Smoking in Macau casino's
February 18th, 2011 at 11:10:41 PM
permalink
Article from "Inside Asian Gaming" Saturday 19 February, 2011
The Macau government and lawmakers probably thought they were being kind to casino operators by agreeing to only a limited smoking ban on the territory's casino floors.
Under the tobacco control law submitted in draft form to Macau's Legislative Assembly, bars, dance halls and saunas will have three years to implement a total smoking ban, but casinos will only be required to set up partial smoking bans within one year of the law coming into force. Under the bill, up to 50 percent of casino floors can remain smoker-friendly.
In reality, it might have been kinder for the government to be cruel and go for a total smoking ban in casinos on the same three-year timetable as bars, or at least insist on a minority area for smokers. That's because a 50:50 split on the floor could be a marketing and logistical nightmare for casino operators.
Because 85 percent of Macau's gaming revenue is from live baccarat, the quickest fix would probably be for casinos to keep all the live table baccarat areas as smoking zones and limit the no smoking zones to the slots and other table games. But that rather defeats the object of protecting the health and comfort of non-smokers who also happen to be baccarat players. It would also be a significant attack on the rights for the slot and multi-terminal suppliers to be given a fair shake on the floor.
And because the Macau government has indicated it expects partitions to be set up between smoking and non-smoking zones, a 50:50 split on the floor would not only look ugly but also significantly reduce the mousetrap effect that helps to keep people playing and spending money in a property.
Under the draft legislation, an operator is not obliged to exercise the right to have up to 50 percent of the space for smokers. The operator could even choose to go smoke free. But in such a fiercely competitive market, with so many customers from mainland China who are smokers, it would take a brave management to risk affecting the bottom line with an act of public altruism.
Even if the floor were effectively to be split down the middle with a mix of games in both areas reflecting the general tastes of the Macau players; that still potentially creates significant challenges and cost implications for the operators. Arguably such a scenario would boost the case for server-based slot gaming in Macau. If it does turn out that smokers have different slot game and slot play preferences to non-smokers, it would be a lot easier for casinos to respond to that player demand by removing or installing a game remotely down a wire, than to physically move cabinets around between smoking and non-smoking areas or install new games on the floor by hand.
Secondly, the social engineering of a Macau government policy on smoking won't have an overnight impact on the tobacco consumption habits of the one third of Chinese adults who smoke. According to a report published last August in the English-language version of People's Daily, 53 percent of adult males in China smoke, as do 50 percent of medical doctors in China. With the massed ranks of Macau’s smoking gamblers squeezed into half the floor area instead of spread around the whole floor, then the smoking zone must inevitably become 'smokier' than before (even when high quality modern ventilation systems are used to clean the air). That in itself could create greater incentives for the non-smokers to stay out of the new smoking areas than under the current 'mixed use' arrangements.
There's a third problem. If the floor is split 50:50, where is the smoking zone going to be? In the very centre of the floor? If not, then either non-smokers will need to walk through it (which rather defeats the object) or no-smoking 'corridors' will need to be built from the main entrance nearest to the smoking zone through to the smoke free area, in the manner of the connecting corridors at The Venetian Macau that allow families with children to walk around the property without entering the gaming area.
If governments in Macau and Hong Kong were really acting in good faith toward smokers and non-smokers alike, rather than acting like busybody nannies, they would have allowed the sale and marketing to Hong Kong residents and Macau gamblers of smokeless 'electronic' cigarettes (known as eCigarettes). But the Hong Kong government banned the importation and sale of the devices, driven by fear of a collapse in tax revenue from conventional cigarettes and perhaps more importantly because they were lobbied hard by the commercial interests that run Hong Kong and that have the exclusive rights to import leading brands of cigarettes. That also seems to have killed off the product in the Macau market.
Macau seems willing to take a leap in the dark with a halfway house policy on smoking that is born of opposing objectives. The first of those objectives is for Macau to be seen to be conforming to the international standards on public smoking seen in many developed economies. The second is to be seen as responsive and supportive of its core industry, casino gaming. In the end, it risks pleasing neither one side nor the other.
Singapore has shown clearer leadership on this issue. The presumption of rights in the integrated resorts there is against the smokers. Resorts World Sentosa has a larger amount of space designated for smokers than Marina Bay Sands, but in both cases the smokers are catered for as a minority group, and their allocation of space is measured accordingly. A similar principle is applied in most developed countries in public spaces such as airports and offices, where smoking rooms or zones are sealed off from the 'majority' public areas.
