Would Casinos Have More Customers if They Have a No Tip Policy?

Let's say a casino table games pit has a no tip policy. Dealers are paid a good salary by the casino. Assume pay is high enough that you get good, friendly dealers.

Would the casino get more business? Enough to justify the increased salaries of casino dealers? Would you, as a gambler, prefer to play there?

I post this, because others have mentioned that tipping is a very "American" thing, and in some countries, tipping is definitely not the norm, or if you do tip, it is at a much lower percentage.

I tend to be very generous when it comes to tipping. While I am not a huge George, I am a small George. It would be interesting to play in a casino where tipping is not the norm or not allowed. I would probably play there, and give small gifts to the dealers like boxes of chocolates or gift baskets.

I voted "Other".

I think if tipping were forbidden, player's bankrolls would last a little longer, but the part ear-marked for tips would end up in the casino's pocket eventually.

Therefore, yes, they'd get more business. Yes, it would probably be enough to pay for the higher salaries.

However, if you had two casinos, one where tipping is expected, one forbidden, the tips forbidden casino would get more customers - but only temporarily.

Remember what happened with free drinks? It started with one casino offering cheap drinks, the next offering cheaper drinks, then the first going to free drinks, and now all casinos have free drinks.

If one casino goes to a no tipping policy, it won't be long till the neighboring casinos do likewise.


I.E. An American visiting Europe might enjoy the no tipping policy. But he's not going to Europe because of that policy.

I voted yes because players obviously dislike tipping, although I don't think this would lead to higher profits for the casino. Tipping adds a significant HE in most games.

Consider blackjack where standard tip is 1/2 avg. bet per hour. At 60 hands/hr a players expected loss from playing is 60*.005 = .3 units and expected loss from tipping is .5 units.

If a casino decides to properly compensate its dealers then it must pay its dealers .5 units more while still making the same .3 units/hr. It just doesn't make sense for casinos to do this with low HE games like blackjack and craps.


I'm ok with tips from a personal standpoint. The whole concept of tipping is to allow good service to be rewarded. I like being able to tip a good waitress/waiter more than a bad one. In the vast majority of casinos, however, tips are pooled which totally negates the whole purpose. I would like to see an end to tip pooling which I feel would lead to more friendly and higher quality dealers.

For it to work there would have to be competition around to see if it had any affects on foot traffic. In a place like Chicago where the next casino is a 30 minute drive away, I am not sure if a no tip policy would make the difference in you going to Elgin or Aurora or Joliet or the new casino in Des Plaines. Personally, I only tip when I have some luck, for instance I will make a bet for the dealer in blackjack when I win 4 or more hands in a row and have no problem with doing that.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

An American visiting Europe might enjoy the no tipping policy. But he's not going to Europe because of that policy.

True.
However, it might affect his return visits. A slow and often invisible waiter can be annoying to American tourists. Some places even advertise American style waiters. (Quick service, ever present, etc.). Europeans often don't expect anything like that.

A money grubbing hand outstretched everywhere you turn can be annoying. An initial visit might not be affected by tipping procedures.

A dealer who is on salary has little incentive to stand there all day long and remain alert. Remaining alert is often due to tips or tip potential.

So as long as its not an overt tip hustle, I think the Tips Permitted and Encouraged attitude is best for the casino. Casinos want game protection. You do that by having dealers who are alert rather than on salary.

At Casino Brantford (in Ontario) dealers make between $14.35 and $15.85/hour as of April 2010 according to their Canadian Auto Workers union agreement. I beleive that all casinos in Ontario are unionized. In addition to this are full health and dental benefits, they receieve between 3 - 6 weeks of vacation per year and a plethora of other beneifts that are not typical in the industry. And they keep their tips.

So, I don't feel too sorry for my casino employee counterparts in Ontario.

That said, I will tip for good service, but I keep in mind that they make far more than the dealers in the USA. But I don't believe in a no-tip policy.

Quote: iwannaiguana

I voted yes because players obviously dislike tipping, although I don't think this would lead to higher profits for the casino. Tipping adds a significant HE in most games.

Consider blackjack where standard tip is 1/2 avg. bet per hour. At 60 hands/hr a players expected loss from playing is 60*.005 = .3 units and expected loss from tipping is .5 units.

If a casino decides to properly compensate its dealers then it must pay its dealers .5 units more while still making the same .3 units/hr. It just doesn't make sense for casinos to do this with low HE games like blackjack and craps.


I'm ok with tips from a personal standpoint. The whole concept of tipping is to allow good service to be rewarded. I like being able to tip a good waitress/waiter more than a bad one. In the vast majority of casinos, however, tips are pooled which totally negates the whole purpose. I would like to see an end to tip pooling which I feel would lead to more friendly and higher quality dealers.

No one is forced to tip and if you choose not to nothing bad will happen.

