Could a relatively "no house edge" casino be created?
I.e. on roulette, a true odds payout of 38 to 1 rather than 35, with a 2% commission? Even money bets stay 1:1, with no commission. For blackjack, one could mitigate the disparity between dealer and player by limiting the number of decks to two or three, rather than six and keep the 3/2 BJ payout. For Baccarat, one could keep the commission as is. In craps, hard 4/hard 10 paid out at 8 to 1, rather than 7, removing side bets, etc.
A casino could stop offering comps to limit their exposure, and charge a slightly higher rate for things other than games, presumably.
Quote: Birdgang
A casino could stop offering comps to limit their exposure, and charge a slightly higher rate for things other than games, presumably.
Where would the casino be? In a high-density area like Vegas or AC, people would just wind up staying at other places and playing at your casino. So your place never recuperates the full value of the gaming discounts because they don't sell an equivalent volume of full-price rooms or meals.
Quote: BirdgangCould there be a fairer yet still lucrative way to do casino gaming? Could there be a configuration of games a casino offers (traditional and carnival) where there is little to no house edge, but the casino takes a commission on winning wagers?
I.e. on roulette, a true odds payout of 38 to 1 rather than 35, with a 2% commission? Even money bets stay 1:1, with no commission. For blackjack, one could mitigate the disparity between dealer and player by limiting the number of decks to two or three, rather than six and keep the 3/2 BJ payout. For Baccarat, one could keep the commission as is. In craps, hard 4/hard 10 paid out at 8 to 1, rather than 7, removing side bets, etc.
A casino could stop offering comps to limit their exposure, and charge a slightly higher rate for things other than games, presumably.
I'm all for less decks at blackjack! Where do I sign up? :-)
Quote: rdw4potusWhere would the casino be? In a high-density area like Vegas or AC, people would just wind up staying at other places and playing at your casino. So your place never recuperates the full value of the gaming discounts because they don't sell an equivalent volume of full-price rooms or meals.
Isn't this what happens a lot, though? You book a room at say, Harrah's, but you go play wherever you want within easy distance?
If I were in charge of this imaginary casino, I would charge an entry fee of five dollars, to step inside. Like Valley Forge does in PA. Essentially, I thought of it like a supermarket does some loss leaders; you reduce your profit margin slightly while able to increase in other areas.
My idea would be to only create a casino, rather than a casino/resort with rooms, and shopping. Something to focus on the gambling exclusively instead of just another disneyland with poker. Lower table limits to a dollar, have as many slots as it can handle to ensure a steady stream of profits while taking a hit on the traditional games.
Quote: Birdgang
My idea would be to only create a casino, rather than a casino/resort with rooms, and shopping. .
It doesn't work long term. Every Indian casino
of any size adds a hotel later on because thats
where the big money is, worthwhile comps.
Getting people to stay there for a couple days,
captives with nothing to do but play.
Quote: BirdgangIf I were in charge of this imaginary casino, I would charge an entry fee of five dollars, to step inside.
Most people don't want to pay to enter a casino only to get charged commission on all of their wins.
Quote: Beethoven9thMost people don't want to pay to enter a casino only to get charged commission on all of their wins.
Agreed. Thats why the vig is figured into the games,
so the player is mostly unaware of it. Thinking
is the last thing a casino wants the player to do.
In roulette most players think the 35/1 payout is a
great return on their money. If you point out there
are 38 pockets, they look at you like you have a big
wad of dog crap on the bottom of your shoe. They
don't know what you mean by 38 pockets and they
just want to be left alone.
Quote: Beethoven9thMost people don't want to pay to enter a casino only to get charged commission on all of their wins.
That's true. but, to the OP's point, Valley Forge essentially does this and they're usually quite busy.
You could create an ad campaign that emphasizes true odds, to point out how a payout increase would offset stuff like entry fees, or commissions. I think if you give people any type of situation to play, they will, considering how it's already a losing proposition to almost all gamblers.
Blackjack became popular only when everyone and his brother in law thought they could beat it and casino executives were moved to tears as craps tables were torn out to make room for Blackjack tables. To end the sight of grown men crying, the casinos decided to hire Bimbos as Blackjack dealers and Circus-Circus even told the Bimbos to tell the players what the proper moves were. Before that Blackjack dealers were limited in conversation ability in most casinos.