In casinoless Hong Kong, where public smoking was banned in January 2007, some bars, karaoke parlours, saunas and nightclubs were given until July 2009 to implement the new rules. Many European Union countries have also passed anti public smoking laws on the presumption that the right of non-smokers to breathe smoke-free air outweighs the right of smokers to pursue their habit. Not all developed countries take the same view.
In the United States, where the constitution and political tradition strongly support the rights of the individual, there is no national ban on public smoking—though some individual states have passed laws to control it; in likelihood as a defensive posture by public bodies against litigation from private individuals or from class actions. In Nevada, however, attempts to introduce a smoking ban in casinos have so far been resisted.
The Macau government and lawmakers probably thought they were being kind to casino operators by agreeing to only a limited smoking ban on the territory's casino floors.
Under the tobacco control law submitted in draft form to Macau's Legislative Assembly, bars, dance halls and saunas will have three years to implement a total smoking ban, but casinos will only be required to set up partial smoking bans within one year of the law coming into force. Under the bill, up to 50 percent of casino floors can remain smoker-friendly.
In reality, it might have been kinder for the government to be cruel and go for a total smoking ban in casinos on the same three-year timetable as bars, or at least insist on a minority area for smokers. That's because a 50:50 split on the floor could be a marketing and logistical nightmare for casino operators.
Because 85 percent of Macau's gaming revenue is from live baccarat, the quickest fix would probably be for casinos to keep all the live table baccarat areas as smoking zones and limit the no smoking zones to the slots and other table games. But that rather defeats the object of protecting the health and comfort of non-smokers who also happen to be baccarat players. It would also be a significant attack on the rights for the slot and multi-terminal suppliers to be given a fair shake on the floor.
And because the Macau government has indicated it expects partitions to be set up between smoking and non-smoking zones, a 50:50 split on the floor would not only look ugly but also significantly reduce the mousetrap effect that helps to keep people playing and spending money in a property.
Under the draft legislation, an operator is not obliged to exercise the right to have up to 50 percent of the space for smokers. The operator could even choose to go smoke free. But in such a fiercely competitive market, with so many customers from mainland China who are smokers, it would take a brave management to risk affecting the bottom line with an act of public altruism.
Even if the floor were effectively to be split down the middle with a mix of games in both areas reflecting the general tastes of the Macau players; that still potentially creates significant challenges and cost implications for the operators. Arguably such a scenario would boost the case for server-based slot gaming in Macau. If it does turn out that smokers have different slot game and slot play preferences to non-smokers, it would be a lot easier for casinos to respond to that player demand by removing or installing a game remotely down a wire, than to physically move cabinets around between smoking and non-smoking areas or install new games on the floor by hand.
Secondly, the social engineering of a Macau government policy on smoking won't have an overnight impact on the tobacco consumption habits of the one third of Chinese adults who smoke. According to a report published last August in the English-language version of People's Daily, 53 percent of adult males in China smoke, as do 50 percent of medical doctors in China. With the massed ranks of Macau’s smoking gamblers squeezed into half the floor area instead of spread around the whole floor, then the smoking zone must inevitably become 'smokier' than before (even when high quality modern ventilation systems are used to clean the air). That in itself could create greater incentives for the non-smokers to stay out of the new smoking areas than under the current 'mixed use' arrangements.
There's a third problem. If the floor is split 50:50, where is the smoking zone going to be? In the very centre of the floor? If not, then either non-smokers will need to walk through it (which rather defeats the object) or no-smoking 'corridors' will need to be built from the main entrance nearest to the smoking zone through to the smoke free area, in the manner of the connecting corridors at The Venetian Macau that allow families with children to walk around the property without entering the gaming area.
If governments in Macau and Hong Kong were really acting in good faith toward smokers and non-smokers alike, rather than acting like busybody nannies, they would have allowed the sale and marketing to Hong Kong residents and Macau gamblers of smokeless 'electronic' cigarettes (known as eCigarettes). But the Hong Kong government banned the importation and sale of the devices, driven by fear of a collapse in tax revenue from conventional cigarettes and perhaps more importantly because they were lobbied hard by the commercial interests that run Hong Kong and that have the exclusive rights to import leading brands of cigarettes. That also seems to have killed off the product in the Macau market.
