David G. Schwartz, Do you agree with his theory

David G. Schwartz is a writer, historian, and Director of the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada Las Vegas. Schwartz’s areas of specialty include the history of gambling, casino surveillance and security, gaming and technology, and related issues. Born and raised in Atlantic City, New Jersey, Schwartz earned his bachelor’s degree (a double major in anthropology and history) as well as his master’s degree from the University of Pennsylvania before seeking his doctorate in US History from UCLA.

In the Las Vegas Press he states that Numbers show casinos aren't being tight-fisted.

In the article he states that while win percent has increased in slots, the average table hold has declined significantly over two decades. He blames the slots on migration to penny slots, but he argues that the decline in win percent on the table games argues differently.

I disagree. Personally, I think all it means is that table minimums have increased significantly over the last two decades. With low table minimums people would simply play all day and grind their money away. It is possible that the average HA per bet has gone up in the last 20 years for table games, while the win percent has gone down, simply because people get nervous about the minimums when their bankroll gets low. When minimums were a quarter people would sit at tables all day long.

The only true drop in HA that I am aware of is the increase in free odds in craps. It is my understanding that two decades ago odds of 1X were more of the norm. However, consistent P/L players in craps represents a fairly small percentage of total table game play.

In 1989 before the Mirage opened visitation was at about 18M per year, less than half of what it is now. But more visitors were gamblers.

I emphasize primarily, because all of these factors could make some contribution to the change in win percent.

Do you think that drop in win percent is primarily because of:
(a) Casinos being less tight fisted (i.e. lower house averages like more free odds)
(b) The steady increase in table minimums preventing more people from grinding their money away
(c) Player choice of games (i.e. shift from double zero roulette to baccarat)
(d) Websites and greater dissemination of basic strategy in blackjack
(e) Other (please post your theory)

My gut tells me that it's a combination of (b) and (d). Blackjack used to be the game to play, and now that table minimums are going higher, the average visitor just isn't going to play $25 a hand, when he remembers he could play for $5-10 a decade ago. When you factor in "crapjack" 6:5 or the restrictions on doubling that casinos have added in, blackjack is by no means the worst game in the casino, but I believe the "true" gamblers are spending their money elsewhere.

Blackjack players in general seem to be more knowledgeable (myself included) regarding basic strategy and such, so that in and of itself would drive down the hold for the casino.

I think you would have to put some strict comparisons in to play to really know what's going on - i.e. - # of tables, amount of $$ bet and hold for both time periods to really get an idea of whether the casinos are taking more or less money.

-B

Instead of B and D,
I'd vote: D and B.

D is the primary factor, (Greater skill )
B is the secondary fator. (Higher minimum bets)
The casinos would love to be tight fisted if they can find a way.

Thorp's Beat The Dealer did wonders for increasing the number of players but it also wised them up!
Hollywood stars and half-naked show girls sure helped too.

The raw statistics about the table games are here.

Please vote in the poll as well as posting.

B) regarding table limits, i was speaking to a boxman at a craps table one night who was telling me there wasnt much action at $15 craps tables he manned. at a $10 table, players would place $12 on 6 and 8 all day long. on a $15 table, everyone was hesitant about placing them for $18 a piece.

My girlfriend was playing PaiGow Poker at a table this past weekend where the minimum was $10. She remembered the same table having a minimum of $5 about a month ago. The dealer told her that the casino made the decision to up the minimum to $10, and it would never be lowered back down to $5, ever, for any reason, because it wasn't profitable enough for the casino to run the game at $5. The dealer said that she wouldn't be surprised if that became the norm for all casinos.

One theory I'd like to submit is the increase in avenues to spend money in Las Vegas. In the past 20 years that we are talking about, casinos have realized they can make money on food, hotel, entertainment, etc. Where casinos used to make their money primarily on the gaming floor, it is now spread more evenly among other departments. Beyond looking at financials from publicly traded companies, this is shown in increased room rates, steak dinners, and (most egregiously in my opinion) nightclubs. Gambling has become but a bit player in an average person’s Vegas trip. Players simply aren't spending as much time at the tables, therefore table hold is down.

I’m still young and was not around for “The Good Old Days” so I cannot say for sure that it used to be all about gambling. Perhaps some more experience posters can submit evidence for or against this theory?

Quote: Frenchy

I was not around for “The Good Old Days” so I cannot say for sure that it used to be all about gambling.

That's okay. Even those of us who were around for The Good Old Days can't really be certain of the various trends. The various Hollywood headliners packed people into shows, but the shows were not particularly expensive. Hotel rooms were cheap. Meals were cheap if you had to pay for them and often free. There did appear to be a greater emphasis on gambling and there was no corporate desire to consider anything but the casino as a revenue center. It was not simply that shrimp cocktails were a signature item that became a loss leader. Everything was pretty much a loss leader. If you walked into a casino an attractive young lady offered you a drink. You did not have to select an area of the casino and then gamble there before the drink offer arrived. The moment you walked in, generosity was the rule.

Many casinos focused on people who could demonstrate an out of town address and there were still various marketing strategies but the whole town was focused largely on the gaming floor and little else.

Corporate involvement and the arrival of MBAs created a generation of bean counters who focused on non-gaming revenue sources and non-Vegas casinos.

When you look at the table games being offered in a typical vegas strip casino, the $5 blackjack game is practically gone, and the $10 game on a weekend night is rare.

