improvement. Only two casinos in PA have invested in hotels.

Quote: WongBo

I do not believe the myth that a higher tax rate, whether corporate or personal, is a disincentive to making more money.
Ask anyone who is subject to a high tax rate if they would like to make more money in spite of paying half of it in taxes.
I doubt you would find many people who would say "no, I prefer to make less, since my taxes are so high".

That is not how high tax rates discourage investment. Of course everyone wants to make more money. It is when you analyze ROI that the effect is there. More people will risk $10,000 to make a $2K profit than will rish it to make a $1K profit because the word is RISK. Remember, they could lose it all. And this is what the high-tax crowd does not understand.

Lets pretend PA smartened up and allowed video poker machines in bars with a NV-style restricted license of <15 machines per install location, and at the 55% take rate for the state the casinos have. Assume $1,000 in net revenue per week, of which the state takes $550. The bar owner might decide he can get $450 of drink profit by putting in an extra high-table in the same space. He will weigh the benefits of both, and don't think the fact that the state takes more than half will eat at him and influence his decision.

Now imagine that he can put in the current "pull-tab" vidoe poker that so many PA bars have now where you have to be a recognized regular to get paid off on. The difference here is there is no state tax, but you have to give "Frank and Tony" 34% to be sure you do not get raided of any other "problems" that might come up. You now get $760 in revenue to keep for yourself. Are you more likely to put in a machine for that much more profit?

People will work harder when they make more, and will work less when you take more. Why people do not understand this amazes me.

I don't see the small, 1 table, sideline 'casino' as a viable option. Gaming security would become virtually unenforceable. I would never play craps in a joint like this. The chance of loaded dice slipping into a game would be too real. Or a blackjack dealer who is deft at slinging cards from the bottom. How many times have we said on here that we don't worry about casino's cheating, because they have too much to lose, and already have an edge anyway. Well, the same couldn't really be said for a small sideline operation. Sure, they still have the edge, but one hot night of positive variance for the players at a crowded craps table could send that operation into deep red, since they don't have another 40 tables making money. And gaming control would be watching a territory of these operations, so the owner could decide to risk a crooked game for 2 nights out of the week, with minimal chances of getting caught.

Quote: RaleighCraps

I don't see the small, 1 table, sideline 'casino' as a viable option. Gaming security would become virtually unenforceable. I would never play craps in a joint like this. The chance of loaded dice slipping into a game would be too real. Or a blackjack dealer who is deft at slinging cards from the bottom. How many times have we said on here that we don't worry about casino's cheating, because they have too much to lose, and already have an edge anyway. Well, the same couldn't really be said for a small sideline operation. Sure, they still have the edge, but one hot night of positive variance for the players at a crowded craps table could send that operation into deep red, since they don't have another 40 tables making money. And gaming control would be watching a territory of these operations, so the owner could decide to risk a crooked game for 2 nights out of the week, with minimal chances of getting caught.

Well the law would have disincentives to discourage behavior like loaded dice and shady table games. To be able to apply for a permit you would have have no criminal record and be of good moral repute. Im writing a letter to my legislature today about it.

deleted

I'm from the Delaware valley Philadelphia Metro Area of Pennsylvania, and in my opinion the market is over saturated with these big casinos. They do receive corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks. I don't play video poker but I bet bars that would have that would make a killing, and I know Rendell was talking about that awhile ago. I would really like to be able to apply for a permit, and open up a couple poker tables with a couple blackjack tables, but I know since I'm not a billion dollar gaming company, if I tried the PA state senators would just laugh at me. I would definitely love to play at a small mini casino, IE I'm at a bar in Philadelphia and I see that they have a blackjack table. It would be great to just play a few hands.

Quote: AZDuffman

LV and AC seem to be the only real "touristy" casino areas, maybe Niagra Falls, ON to a certain extent. Otherwise, most markets seem to keep growth in check.

Tunica and Biloxi would be close to tourist casino areas. They certainly were before Missouri removed the loss limits and Arkansas expanded casino gambling. Now Tunica seems to be dominated by locals and is too big for the area, though leaving the market would create a PR nightmare, especially for the large corporations there. Biloxi will always be a destination for water folk, but again, now that gambling is more widespread there is less of a reason to go there.