Macau seems willing to take a leap in the dark with a halfway house policy on smoking that is born of opposing objectives. The first of those objectives is for Macau to be seen to be conforming to the international standards on public smoking seen in many developed economies. The second is to be seen as responsive and supportive of its core industry, casino gaming. In the end, it risks pleasing neither one side nor the other.
Singapore has shown clearer leadership on this issue. The presumption of rights in the integrated resorts there is against the smokers. Resorts World Sentosa has a larger amount of space designated for smokers than Marina Bay Sands, but in both cases the smokers are catered for as a minority group, and their allocation of space is measured accordingly. A similar principle is applied in most developed countries in public spaces such as airports and offices, where smoking rooms or zones are sealed off from the 'majority' public areas.
In casinoless Hong Kong, where public smoking was banned in January 2007, some bars, karaoke parlours, saunas and nightclubs were given until July 2009 to implement the new rules. Many European Union countries have also passed anti public smoking laws on the presumption that the right of non-smokers to breathe smoke-free air outweighs the right of smokers to pursue their habit. Not all developed countries take the same view.
In the United States, where the constitution and political tradition strongly support the rights of the individual, there is no national ban on public smoking—though some individual states have passed laws to control it; in likelihood as a defensive posture by public bodies against litigation from private individuals or from class actions. In Nevada, however, attempts to introduce a smoking ban in casinos have so far been resisted.
February 18th, 2011 at 11:22:18 PM
permalink
I personally disagree that Marina Bay Sands, Singapore has more non-smoking area than smoking area. In my experience, the whole first floor is a smoking floor, with non smokers limited to a much lesser area next floor up. The non smokers area is maybe 30% of the smoking area which is interesting as smoking is banned in public areas in Singapore. I reckon a good lawyer could have a worthwhile challenge to this policy.
Resort World Sentosa has much more non-smoking area as the article correctly asserts, and the smoking area can only be accessed via the non-smoking area, which makes perfect sense rather than the other way around.
Resort World Sentosa has much more non-smoking area as the article correctly asserts, and the smoking area can only be accessed via the non-smoking area, which makes perfect sense rather than the other way around.
February 19th, 2011 at 5:21:37 AM
permalink
Most Macau casinos are multiple floors. It would be pretty easy to have a smoking floor and a non-smoking floor.
February 19th, 2011 at 7:57:55 PM
permalink
Quote: 7outlineawayMost Macau casinos are multiple floors. It would be pretty easy to have a smoking floor and a non-smoking floor.
Thats what I would have thought. In Sands Macau the non-smoking is a separate floor (the ground floor) but punters still have to go through the smoking areas to get to the restaurants and the bars which are all in smoking areas
April 12th, 2019 at 11:35:44 AM
permalink
Can't find my thread, but tomorrow is the day. Just got rid of 160 pounds of dead weight, so might as well change something else with it.
I am a robot.
April 12th, 2019 at 11:58:34 AM
permalink
Quote: onenickelmiracleJust got rid of 160 pounds of dead weight, so might as well change something else with it.
Not really sure how to interpret that statement. Did you dump your wife or something?
April 12th, 2019 at 1:35:17 PM
permalink
Yeah Hallelujah. Almost made it to a sex tape, but it never happened, true story.Quote: MaxPenNot really sure how to interpret that statement. Did you dump your wife or something?
I am a robot.
April 12th, 2019 at 1:48:51 PM
permalink
Resurrecting an 8+ year old thread just to hijack it?
What's going on here?
What's going on here?
April 12th, 2019 at 2:12:44 PM
permalink
Search function is worthless. I was driving and wanted to get it out. I'm not Muslim if that's what you think. I guess you're right.Quote: TigerWuResurrecting an 8+ year old thread just to hijack it?
What's going on here?
I am a robot.
April 12th, 2019 at 2:37:12 PM
permalink
I see.
Well, since we're here, does anybody know the smoking situation in Macau nowadays?
Well, since we're here, does anybody know the smoking situation in Macau nowadays?
April 12th, 2019 at 6:36:00 PM
permalink
Quote: TigerWuWell, since we're here, does anybody know the smoking situation in Macau nowadays?
Oddly enough there IS news about the smoking situation in Macau. I was going to (eventually) start a thread with a long post about the current uncertainties Macau is facing but who would read it? Instead, I'll just cherry pick out the part on smoking.
January was the first month since 2016 that Macau saw it's gambling revenue decrease. It was up slightly in February but not enough to erase January's losses. (The two months are combined due to the floating nature of the Lunar New Year festival.) March was also down making a losing 1st quarter and analysts are predicting losses this month as well. What's going on?