You see a decrease overall in the number of 21 games offered and an increase in "carnival games" (Three Card, Four Card, Caribbean, Crazy 4 Poker, Casino War, variations of Texas Hold Em) which have larger house advantages. 6:5 21 is everywhere, so it's more difficult to play a low HA game for cheap.

You have to take a look at the class of gambler who is creating those win percentages. Baccarat is highly variable because it is a game played by whales, asian whales.

And that's my point. In the 2000s with the incredible acceptance of gambling in the United States as being a morally acceptable form of entertainment, the demographic of the typical gambler has changed.

On the low end, the table games have become more recreational in nature. People are playing with less money in general, so they make choices of what games to play and quickly remove themselves from a losing session. There are more Asians than ever coming to the strip and they generally play more wisely. There are less gambling addicts coming to the strip because they can spend all of their money at their new local casino without having to pay for hotels and travel. So what you have in Vegas are, in general, smarter gamblers who leave when down, with less money overall to spend. They are more disciplined.

I just spent July 4th in Las Vegas. My girlfriend is a very small-time gambler. We walked all over the place looking for a $5 Pai Gow table so she could sit and grind away her money. We mostly saw $25 table, which she won't even touch. We also saw quite a few $10 tables, which she would sometimes try out. We did find $5 tables, but it was a difficult search.

I think it's a double-edged sword, however. Again, she is a small-time gambler, usually sitting at a Pai Gow table with about $40. So, on the one hand, it's not like her money is a huge deal to the casino. On the other hand, I've noticed that lower limit tables tend to be more social tables. Watch a $5 blackjack table versus a $100 blackjack table as an example. At the lower limits, people aren't as likely to expect you to be an expert, and are there just to kill time, get some drinks, and have some fun. While these people also aren't losing as much money, or not giving as much theoretical loss to the casino, they're probably also more likely to sit for long periods of time, because they are having fun and being social.

On a side note, I was playing crap/s (until the Wizard definitely decides which is more appropriate, I will be utilizing crap/s to designate crap and craps) as at the Stratosphere. They had 3 tables, one was $10, the other 2 was $5. One $5 table was full, the other $5 table about half full. I went up to the half full $5 table and started playing. About 3 shooters into the game, the pit boss came over and told everybody that the next shooter, the table would go up to $10, no grandfathering. I expressed my complaint about this, but was given the shoulder. Which is fine, it's their establishment, and they can do whatever they like. I did not wait for the next shooter, but rather pushed in my chips and asked to color out. The stick man expressed his apologies to me for the raising of the limit, and I just commented, "It's rather too bad for you guys, since I'm the only one at the table tipping, and now I'm leaving." Both the stick and my dealer nodded in a sad and acknowledging way. I colored up and left, and stood over by the (still full) $5 table, looking for a spot, and thus I saw my old table when the shooter did 7-out (probably about 2 rolls later). Everyone, except for one person, at the table colored up and left.

When all the tables are full, I somewhat see that casinos advantage in raising the table minimum. But when the table is only half-full, and your other larger limit table is not even full, I'm not sure I see the point. Again, I guess I understand that my small betting is small potatoes to the casino, and they'd rather get some bigger fish in there to help pay the bills. But I would also think that a little bit is better than nothing.

Quote: konceptum

I understand that my small betting is small potatoes to the casino, and they'd rather get some bigger fish in there to help pay the bills. But I would also think that a little bit is better than nothing.

Not really. They would much rather raise the limits and get real action going. An empty table to them is not much different than the five dollar action that was going on. They have the new sign up and it will only take one player to wander by and buy in for them to feel the action they took was justified.

Quote: konceptum

When all the tables are full, I somewhat see that casinos advantage in raising the table minimum. But when the table is only half-full, and your other larger limit table is not even full, I'm not sure I see the point. Again, I guess I understand that my small betting is small potatoes to the casino, and they'd rather get some bigger fish in there to help pay the bills. But I would also think that a little bit is better than nothing.

I see a lot of empty tables, some with dealers standing idly by, and some just not being used. I would think that the empty tables would be an opportunity to entice newbies into table games.

I wonder how much the new tables in Pennsylvania will earn? I imagine record numbers since there will be so few at first and they will be a novelty. I am betting that they may earn $10K per day.

Quote: konceptum

When all the tables are full, I somewhat see that casinos advantage in raising the table minimum. But when the table is only half-full, and your other larger limit table is not even full, I'm not sure I see the point. Again, I guess I understand that my small betting is small potatoes to the casino, and they'd rather get some bigger fish in there to help pay the bills. But I would also think that a little bit is better than nothing.

Two observations:

1) How much longer did you stay nearby? Perhaps after you left more people made their way to the $10 table and played there, which makes up for having the table empty a little bit.

2) Perhaps they wanted to clear the table and send the dealers home early.

And of course perhaps they misscalculated.

Quote: Nareed

1) How much longer did you stay nearby? Perhaps after you left more people made their way to the $10 table and played there, which makes up for having the table empty a little bit.

Very possible. I did not stick around for more than, oh about 20 minutes or so. I couldn't get a spot at the other $5 table, and so I just went to another casino.

One other thing I forgot to mention in the scenario. When I had walked up to the table, the box man was talking to 3 guys (who may or may not have been Oriental) and explaining the game of crap/s to them. At the time I made my buy-in, all 3 of them had bought in as well. One for $100, and the other two for $20 each. One of the guys commented that he still wasn't quite sure that he understood the game. Both the box and the dealer said that they would pick it up pretty quickly. Of course, these 3 guys also left when the table was raised to $10 minimum.