Casinos had mixtures of games, sure... just as they had a variety of booze available once Benny Binion swept up his sawdust and put carpet down so these half-naked bimbos could serve booze to knee level ledges at craps tables as men paused slightly to stare down the front of their skimpy costumes. Heck before you know it some casinos were even competing on the Odds Factor at craps because they sure could not compete of the "it" factor of their cocktail waitresses.
Quote: rdw4potusThat's true. but, to the OP's point, Valley Forge essentially does this and they're usually quite busy.
I'm not familiar with that casino. Are there any others in the same area?
I could possibly see the OP's model working at a casino that has little to no competition (then again, the average gambler has no clue what "true odds" are), but I don't think such a model could ever work in a place like Vegas. *shrug*
First: most of the slot players are too afraid of the table games to play them at ANY house edge. Second, at a dollar bet limit you would get panhandlers taking up space at fair games. Who wants that? The slots already provide the profits and no one really begrudges a casino a "house edge". And look at all that went into developing a no commission baccarat... just to speed up the play and do away with those lousy lammers.Quote: BirdgangLower table limits to a dollar, have as many slots as it can handle to ensure a steady stream of profits while taking a hit on the traditional games.
Go back in the archives... look at crowd shots and advertisements. Casinos did not compete on craps odds or BJ rules. Casino competed on overall atmosphere, personal service and standardized games that were fairly low house edge as long as you stayed away from the centerbets. Slots were an after-thought not a major gig and no one ever spoke of house edge.
Quote: FleaStiff...at a dollar bet limit you would get panhandlers taking up space at fair games. Who wants that?
Totally agree. With $1 minimum, there would have to be a boatload of tables for the place to make decent money. Plus, it would attract the dregs of society.
Quote: BirdgangI'd like to see the "dregs" make some quick cash. It would only be an issue without proper security.
If you're trying to attract high rollers, I doubt any of them would want to be around the type of people who would frequent $1 tables. Why do you think places like the Wynn have only $25 craps tables on Fri/Sat nights?
Quote: Beethoven9thI'm not familiar with that casino. Are there any others in the same area?
I could possibly see the OP's model working at a casino that has little to no competition (then again, the average gambler has no clue what "true odds" are), but I don't think such a model could ever work in a place like Vegas. *shrug*
It's in the Western Philly suburbs. There are 3 other casinos in the Phllly area. This is the smallest of the 4, but I'd say it's in the best location. It's about 20 miles from Valley Forge to each of the other area casinos.
Now that I've thought more about this, I think the Oklahoma casinos do a version of this. Great BJ rules, but pay $0.50/hand unless you have a players club card.
Quote: FleaStiff
Blackjack became popular only when everyone and his brother in law thought they could beat it
BJ was majorly popular way before that. In the early
50's Dean martin and Jerry Lewis would go into the
casino after their last show and deal BJ sometimes.
Dean was a dealer in Ohio back in the 40's, but Jerry
was just a ham. He would pay people who had losing
hands, ignore the winners, pay everybody when he
got a 21 and just generally go nuts. The players absolutely
ate it up and so did the casino. Nobody ever complained
and there would be 100 people crowded around watching
the action. This was long before the law about only dealers
dealing, obviously.
Frank and Dean got into huge trouble in the
60's for making a girl dealer start a new BJ game
without shuffling. This was when Frank owned part of
the Sands.
As to the general concept, I just don't see the point. Most of us that care about the HE play a game within 1-2% of true odds anyways, and getting a 1-2% commission on something less than a $50 bet is a pain in the ass at a physical table.
Well, it existed and often photos and ads show many BJ tables, but it took Beat The Dealer to bring the growth spurt to BJ.Quote: EvenBobBJ was majorly popular way before that.
Hollywood stars brought people out to the desert and Vegas grew.
One sign in Los Angeles went unchanged for five years: A billboard that said "Visit Your Fine Feathered Friends"... and depicted some Vegas showgirls in costume.
They could but why would they if they can get the same action with lower odds? Very few people care about good odds, if they did the casinos would be empty.Quote: BirdgangCould there be a fairer yet still lucrative way to do casino gaming? Could there be a configuration of games a casino offers (traditional and carnival) where there is little to no house edge, but the casino takes a commission on winning wagers?