You could even argue that AC isn't really touristy anymore, since PA expanded gambling and there are now options closer to NYC. The airport isn't functional to the market, and staying there can cost you an arm and a leg if you go at the wrong time.

Quote: Tiltpoul

You could even argue that AC isn't really touristy anymore, since PA expanded gambling and there are now options closer to NYC. The airport isn't functional to the market, and staying there can cost you an arm and a leg if you go at the wrong time.

For years everybody said AC will get clobbered if PA opened casinos. They did not build much find a way to diversify. Not an easy thing to do, but AC is like the guy who smoked for years then was amazed he got cancer.

AC does have an advantage of they can hold huge conventions all in 1 or 1-2 connected or near connected buildings. If you have 1-2,000+ people coming for your company annual meeting your options really are limited. AC can handle that market. Otherwise, the reasons to show up there are fewer and fewer.

AC is definitely being hurt by the PA market. Philly residents were a main stay. Even where I live on Long Island, MS and Foxwoods have become the choice of many. They'd rather relax on a ferry than try to drive thru NYC. Then add in Empire city and Aqueduct casinos and you can see why AC is down 10% this year.

I'm glad LV is still strong. I'm sure alot has to do with the entertainment, restaurants, events, things to do, and most of all the aura of an adult playground where anything goes, all on top of unlimited gaming options. They have done a great job of insulating themselves from all these casinos going up nationwide.

Quote: equities.com

McCarren airport is on track to have a record breaking year of over 40-million passengers with a notable increase over last years foreign traffic. Terminal 3 opened in June 2012 and is making Las Vegas more accessible to international travelers as it has become one of the most affordable hubs in the USA. Not only are more people using Las Vegas as a hub or quick get-a-way, they are buying and investing in second homes, lock-and-leave properties and cash-flow income rentals.

(I'm one of those who invested in a second home)


Just putting up a casino does not insure you'll do well. Just ask AC's Revel.

Quote: equities.com

McCormick says that Las Vegas owes an unrecognized amount of its success to the service industry. Earlier this year at "Preview Las Vegas 2012" it was predicted that Las Vegas would have a record year for tourism of 40-million visitors and positive growth. While the low airfare and affordable luxury resorts get them to Las vegas, it's the service industry including bellhops, valets, waitresses, bartenders and concierges that make there stay unparalleled in experience.

My retirement (and permanent move to LV) cannot come soon enough.

link source

" AC does have an advantage of they can hold huge conventions all in 1 or 1-2 connected or near connected buildings. If you have 1-2,000+ people coming for your company annual meeting your options really are limited. AC can handle that market. Otherwise, the reasons to show up there are fewer and fewer. "

Screw PETA. Bring back the Diving Horse !

Other than having casinos 'clustered' in a fairly small area, what else would qualify Tunica and Biloxi as touristy?

Tunica had nothing but the 4 or 5 casinos in the area. If I remember correctly, Memphis is within 30 minutes drive, but I'm not sure what that would add.

Biloxi is only marginally better, and I LIKE Biloxi. But again, as a tourist destination other than casinos, I don't see it. There is some nice golf in the Biloxi area, but golf alone does not make an area touristy.

Am I missing things to do, other than casinos in Biloxi ?

Quote: RaleighCraps

Other than having casinos 'clustered' in a fairly small area, what else would qualify Tunica and Biloxi as touristy?

Tunica had nothing but the 4 or 5 casinos in the area...

Am I missing things to do, other than casinos in Biloxi ?

Tunica currently has 9 casinos, 3 owned by CET, 2 owned by Resort Holding Group (which was spun off/sold by Colony Capital), 1 by Penn National, 1 by MGM Resorts, 1 by Fitzgerald's (I don't know who owns that anymore), and 1 Boyd property. All of the casinos are within 5 miles of each other.

Harrah's is a full-scale resort, with golf course, skeet shooting, a spa and other Vegas style amenities. Gold Strike also has a spa. All the casinos have hotels, most of which have at least 120 rooms, and Harrah's and Gold Strike pushing 1000 each. There is a small metropolitan airport, mainly for the charters to fly in and out of, and Memphis International is within 45 minutes.