I've heard all the tipping formulas and they sound great until you do the math. Playing 1000 hours a year of blackjack and using just $25 as your average bet would result in $12,500 in tips with the 1/2 average bet per hour formula. If I tipped $1 an hour I'd probably be called cheap by the dealers and still be out $1,000. To the players that have indicated that they'll only tip if they win, why? You're supposedly tipping for the service. Do you feel that you haven't gotten the service when you've lost?

When I played Pai Gow at Aria in February I made a deal with the dealer that I would tip $1 for every hand I won (I was betting $25 a hand). I played for 8 hours at 25 a hand, and did not bust out until the end with a double or nothing (I had about $250 left). I figure I must have made 240 bets (30 hands an hour at a conservative estimate) and with a 50% loss that means I tipped $120 (since 120 bets won). Not bad, it didnt seem like much at once, but it all added up at the end. I know some money should be taken out for the 5% commission, but this is an approximate amount. I figure this was a nice addition to the dealer pool. I also tipped $2 a drink (I had at least 10 a mix of coffee and cosmopolitans).

Nick, Great for you, really cool!

I don't think the "tips are allowed" policy hurts in anyway, because you can still stiff if you want to, up to you. No one is ever told "you can't play here if you don't tip."
And no one actually cares about the non-tippers (talk about a double-entendre).
What I mean is that people (dealers, waitresses, etc.) don't worry about the non-tippers, we are appreciateive of the tippers, who are operating in a different and higher class of patrons. And We don't treat the tippers differently, aside from saying "we appreciate that" - and mean it.

Had to vote "no." If the casinos believed such a policy would increase profits, they would already implement it

VERY good point.

Quote: TomG

Had to vote "no." If the casinos believed such a policy would increase profits, they would already implement it

Good reason, but casinos are subject to corporate inertia.

As has been noted, tipping is customary, and decent, not cumpolsory.

Casinos would lose customers if tipping were cumpolsory. Say if you bought in for $100 and the dealer gave you $95 in chips, taking $5 as "gratuity," analogous to the way a few restaurants do. I don't go to restaurants that add a gratuity automatically, unless they do so only for large groups; I've learned not to expect good service with 8 diners or more.

Nor would service improve, not necessarily. The quality of service has a lot to do with the individual employee. Some will give you great service if you stiff them and insult them, because they feel it's the professional thing to do. Others will give you bad service if you tip them well because they don't give a damn. But management also has something to do with it, tips or not tips, as regards employee training, screening, etc. Well-managed palces, overall, will have better service than ill-managed ones, tips or no tips.

What does have a bigger effect, as has been pointed out, is whether tips are shared or not.

Gotta go. more later.

Quote: Nareed

As has been noted, tipping is customary, and decent, not cumpolsory.

The key here that I see is "custom." Why does anyone tip in a restaurant they don't plan to return to after the meal is over?

As you point out service has so much to do with the individual server, the level of tipping is almost always based on the customers ingrained habits. The woman showing significant cleavage might do better, but overall a customer is going to be a good tipper or a stiff no matter what the level of service

Personally, for most services I don't like the idea of tips. Rather than stiff minimum wage workers, I simply avoid places where they are expected. Buffet, blackjack tables and hotel maid service are the only exceptions and I'll leave more than most. Yet: If a casino tried to insist tips would not be taken, it would mean a huge increases in salaries they pay (or an entire workforce on strike). Which would almost certainly correspond with worse odds at most tables, which would keep me away

.....

Quote: TomG

The key here that I see is "custom." Why does anyone tip in a restaurant they don't plan to return to after the meal is over?

Because, as I said, it's customary and decent. Also because one should reward good service whether one will use it again or not. Why not skip on the bill? You have a good chance of doing so once.

Quote:

As you point out service has so much to do with the individual server, the level of tipping is almost always based on the customers ingrained habits.

Also true. But aside from regulars, a service worker won't know that until too late. Meaning a good dealer will treat all his customers well if he expects a better tip. It won't hurt with the stiffs, and it will help with the rest.

Quote:

The woman showing significant cleavage might do better,

Not when serving other women.

.....

I voted "no." I believe that banning or sharing tips leads to bad service, which would lead to fewer customers. Plus, as much complaining as there is about tipping, I think most Americans still like to tip for good service. If I got great service I would not feel right if I couldn't tip.

Quote: NicksGamingStuff

When I played Pai Gow at Aria in February I made a deal with the dealer that I would tip $1 for every hand I won (I was betting $25 a hand) ... I also tipped $2 a drink (I had at least 10 a mix of coffee and cosmopolitans).

You were over-tipping the dealer. I think a $25 player should tip the dealer about $5 an hour. $2 for exotic drinks in a fancy hotel is a nice hotel is appropriate.