I.e. on roulette, a true odds payout of 38 to 1 rather than 35, with a 2% commission? Even money bets stay 1:1, with no commission. For blackjack, one could mitigate the disparity between dealer and player by limiting the number of decks to two or three, rather than six and keep the 3/2 BJ payout. For Baccarat, one could keep the commission as is. In craps, hard 4/hard 10 paid out at 8 to 1, rather than 7, removing side bets, etc.
A casino could stop offering comps to limit their exposure, and charge a slightly higher rate for things other than games, presumably.
Quote: Beethoven9thIf you're trying to attract high rollers, I doubt any of them would want to be around the type of people who would frequent $1 tables. Why do you think places like the Wynn have only $25 craps tables on Fri/Sat nights?
Even if low rollers should get some focus, why would you put them near the high roller tables? You'd make more money by seemingly "exclusivizing" a section, rather than merging table denominations together, I would think.
Quote: AxelWolfThey could but why would they if they can get the same action with lower odds? Very few people care about good odds, if they did the casinos would be empty.
Well, it's not a popular idea since it isn't being done, but I was thinking more along the lines of a genuine "Place for the rest of us", to use the Atlantic Club's motto. A place where it becomes less about parting people from their money, and instead offering to facilitate serious gambling. My fantasy.
Serious gambling? Try taking your money back after you lose it in a party pit and claim it was not "serious gambling".Quote: BirdgangA place where it becomes less about parting people from their money, and instead offering to facilitate serious gambling. My fantasy.
You hear about the two long lost college roommates who ran into each other in Las Vegas? They got to talking about how their gambling was going for them:
One said: "I lost five thousand dollars to that babe over there with the humungous boobs while this other broad with great legs kept plying me with my favorite booze which I was really enjoying in a party atmosphere of loud music, raucous laughter and off-color jokes. I even got myself comped to a free buffet."
The other said: "I lost three hundred dollars at a single deck, No Resplit Aces, Stand at 17, No Conversation Allowed, Blackjack Game while playing perfect strategy against a house edge of 0.8 percent which is 3.6 standard deviation units from the Mean Performance Figures of the No Comps, No Jokes, No Smiles Gaming Board".
Which of the two is the serious gambler????
Quote: EvenBobAgreed. Thats why the vig is figured into the games,
so the player is mostly unaware of it. Thinking
is the last thing a casino wants the player to do.
In roulette most players think the 35/1 payout is a
great return on their money. If you point out there
are 38 pockets, they look at you like you have a big
wad of dog crap on the bottom of your shoe. They
don't know what you mean by 38 pockets and they
just want to be left alone.
Exactly, I've tried to explain this to some friends of mine who enjoy roulette. Their response is "but it pays 35 to 1"...sigh.
This is also the case in BJ where people take "even money" but don't take insurance (counters aside). Good luck trying to explain that "even money" and insurance are essentially the same thing. People just glaze over and order another bud light. I've stopped explaining it to people.
As to the original post. A casino with no house edge would be doomed. If only from a competitive standpoint. It's hard to generate a profit when your margins are lower than any other joint in town. Only maybe 5% of gamblers understand what the HE is on the games they are playing anyway. Don't believe me...ask anyone playing slots. Players are oblivious.
Have you ever run a business before? Usually, when you try to cater to everyone, you end up attracting no one. In any case, you missed my overall point. Have you been to any casinos that have, say, $3 tables? Like Fiesta Rancho or El Cortez? Their clientele isn't exactly Caesars or the Wynn. $1 tables would attract even worse players.Quote: BirdgangEven if low rollers should get some focus, why would you put them near the high roller tables? You'd make more money by seemingly "exclusivizing" a section, rather than merging table denominations together, I would think.
Quote: vendman1Exactly, I've tried to explain this to some friends of mine who enjoy roulette. Their response is "but it pays 35 to 1"...sigh.
LOL! The funny part is that I know plenty of (otherwise) intelligent people who say the same type of thing. It's amazing how people are so willing to throw away their money.
Quote: BirdgangCould there be a fairer yet still lucrative way to do casino gaming? Could there be a configuration of games a casino offers (traditional and carnival) where there is little to no house edge, but the casino takes a commission on winning wagers?
I.e. on roulette, a true odds payout of 38 to 1 rather than 35, with a 2% commission? Even money bets stay 1:1, with no commission. For blackjack, one could mitigate the disparity between dealer and player by limiting the number of decks to two or three, rather than six and keep the 3/2 BJ payout. For Baccarat, one could keep the commission as is. In craps, hard 4/hard 10 paid out at 8 to 1, rather than 7, removing side bets, etc.