I'm not saying Tunica is a true tourist destination, because it does lack permanent entertainment options and the attractions for the entire family. In fact, it amazes me how many kids I'll see in the casinos, because outside of Harrah's Kid Quest, there is NOTHING there to keep them entertained. However, Tunica still has a wide pool of customers, coming as far as Chicago (about 8-10 hours away) to Atlanta and even Louisiana. Before Missouri laws changed, they also had a huge customer base in the St Louis area (5 hours away).

People like the free alcohol (which Illinois, Indiana and Missouri can't provide), and the Southern states just like the gambling. It feels like a getaway.

Quote: AZDuffman

AC does have an advantage of they can hold huge conventions all in 1 or 1-2 connected or near connected buildings. If you have 1-2,000+ people coming for your company annual meeting your options really are limited. AC can handle that market. Otherwise, the reasons to show up there are fewer and fewer.

I think most people who are going to host conventions at a destination are going to opt for LV, because there are more hotel options, cheaper options, and flights are more plentiful and cheaper to LV. The time change probably keeps some East Coast companies on the East Coast, but to say that it's an advantage for Atlantic City might be a bit of an overstatement.

Quote: Tiltpoul

Tunica currently has 9 casinos, 3 owned by CET, 2 owned by Resort Holding Group (which was spun off/sold by Colony Capital), 1 by Penn National, 1 by MGM Resorts, 1 by Fitzgerald's (I don't know who owns that anymore), and 1 Boyd property. All of the casinos are within 5 miles of each other.

Harrah's is a full-scale resort, with golf course, skeet shooting, a spa and other Vegas style amenities. Gold Strike also has a spa. All the casinos have hotels, most of which have at least 120 rooms, and Harrah's and Gold Strike pushing 1000 each. There is a small metropolitan airport, mainly for the charters to fly in and out of, and Memphis International is within 45 minutes.

People like the free alcohol (which Illinois, Indiana and Missouri can't provide), and the Southern states just like the gambling. It feels like a getaway.

Thanks Tiltpoul. I had forgotten about the spas, and was not aware of the skeet. I have been to Tunica 3 or 4 times, but never took my wife as there just wasn't that much non gambling related to do. From a gambling perspective I like Biloxi first, and then I would probably go back to Tunica as my second choice. (I know you drive there, and I think Biloxi would add another 6 hours or so to your drive, so not worth it).

Quote: NickyDim

AC is definitely being hurt by the PA market. Philly residents were a main stay.

The majority of NJ residents are now closer to PARX, PA Sands, or Mt Airy in Pennsylvania than they are to AC. The Aqueduct is still not competition for many Asian New Yorkers because they don't offer table games.

PA Sands is trying to compete with AC for entertainment by building a large venue, and possibly in the future for conventions. Today they only have 300 rooms, but there are four hotels within a 2.5 miles that offer another 460 rooms.

Quote: RaleighCraps

Thanks Tiltpoul. I had forgotten about the spas, and was not aware of the skeet. I have been to Tunica 3 or 4 times, but never took my wife as there just wasn't that much non gambling related to do. From a gambling perspective I like Biloxi first, and then I would probably go back to Tunica as my second choice. (I know you drive there, and I think Biloxi would add another 6 hours or so to your drive, so not worth it).

To be honest, I'd rather go to Tunica for a "gambling vacation" than Las Vegas or AC. Las Vegas offers a TON more to do, and if you get away from the Strip, you can find some decent casinos with decent and playable games. Plus you can find Tiles in Vegas, which is hard to find in Tunica (actually, PGP is hard to find in Tunica, with only 3 tables between the 9 casinos!)

From the games perspective though, Tunica has Las Vegas beat, hands down. True Single-Deck BJ that pays 3:2 and allows you to double on any first two cards. Double Deck BJ with good penetration, though they do hit soft 17 (and low table minimums in most cases on the game). Full-pay Video Poker (or as close as you can get legally in MS). Frequent beverage service, free meals if you gamble at all, free hotel rooms during the week, and very reduced rates most weekends. Friendly service all around, even at the MGM property.

You don't get bells and whistles in Tunica, and they have cut back a little bit since 2008, but whereas Vegas and AC have cut back by double digit percentages, Tunica has been much slower.