The thing you have to remember is when you are in the business (and I am in it at its lowest form) that you understand how much a bigger tip than usual can make a big difference in a persons night. Tonight I dropped a stack of red chips and they went all over the card room. I recovered all but one. Later on a customer that was near me asked me if I found the missing one, I told him no, but I don't think $5 will get me into too much trouble. He proceeded to give me the $5 chip saying he didn't want me to get in trouble. This act meant a lot more to me than a regular gratuity even $5 from him for my normal chip selling service, for once I actually felt somebody cared about me at that place. Anyway my point is if you are a recreational gambler being an above average tipper can really make the dealers night, but then again if they do not seem appreciative then stiff away.

Quote: TomG

Had to vote "no." If the casinos believed such a policy would increase profits, they would already implement it

True. Whether it be corporate inertia, lower salary costs or lower cheating as the motivating factors the crux of the matter is that the casinos would do whatever helped their bottom line the most.

Salaries make for inattentive dealers and Table For Table weeds out the deadweight. The happy medium is tip pooling. Well, maybe not always that "happy".

Quote: Nareed

But management also has something to do with it, tips or not tips, as regards employee training, screening, etc. Well-managed palces, overall, will have better service than ill-managed ones, tips or no tips.

This is the NUMBER ONE factor, in my opinion, of what determines good service. A dealer can be the most fantastic craps dealer, able to handle 7 customers on a hot table with hardways, hops and all in quick and efficient manner, but it doesn't mean a thing if he or she is surly and even rude to those players. I always prefer somebody who is friendly, deals at a reasonable pace, able to carry a conversation while doing her job and most importantly, considers ALL players playing.

When I was in Vegas in July, I played at the Cosmopolitan, which I have highly recommended to players for the EXCELLENT service you get there. I was playing Spanish 21, and the first dealer I had was nice, but not overtly friendly. I tried throwing a couple tips her way, no response. So I stopped tipping. The actual dealer for the table was from Indiana and dealt at a casino I used to go to occasionally. We had the best time talking about the players there (Spanish 21 at this particular casino is a BIG game, at least 2-3 tables, usually full, with most players knowing basic SPANISH strategy and admonishing players for NOT hitting 12.) When I decided I was done playing (I was up about $100 and just got to Vegas), we chatted for another 15 minutes. If a player had come up, of course I would have left, but I threw her another $5 just for the chat.

The one thing she noted was that Cosmopolitan has the BEST management she ever encountered. She said the general manager would come by every shift and wish them a good day and ask how things were going. It's the personal touches that matter to employees, and generally, a well-managed company, be it restaurant, store, casino, will nearly always provide better service.

Btw, that's not to say you can't get good service in a poorly managed place. At least 5 years ago, Gold Strike in Tunica was a TERRIBLY managed property, and it was obvious from the way everybody treated you (save the poker room, they always had good service up there). There was one dealer in particular, Jhydis, who ALWAYS was smiling and friendly, but she always seemed to be in carnival games that I wouldn't play or higher limit games out of my range. One time she was on 3-card poker (at the time, flush was 4-1), so I decided to play with her. I didn't do all that well, but she was such a standout I was tipping her quite well. By the way, she wasn't the bustiest dealer nor the prettiest, but her personality attracted players to her game. She was a standout amongst a group of surly, unattentive dealers.

To get to the poll question, I haven't voted yes or no, since frankly, I'm torn. I think service workers should be able to earn their way based on how they do. A good salesperson should make more in commission than a person who isn't as good. At the same time, in sales, commission based workers are often more pushy and ignore smaller sales to go for the bigger, higher paying ones. Where I manage, most departments get 1% plus a high base wage. In this case, there is an incentive to sell, but it doesn't make or break you not to sell a huge ticket sale vs a smaller one. The departments who make 10% OR a low base wage have cattier salespeople and the service can be mixed, although even the worst are usually still decent.

So after thinking it, I would rather play at a place where tipping was not expected. It would balance out the service levels. However, in a response on another thread, it probably would result in much worse game rules and selection, so it's with mixed feelings that I cast that vote.

Quote: TomG

Had to vote "no." If the casinos believed such a policy would increase profits, they would already implement it

I don't think that was the question. The question was would they have more customers? I would say the answer is yes. Logically people who already go to a casino won't stop going because of a no tip policy, but some new customers are bound to come.

I don't think tipping is a big issue with casino customers. I think it is a bigger issue with restaurant customers who have the option of choosing fast food where they are not expected to tip.

.....

Quote: Tiltpoul

This is the NUMBER ONE factor, in my opinion, of what determines good service. A dealer can be the most fantastic craps dealer, able to handle 7 customers on a hot table with hardways, hops and all in quick and efficient manner, but it doesn't mean a thing if he or she is surly and even rude to those players. I always prefer somebody who is friendly, deals at a reasonable pace, able to carry a conversation while doing her job and most importantly, considers ALL players playing.