The big culprit seems to be that VIP gamblers aren't showing up in the numbers they used to. There are many reasons for this including the softening Chinese economy and uncertainty over Sino-American trade relations which puts their cash flow in doubt. Plus, they tend to avoid Macau during the festival as the city is flooded with tourists. Junket operators and a few analysts, however, point to another issue ... smoking.
As of Jan 1st, 2019 the casino smoking ban went into full effect with VIP table game rooms being the last holdouts to fall. From now on all smoking (including VIP smoking) must be done in sealed off smoking lounges where no gambling is allowed. Reports of rampant VIP cheating have already forced the government ramp up its inspection and citation policy. Casinos find themselves between a rock and a hard place since its hard to tell a guy who's betting (and usually losing) a fortune that he can't puff away while doing it. Only 17% of the people of Macau smoke, however, so it's usually casino employees doing the complaining to the government regulators; an interesting workplace dynamic.
I never thought I'd see Macau casinos have a stricter smoking policy than their Vegas counterparts much less a complete ban.
Here is a smoking lounge at the Wynn Palace in Macau...
Edit: I should note that Macau gaming stocks rallied on news of the various 1st quarter losses since they weren't as bad as the market feared.
Last edited by: Gialmere on Apr 12, 2019
Have you tried 22 tonight? I said 22.
October 26th, 2019 at 2:42:35 PM
permalink
In another update we have this story in the Macau Daily Times. [The article is so short I quote it in full.]
Macau is having a bad 2019 with analysts predicting the misery to continue for the next few years. There are many reasons (economical, political, increased competition etc) for this but the fact that a member of the Center for Gaming and Tourism Studies is stating this publicly suggests the smoking ban is having an obvious negative impact on revenues. Will the ban be reversed? Probably not. If the bad times continue to roll, however, don't be surprised if VIP smoking lounges are suddenly allowed to have a few baccarat tables operating inside them.
Quote: Macau Daily Times
During yesterday’s conference, Zeng Zhonglu, a professor from the Center for Gaming and Tourism Studies at the Macao Polytechnic Institute, said that the smoking ban inside Macau casinos had dampened the growth of the gaming industry.
“While there is no smoking ban in Las Vegas, in Macau, smoking [inside casinos] is banned,” said Zeng.
“If you are a gambler and you want to smoke, [the casinos] ask you to smoke outside, and you will lose your interest in gambling,” said Zeng. “I don’t [want to] mention that smoking is already banned in the mass market, but also banning smoking in VIP rooms? Banning smoking in VIP rooms is one of the direct causes behind Macau’s gaming industry growth slowing down.”
The professor highlighted how many studies show that people who like gambling also like smoking and drinking alcohol.
Macau is having a bad 2019 with analysts predicting the misery to continue for the next few years. There are many reasons (economical, political, increased competition etc) for this but the fact that a member of the Center for Gaming and Tourism Studies is stating this publicly suggests the smoking ban is having an obvious negative impact on revenues. Will the ban be reversed? Probably not. If the bad times continue to roll, however, don't be surprised if VIP smoking lounges are suddenly allowed to have a few baccarat tables operating inside them.
Have you tried 22 tonight? I said 22.
October 26th, 2019 at 4:56:24 PM
permalink
In response to the original post (newer posts seem to indicate a larger ban), a 50-50 split seems reasonable.
AC has 75-25 and it works great, plenty of smoking and non smoking areas with reasonable separation. I think splits are a good policy.
AC has 75-25 and it works great, plenty of smoking and non smoking areas with reasonable separation. I think splits are a good policy.
November 18th, 2019 at 8:14:30 AM
permalink
Quote: vinwinCông nghệ ngày càng phát triển đòi hỏi sự nhạy bén của các nhà cái cũng như tính linh động không chỉ ở các sòng bài mà còn tại trên những nền tảng công nghệ mới nhất. Tại <a href="https://vin.win" target="blank">game bài vinwin</a> là cái tên đang được nhiều cao thủ lựa chọn là nhiều nhất hiện nay. Không chỉ dừng lại ở hình thức giải trí, mà còn rất nhiều lợi thế hơn nữa những điều kì bí đang chờ đón bạn.
^^^
Spam.
"Increasing technology requires the acumen of the bookmakers and the flexibility not only in casinos but also on the latest technology platforms. At <a href="target="blank"> vinwin card game </a> is the name that many players are choosing the most today. more mysterious things are waiting for you."