A casino could stop offering comps to limit their exposure, and charge a slightly higher rate for things other than games, presumably.
A co-op casino would accomplish this. Issue is that it would have to be in a state that gives out licenses easy. Those states have more competition, which makes it tougher to find people to buy in.
Quote: BirdgangCould there be a fairer yet still lucrative way to do casino gaming? Could there be a configuration of games a casino offers (traditional and carnival) where there is little to no house edge, but the casino takes a commission on winning wagers?
Yes. This has been done online even without wager commission.
They even only charge commission on total net win - i.e. you only pay that 5%-10% of the amount you came out ahead by. Such a commission is inevitable because the operator normally covers the payment processing fees.
Offline, a high commission variant is possible, but it's stupid. It's much better to add a zero sector to the wheel than to process the commissions every time.
A no-commission, no-house edge variant exists offline, but involves a membership fee. It's not five bucks.
Quote: FinsRuleA co-op casino would accomplish this. Issue is that it would have to be in a state that gives out licenses easy.
Or not in a state at all.
An excellent point to make. If a casino wants to have a customer base it must be amongst "gamblers" and it must be a broad enough appeal to attract a broad customer base and not repel any particular market segment too much. Short term variations can be accommodated by staffing and scheduling. I can envision a casino that needs to suddenly call in its on-call "Game X" dealers but I can't envision a casino that suddenly needs to call in its "Philosophy of Gambling" marketers.Quote: Beethoven9thUsually, when you try to cater to everyone, you end up attracting no one.
Quote: Beethoven9thIf you're trying to attract high rollers, I doubt any of them would want to be around the type of people who would frequent $1 tables. Why do you think places like the Wynn have only $25 craps tables on Fri/Sat nights?
I've wondered about this. If the Venetian offered $3 craps, they would have an enormous increase in foot traffic, they'd have to add a dozen more craps tables, and the place would be packed even more than it already is. It would definitely bring in low rollers, so the big question is if it would scare off high rollers, or if it would encourage high rollers to lower their bets from $25 to $5. The irony is that all of the luxury Strip resorts already offer penny & nickel slots, but wouldn't dream of offering $3 craps or blackjack. The luxury Strip resorts also offer high limit rooms, yet you'll still see $1,000 bets at the $25 table in the main casino.
The typical craps table hold is about 12%. Sure, if I owned a casino I'd rather make 12% on $25 bets than on $3 bets, so the foot traffic would have to increase substantially (8x?) to make up the difference.
I've also seen high rollers place $1,000 bets at dumpy degenerate Club Cal-Neva in downtown Reno, which truly boggles my mind. (If I could afford $1,000 bets I would most certainly not be playing at Club Cal-Neva.) And yet here's Keith Richards & Mick Jagger playing blackjack at Circus Circus:
Quote: renoIf the Venetian offered $3 craps, they would have an enormous increase in foot traffic, they'd have to add a dozen more craps tables, and the place would be packed even more than it already is.
If floor space and casino staff were unlimited, that wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately they're not. Personally, I don't think the Venetian lowering their minimums to $3 (compared to $15-$25 on a Fri/Sat night) would result in a significant increase in their bottom line, although there would definitely be an increase in the amount of trailer park/ghetto players. (haha!)
Quote: Beethoven9thHave you ever run a business before? Usually, when you try to cater to everyone, you end up attracting no one. In any case, you missed my overall point. Have you been to any casinos that have, say, $3 tables? Like Fiesta Rancho or El Cortez? Their clientele isn't exactly Caesars or the Wynn. $1 tables would attract even worse players.
My point is exactly the opposite of you're arguing against- you don't cater to everyone. But that's not to say you wouldn't segregate higher minimum tables from the cheaper ones.
The lowest I've seen at a table is five bucks.
I'm not sure I understand. Who is a casino catering to by adding a bunch of $1 tables?Quote: BirdgangMy point is exactly the opposite of you're arguing against- you don't cater to everyone.
Go to the Fiesta Rancho or El Cortez sometime. (They have $3 tables there) Those are the type of people that $1 tables would attract.Quote: BirdgangThe lowest I've seen at a table is five bucks.
*Now that I think about it, doesn't Jokers Wild have $1 craps? Not exactly a big money-making casino.