Yes. I heard of one audition for poker dealers. Six or seven candidates walked in and dealt absolutely flawlessly, not a single mistake. The final candidate walked in, dealt a bit slowly, made two minor mistakes and one major one (he forgot to take the rake). He is the only one who got hired. The bosses all knew his speed would eventually increase and every dealer forgets to take a rake once in his lifetime. They forgave all these mistakes because he introduced himself, chatted with each of the players and even talked about his mistakes in a friendly manner. Some dealers don't chat for cultural reasons, some don't chat for language barrier reasons and many don't chat for personality reasons. Their casinos don't go bankrupt but they don't thrive either.

The poll question about "customers" probably should focus on repeat customers.

I'll admit sometimes I walk away and couldn't remember the dealer's name if my life depended on it, but I'll probably remember quite easily whether it was a pleasant experience of not. If its a pre-coffee, pre-breakfast raid on the craps table I won't be there for long but I'll still form an impression of what the crew was like. If its a post-breakfast, post-coffee craps session it will be longer and I'll probably be at two craps tables but it still has to be pleasant. Some dealers are probably okay on salary but excellent on tips. It doesn't cost the casino much to have happy employees, but it sure costs the casino alot to have unhappy ones.

I was playing at a texas bonus game with a dealer who probably came straight out of dealer school, where they taught the little girl that she must 'SYMPATHIZE WITH THE CUSTOMERS'. A couple minutes in I flopped two pair only to get beaten by a straight. The dealer makes a huge exaggerated expression of putting her hands on her hips, frowning intensely and curling her lips into a pout. Her face was so scrunched up, it was the cutest thing ever. The problem is, I wasn't paying attention to her performance - I was talking to my friend playing beside me, and only caught the dealer's movement out the corner of my eye. So she patiently waits for me to turn my attention back to the game, so that she can do her pout thing again! Not sure how to respond I make a sad face in return, and she finally collects my money. She hadn't said a single word from start to finish. After that I just had to leave a tip for her A+ effort.

Quote: Nareed

Casinos would lose customers if tipping were cumpolsory.

Poker tournaments used to have a fixed cost for entry, which did not include anything for the dealers. ($50 for the tournament). It was expected that the winners of the tournament would tip the dealers.

Then, it became customary to add an additional amount to the buy-in of the tournament in order to 'tip' the dealers. ($50 + $5). People at first were surprised by this, and would ask what this was for, and we would be told that it was to cover the cost of the dealers, but did not include a tip. It was still expected that the winners of the tournament would still tip the dealers.

This has moved to just stating the cost of the tournament, which includes the dealer cost, or sometimes just the house cost for running the tournament. ($55). My main problem with this is it can allow for a misunderstanding on the total prize pool of the tournament.

Some tournaments will still do a thing where they have a fixed cost for the tournament ($55), and then an additional amount can be paid for extra chips ($15), with the additional amount assumed to be going towards the dealers (although this is not always the case). The extra amount of chips is usually so much that it doesn't make sense to NOT pay this amount.

My point being that, over time, poker tournaments have changed their methodology to include a compulsory tip, even if they don't always admit that it's an extra tip. (Instead calling it a cost of running the tournament.) And, if anything, poker tournaments are bigger and more popular than ever.

After I wrote all of the above, I realized that pizza delivery has a similar thing going on. A while back, pizza places started adding $1.99 "delivery fee". Of course, on the box, it is stated that the "delivery fee" is NOT a tip for the driver, and that a tip is still expected. The "delivery fee" was instituted at a time when gas prices started increasing, as a way to help offset the costs for the driver. Again, I don't see that pizza delivery has dropped off due to the adding of this compulsory tip.

Quote: konceptum

My point being that, over time, poker tournaments have changed their methodology to include a compulsory tip, even if they don't always admit that it's an extra tip. (Instead calling it a cost of running the tournament.) And, if anything, poker tournaments are bigger and more popular than ever.

First it may not even be a tip. Second, in poker rooms and tournaments you gamble against other players, not the casino. You expect a charge, rake, fee, etc, for that service. This is just mroe of the same.

Quote:

After I wrote all of the above, I realized that pizza delivery has a similar thing going on. A while back, pizza places started adding $1.99 "delivery fee". Of course, on the box, it is stated that the "delivery fee" is NOT a tip for the driver, and that a tip is still expected. The "delivery fee" was instituted at a time when gas prices started increasing, as a way to help offset the costs for the driver. Again, I don't see that pizza delivery has dropped off due to the adding of this compulsory tip.

Again, not a tip. And can you say no customers were lost? Do you have statistics available for pizza delivery in the area?

Quote: Nareed

Again, not a tip. And can you say no customers were lost? Do you have statistics available for pizza delivery in the area?

Personally, my wife and I started using the pizza delivery service less since they started adding on their "delivery fee", which is $2.50 in my area. We still eat pizza just as often, but we pick it up instead.

It isn't that we can't afford the $2.50 fee. It's that we don't like being forced to pay it.

Quote: Nareed

First it may not even be a tip. Second, in poker rooms and tournaments you gamble against other players, not the casino. You expect a charge, rake, fee, etc, for that service. This is just mroe of the same.

Exactly. If instead of a tip, we were asked to pay an additional fee of some type in order to play PaiGow Poker or Blackjack, we might all know that this isn't really a "tip", but we all would also know that it was going to pay the dealers. I believe this was discussed before in these forums, about whether or not you would pay, let's say $5, to play an hour of blackjack. They may call this a "table charge", but we would all know it was going to the dealers, especially if we were also told that having to tip the dealers was no longer necessary.

Quote: Nareed

Again, not a tip. And can you say no customers were lost? Do you have statistics available for pizza delivery in the area?

In fact, I can at least attest to them having lost one customer, as I know a person who no longer orders pizza specifically because of this additional fee. I'm sure that poker tournaments have lost customers as well, due to their implementation of an extra fee that didn't used to exist. But, it's also fairly obvious, due to the fact that poker tournaments haven't disappeared and pizza delivery is continuing on, that these places have survived these additional fees. Yes, we might lose some customers, but as long as the business survives, that's all that would matter.

Call it a "delivery fee" or call it a tip, it's still going to the dealers. Table charge or tip, it's still going to the dealers. We can haggle on the terminology used, but it wouldn't make a difference. Either way, we'd be making a payment toward the dealer for their services.

Quote: konceptum

Exactly. If instead of a tip, we were asked to pay an additional fee of some type in order to play PaiGow Poker or Blackjack, we might all know that this isn't really a "tip", but we all would also know that it was going to pay the dealers. I believe this was discussed before in these forums, about whether or not you would pay, let's say $5, to play an hour of blackjack. They may call this a "table charge", but we would all know it was going to the dealers, especially if we were also told that having to tip the dealers was no longer necessary.

You're mixing threads.

Anyway, the fact is there are no fees for table games while there are fees for poker. An additional fee is not the same as suddenly adding a fee where there was none. Lastly, as you stated, the "tip" fee buys you a large amount of tournament chips and it's voluntary. Sure, it would be highly stupid not to pay it, but you are offered the option anyway.

Quote: Nareed

Anyway, the fact is there are no fees for table games while there are fees for poker. An additional fee is not the same as suddenly adding a fee where there was none. Lastly, as you stated, the "tip" fee buys you a large amount of tournament chips and it's voluntary. Sure, it would be highly stupid not to pay it, but you are offered the option anyway.

Not all extra tournament fees are for extra chips. Some are simply added to the cost of a tournament. Sometimes, it is stated that this additional fee is to pay the dealers, sometimes this is not stated. My simple point is that the additional fee does not seem to have reduced the popularity of poker tournaments.

I'm only mixing threads to show the analogy. You stated the situation of someone buying in a table for $100, with $5 taken as a tip. This is analagous to the situation of paying a $5 table charge to play for an hour, assuming that in both situations the $5 is given to the dealer. Just because one is called a tip and the other a table charge, doesn't change the fact that they are the same thing. Adding a fee to a tournament, and saying it is for the dealers, is the same as a tip.

The issue I would have with something of this nature, is the simple fact that when a fee is added where there was no fee before, ostensibly to help out the dealers, a tip is STILL expected. This is true with pizza delivery as well as with poker tournaments. If a table charge was added ($5 to play blackjack for an hour), there would STILL be an expectation that the dealer would be tipped as well as receiving the $5 per hour.

Many (too many) years ago, I delivered newspapers. Tips were sparse, but not too terrible. The paper announced an increase in the subscription price, with the increased amount being given to the delivery personnel. While Gannett (yes, them) were more than willing to state that the increase in price was due to rising fuel costs, and to help offset the costs incurred by the independent contractors who did the delivery, the fact was that the increase in subscription price was never given to the delivery drivers. However, since people were convinced that the additional cost WAS going to the delivery drivers, the tips dropped off.

Unfortunately, I think our society has become one where the tips are expected at certain jobs, and not at others. The tip amount has been fixed by culture and history, and doesn't account for the changes in living costs. I despise eating with large groups at a restaurant. I feel like, every time it has happened to me, the waitress knows that her 18% gratuity is guaranteed, and thus does not try as hard. Yes, that's a blanket statement, and may not apply to other people, but I have witnessed this every time I've been in a large group of diners. By the same token, eating by myself a a cafe with a bill of around $9, I've been known to tip $11, because the service was excellent. I don't mind paying for good service.

If there were a no tip policy and the casino had to pay more to get dealers to work there, then somewhere the casino would need to make up that outlay. I agree with a previous poster who said that if this extra cost to the casino would bring in enough new patrons that would not have been there otherwise, then there would be at least one casino doing it. The fact that there are none speaks volumes.