Quote: Beethoven9thI'm not sure I understand. Who is a casino catering to by adding a bunch of $1 tables?
They would be bringing in lower bankrolled players like twenty somethings, and a larger portion of the elderly. Rather than relying on clientele returning every few weeks, you can create more regulars and bring in people that otherwise wouldn't gamble if you kept it cheap enough that it becomes attractive.
I can't be the only one that would spend more time at the tables if they had a lower minimum than five. Especially since I'm not rich, and don't have much interest in slots.
Quote: Beethoven9thGo to the Fiesta Rancho or El Cortez sometime. (They have $3 tables there) Those are the type of people that $1 tables would attract.
I live in NY, so AC and Foxwoods are my choices. I would definitely have spend more time in Resorts or Caesar's if they had cheaper tables.
Quote: Beethoven9thIf floor space and casino staff were unlimited, that wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately they're not.
Venetian has 138,000 sq ft of casino space, Palazzo has 105,000 for a combined total of 243,000 sq ft. I'm not convinced that the limiting factor is floor space.
Quote: renoVenetian has 138,000 sq ft of casino space, Palazzo has 105,000 for a combined total of 243,000 sq ft. I'm not convinced that the limiting factor is floor space.
And they use every bit of it. Adding "dozens of tables" would come at the expense of removing others.
Quote: BirdgangThey would be bringing in lower bankrolled players like twenty somethings, and a larger portion of the elderly. Rather than relying on clientele returning every few weeks, you can create more regulars and bring in people that otherwise wouldn't gamble if you kept it cheap enough that it becomes attractive.
Then how come Jokers Wild isn't raking in the cash? (They have $1 tables.) I'm pretty sure that the Wynn & Caesars do better.
Plus, if you charge people 5 or 10 bucks to get in, then that fee equals 5 or 10 bets for them right there. Probably half of their bankroll. lol
Quote: Beethoven9thAnd they use every bit of it. Adding "dozens of tables" would come at the expense of removing others.
Nah, it wouldn't be too difficult to could squeeze in a few more tables.
Quote: renoNah, it wouldn't be too difficult to could squeeze in a few more tables.
The 2nd picture is the walkway between the Palazzo and Venetian where all the shops & restaurants are.
The open space in the 1st picture appears larger than it really is. Believe me, there isn't enough room to realistically put a "dozen more craps tables" (which you had alluded to).
Quote: Beethoven9thThe 2nd picture is the walkway between the Palazzo and Venetian where all the shops & restaurants are.
The open space in the 1st picture appears larger than it really is. Believe me, there isn't enough room to realistically put a "dozen more craps tables" (which you had alluded to)
Maybe not, but of all the strip casinos, Venetian/Palazzo are the most spacious to me, and probably one of the few places that could add tables without cramping things. However, I don't think it's in their best interest to do so. There is no reason to piss off the type of customer they are looking for. They don't want the value gambler; they don't make the casino money!
+1Quote: tringlomaneThere is no reason to piss off the type of customer they are looking for. They don't want the value gambler; they don't make the casino money!
Totally agree. If players like that made a lot of money for the house, then Station Casinos would be rolling in it. But...
Quote: thecesspitAny $1 craps table has to make enough to pay the staff wages of 4 people per hour, plus a boxman. I'm not sure what Nevada Minimum wage is, but with a house edge of around 1.5c per $1 on the line, it's going to be hard to pay the wages of anyone at dollar minimums, even if crowded.
Ah, that's a good point. Didn't even consider that.
If the OP thinks that $1 tables is the way to riches, a visit to, say, Jokers Wild or Fiesta Rancho might change his mind. lol
Quote: Beethoven9th
If the OP thinks that $1 tables is the way to riches, a visit to, say, Jokers Wild or Fiesta Rancho might change his mind. lol
That's definitely what I think.
Quote: BirdgangThat's definitely what I think.
$1 tables may not be enough to support the dealer's minimum wage requirement (they must pay the dealer full minimum wage before tips) if everyone bet the minimum. And there is electricity, real-estate costs, management wages, servers wages, and a bunch of other things to worry about. $1 tables won't work anymore in most places. And ones that do offer them will likely be dumps because they can't afford to offer anything else! When you lower the minimums, you run into the problem of players lowering their base wager, because they can! Most people don't go to a $2 table thinking, here let me bet $1000 at it! Not saying it doesn't happen, but $2 tables don't promote larger wagering.