Quote: SOOPOO

The fact that there are none speaks volumes.

Let me tell you about parking attendants in Mexico.

At nearly every parking lot or garage, be it of sotres, shopping malls, hotels, etc, there are a few people acting as "parkign attendants." They spend the day on the lot or garage, pointing out open spots, watching you don't hit anything backing off or getting into a spot, and allegedly keeping an eye out for thieves. They're not paid, as far as I know, but they get tips. Not much in the way of tips, a tip of around 2 pesos is standard (right now that's about a 15 cents US). if they help you carry groceries or packages to the car, you're supposed to tip at least five more pesos.

Some years ago, around the mid-90s, a mall opened in Interlomas (I live in the area now, but didn't back then). There were signs posted all voer the parking lot stating "The parking attendants receive a salary. They are NOT allowed to take tips."

It took maybe three weeks before most signs were defaced in some way to read "The parking attendants receive a salary. They are allowed to take tips." The "NOT" was painted over, scratched off, or covered with something.

Mannagement fought back, feebly, and eventually the signs were removed. Like almost everywhere else in Mexico, you are expected to tip at the Interlomas mall. I don't know if the attendants also receive a salary or not.

So what do you think. if dealers all got a raise and longer were allowed to take tips, would they still hustle for tips anyway?

Quote: Nareed

So what do you think. if dealers all got a raise and longer were allowed to take tips, would they still hustle for tips anyway?

Until there's a major shift and re-think in our society, I think they will.

Quote: konceptum

Many (too many) years ago, I delivered newspapers. Tips were sparse, but not too terrible. The paper announced an increase in the subscription price, with the increased amount being given to the delivery personnel. While Gannett (yes, them) were more than willing to state that the increase in price was due to rising fuel costs, and to help offset the costs incurred by the independent contractors who did the delivery, the fact was that the increase in subscription price was never given to the delivery drivers. However, since people were convinced that the additional cost WAS going to the delivery drivers, the tips dropped off.

Exactly. People can be convinced it's a tip when it's not. I wouldn't assume it's a tip unless I'm explicitly charged a gratuity, exactly as restaurants do with large groups.

So we're talking about two different things: tips and extra fees.

Quote: gambler

Let's say a casino table games pit has a no tip policy. Dealers are paid a good salary by the casino. Assume pay is high enough that you get good, friendly dealers.

Would the casino get more business? Enough to justify the increased salaries of casino dealers? Would you, as a gambler, prefer to play there?

The problem for me in answering this question is I have to wonder where the extra money is going to come from. Most dealers who work for tips, work for tips. The money is good. If the tips are going to go away, then the casino would have to pay a comparable amount to keep dealers, and especially good dealers. I'm going to assume for a second that most casinos operate on a thin profit margin and cannot afford to pay the extra amount from their own coffers. I see two possible solutions: either the institution of fees to play the games in order to cover the costs, or an increase in the minimum bet level, so that the HE can account for the extra dealer costs.

Both of these situations would come with problems, but may appeal to certain people. However, I think they would be driving away a much larger group of people, the low-limit betters. Considering that those people probably greatly outnumber the high-limit betters, this would be detrimental to the casino.

Quote: gambler

I tend to be very generous when it comes to tipping. While I am not a huge George, I am a small George. It would be interesting to play in a casino where tipping is not the norm or not allowed. I would probably play there, and give small gifts to the dealers like boxes of chocolates or gift baskets.

Once you started instituting a policy of accepting small gifts, no matter what they were or their dollar value, you have instituted a form of tipping back into your no-tip casino.

Quote: Nareed

Exactly. People can be convinced it's a tip when it's not. I wouldn't assume it's a tip unless I'm explicitly charged a gratuity, exactly as restaurants do with large groups.

So we're talking about two different things: tips and extra fees.

I still feel that if the extra fee is going to the person performing the service, then it IS a tip.

If the restaurant stopped requiring a gratuity for a large party, and instead had a fee of 18%, you would still give a tip? They are no longer charging you a gratuity, therefore it isn't a tip, correct?

Quote: konceptum

I still feel that if the extra fee is going to the person performing the service, then it IS a tip.

IF :)

Quote:

If the restaurant stopped requiring a gratuity for a large party, and instead had a fee of 18%, you would still give a tip? They are no longer charging you a gratuity, therefore it isn't a tip, correct?

I'd ask the waiter. If he gets nothing, I'd tip. I'd also never set foot there again.

Regarding tournament "fees":

Some of the comments make it sound as if the entire tournament entry fee should go to the prize pool.

With regular poker cash games, the casino makes money via the rake. This goes to pay all expenses, including the dealer's salary. The dealer still gets tips.

The reality is, in a tournament, they typically state the fee as: $A ($B + $C) $B goes to the prize pool, $C goes to the casino to pay all expenses, including the dealer's salary. Some tournaments state the fee as $A ($B + $C + $D) where $D goes directly to the dealers as a tip. Some use the add-on for the tip. Some tournaments have no tip fee at all. Those that end up in the money are expected to tip.



Regarding pizza delivery fees:

The pizzaria still has to give the driver a salary. Since the driver is only able to make limited deliveries, he is far more inefficient than a counter attendant. Therefore, his salary may be the same, but the sales to salary ratio is far lower, necessitating the fee. Sometimes he'll use the company vehicle, so the delivery fee is retained. Sometimes he'll use his own car, so he must be paid more to cover his additional expenses.


In the 80's, I worked for Dominos as a driver. We got a base salary. We has a choice of using the company car or our own. There were about 6 drivers on a typical night, and they only had one company car. We all used our own car.

If we used our own car, we got an extra 6% of whatever we delivered. It was easier to do this than to figure milage. Besides, with the occasional double that were close to each other, it all averaged out.

If we put the illuminated sign on our car, we got an extra 1% of our personal deliveries.

If we worked thru closing and helped clean up at the end of the night, we got another 1% (even if we used the company car). I had a habit of either working short shifts, or working the entire day, open to close, to maximize that extra 1%.

We still got tips.

Quote: Nareed

IF :)

So, we agree. Calling it a "fee", when it goes to the person performing the service, is really the same as a tip. I know that I take it a step further and feel that if there is a fee which goes toward paying the wages of the person performing the service, while this is not technically a tip, it is still a benefit to the person performing the service.

Let's look at the federal law. Minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. Tipped employees can be paid as little as $2.13 per hour, as long as that amount plus their tips equals $7.25 per hour. If not, the employer has to pay an amount to make sure they are paid $7.25 per hour.

So, you sit down to eat, and the waitress helps you for 1 hour. She is required to make $7.25 per hour. The restaurant pays her $2.13 per hour, and as long as you tip at least $5.12, then all federal laws have been followed. And let's say your meal and the service was sufficient for you to be willing to tip the $5.12

But let's say the restaurant now says there's a $2.50 service fee added to all bills. This is not to be considered a gratuity. However, the restaurant also tells you that the $2.50 goes to the waitress. At this point, I would probably tip less. I don't feel like I want to pay my meal + $2.50 + $5.12, but I'm still perfectly happy paying meal + $2.50 + $2.62, as that is a fair amount, and what I was willing to pay before. If the $2.50 was not going to the waitress, then, like yourself, I would never eat there again.

But if the situation is that the $2.50 goes to the waitress, then what we've done is create a compulsory tip. It's not called that. It's called a service fee. But semantics aside, it's the same thing. The waitress is receiving the same amount of money, just in a different format.

The problem, of course, is that people are not used to this. If it was well explained what was really going on, then I don't think it would reduce traffic to the restaurant. But with no explanation, and a $2.50 service fee added to all meals, then yes, it would reduce traffic, as people would be annoyed and not understanding of what's going on.

The pizza delivery thing, I feel, is similar. The cost of gas went up, and the fact remains that delivery drivers were sometimes getting $1 and $2 tips, and occasionally no tip at all. While it may not be that the person simply cannot afford to do the job, it does factor into whether or not doing the job is actually worth the costs involved. (The major reason why I stopped delivering papers: the price they were paying us went down, while the cost of gas and maintaining my vehicle went up. Where once it was very much worth it to deliver papers, it became a situation where it wasn't. I wasn't losing any money doing the job, but I was making very little. And when I broke it down to how much per hour I was making, it was too little for me to justify to myself to continue doing.)

There's no doubt in my mind that adding the delivery charge, and giving that money to the drivers, helped out considerably for those drivers. However, it did make me change my tipping methodology. Where I used to tip $5, I now only tip $3. Basically, they are getting the same from me as they used to.

Quote: Nareed

I'd ask the waiter. If he gets nothing, I'd tip. I'd also never set foot there again.

What if he's not allowed to respond? I've encountered many dealers in casino situations were not allowed, by corporate policy, to give me any information regarding the tips. Some were not even allowed to tell me if tips were pooled or not.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Some of the comments make it sound as if the entire tournament entry fee should go to the prize pool.

That's the way it used to be run. If you saw a tournament with an entry fee of $50, you knew that all $50 from every player went into the prize pool. Back in those days, it was generally believed by poker rooms that the costs associated with running a tournament would be offset by the increase in business. The tournament players, after being knocked out of the tournament, would join ring games with a rake. In addition, the player's significant other would be out in the casino playing slot machines. While that didn't affect the poker room's bottom line, it was still something the casino looked at as an overall benefit. Plus, tournaments were normally held at "off" times, where there wasn't a lot of business anyway. Thus, they had the potential of getting ring games going when they normally wouldn't.

Over time, this has changed. Tournaments became more popular, expenses became greater, and tournaments are held at all times of the day and night. Thus, it made a lot more sense to start charging some sort of fee to help defray the costs. I have no problem with tournaments charging these extra costs. I've always felt like poker rooms probably operate on a thin profit margin. Of course, I don't know if that is true or not, I just always felt that way.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

where $D goes directly to the dealers as a tip. Some use the add-on for the tip. Some tournaments have no tip fee at all. Those that end up in the money are expected to tip.

Again, I have no problem with this. But I have encountered tournaments where, not only is there an extra fee added on for the dealers, but then the winners are expected to tip as well. I understand the need to add a fee, as some winners don't believe in tipping, and some people don't understand that they should tip when they win. However, to have both a fee and then ask for a tip, I think, is wrong.

But again, my point was that the addition of a compulsory fee, and sometimes even a compulsory tip, to the tournaments does not seem to have adversely affected tournaments.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Regarding pizza delivery fees:

The pizzaria still has to give the driver a salary. Since the driver is only able to make limited deliveries, he is far more inefficient than a counter attendant. Therefore, his salary may be the same, but the sales to salary ratio is far lower, necessitating the fee. Sometimes he'll use the company vehicle, so the delivery fee is retained. Sometimes he'll use his own car, so he must be paid more to cover his additional expenses.


In the 80's, I worked for Dominos as a driver. We got a base salary. We has a choice of using the company car or our own. There were about 6 drivers on a typical night, and they only had one company car. We all used our own car.

If we used our own car, we got an extra 6% of whatever we delivered. It was easier to do this than to figure milage. Besides, with the occasional double that were close to each other, it all averaged out.

If we put the illuminated sign on our car, we got an extra 1% of our personal deliveries.

If we worked thru closing and helped clean up at the end of the night, we got another 1% (even if we used the company car). I had a habit of either working short shifts, or working the entire day, open to close, to maximize that extra 1%.

We still got tips.

Interesting. None of the pizza delivery persons I have known were figured this way. One of my friends didn't even receive wages. They only got whatever tips were paid to them, plus the $1.99 delivery fee per order.

Quote: konceptum

What if he's not allowed to respond? I've encountered many dealers in casino situations were not allowed, by corporate policy, to give me any information regarding the tips. Some were not even allowed to tell me if tips were pooled or not.

If he has any brains he'll wink. If he doesn't, then tough. I'm willing to tip. I'm willing to accept a gratuity tacked on to the bill. I'm not willing to wade into whatver scam, conflict or game the rest of them are playing. It's definitely not my problem.

Quote: konceptum

Over time, this has changed. Tournaments became more popular, expenses became greater, and tournaments are held at all times of the day and night. Thus, it made a lot more sense to start charging some sort of fee to help defray the costs. I have no problem with tournaments charging these extra costs. I've always felt like poker rooms probably operate on a thin profit margin. Of course, I don't know if that is true or not, I just always felt that way.

I'm not a poker room manager, but my guess is that the casino makes more than enough money on a successful poker room. Otherwise, the casino would turn it into a slot machine area. While most casinos can't open a poker room fast enough, I know of a few that closed due to competition. Truth is, a successful room will generate at least $140 per table open (40 hands per hour x $3.50 avg rake assuming $5 rake which is probably the industry average). Cards cost about $40 per two decks, changed out every 8 hours and reused a few times. Dealers get $3 an hour, rental for card shufflers and other fixed costs. Plus, while Jackpot money raked does go back to the player, it sits in an account for a while so that collects interest of some sort. One or two tables, yeah the costs aren't justified, but as I said, a successful room could easily generate the amount.

It took me a bit to get to my point. ]The casino used tournaments as a loss leader. When the poker boom hit, players saw tournaments as a cheap way to play a game they "saw on TV." Tournament players are often TOTALLY different than cash players and now the two worlds don't always meet. Consequently, the casinos had to make money on those players as well, adding fees to cover the costs associated with running the tournament. And then, when they realized they could turn a profit on a tournament, then the additional fees started getting added on.

Quote: konceptum

Again, I have no problem with this. But I have encountered tournaments where, not only is there an extra fee added on for the dealers, but then the winners are expected to tip as well. I understand the need to add a fee, as some winners don't believe in tipping, and some people don't understand that they should tip when they win. However, to have both a fee and then ask for a tip, I think, is wrong.

I disagree. If there is a "Dealer add-on" where 100% of the money paid goes to the dealers, then I will only tip a small amount. However, if there is no dealer add-on, then I will tip a more generous amount. I don't allow a "fee" to determine whether or not I tip, since I wouldn't trust that those would go to the dealers anyway. Most tournaments I play the add-on is paid at the table and goes into a tip bucket type thing. Since it's paid up front, I don't see any reason to add a lot more on.

By the way, I don't play many tournaments for this reason. I have to be able to come close to a +EV, and since I'm not as good at tournament play as cash play, I try to avoid them unless I'm bored or it's an Omaha tournament.