Livinnvegas
Livinnvegas
Joined: Sep 25, 2019
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 8
September 28th, 2019 at 7:23:58 PM permalink
Thank you SO much for the comp calculator!
MichaelBluejay
MichaelBluejay
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
  • Threads: 44
  • Posts: 1009
Thanks for this post from:
Livinnvegas
September 28th, 2019 at 7:34:37 PM permalink
Thanks, I aim to please! And now you know that it doesn't apply to cigarettes. :)

Much of what the host told you flies in the face of the general understanding about how the comp system works. I'm sure we're all very interested in updates of your experience to see how this plays out.
Livinnvegas
Livinnvegas
Joined: Sep 25, 2019
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 8
September 28th, 2019 at 7:50:04 PM permalink
Thank you for your input-it is appreciated. I have only recently started smoking and for my previous 38 years I had never smoked in my life. So because of that I carry with me the respect of non-smokers stuck in that environment. One day-when Im ready-I will be a non smoker again, but until then-there's no talking me out of it. There are some things that I do do in respect to non-smokers and I have no idea if I am amount the many who do this or amount the few. Either way it makes no difference-because even if I am the Only one I'll still continue doing these things. Also, I never waiver from these personal rules even if the machine I want to play is the only one in that casino or if there is any benefit for me (financially) to play that particular machine over another. I never sit in the middle of row (or bank) of machines so that whoever is currently sitting there or may want to sit there at some point has to endure my smoking. When I do sit down to play I always sit on the end of that row. I also look at the way my smoke is blowing because of the vents so that my smoke is not naturally blowing in anyone's direction and if it is then I will move to another machine. If it is not-I also hold my ciggerette above my head and when I exhale I blow it towards the ceiling. Which yes, I realize looks idiotic to people and is not the most comfortable thing for myself-but I'm not there to look pretty so I don't care. I do not see a lot of players do that so I may just have unfortunately given away who I am if anyone is reading this. The last thing I do-before I even light up-is ask the person next to me if they mind if I smoke. If they do then I simply go to another machine. I do all those things automatically, I never mention or draw attention to any of them to the players around me because I don't believe they should be made to feel they need to move because it may be uncomfortable for me. I don't consider it highly uncomfortable or an inconvenience, but I DO consider my smoking to be very uncomfortable and inconvenient to others. I know it does not help that I am adding to the smoke in the casino but I'm hoping by doing these things (for someone who has told me its ok for ne to smoke next to them) I do make it a little more comfortable for a non-smoker to sit next to me.
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1540
Thanks for this post from:
Livinnvegas
September 28th, 2019 at 8:14:43 PM permalink
Quote: MichaelBluejay

The thing about the doom & gloom predicted by opponents of regulation is that it never happens. Safety features for cars were supposedly going to make them really expensive. Ditto for improved fuel economy. Same deal for energy standards for refrigerators. And when Austin passed a smoking ban for bars, that was supposedly gonna be the end of live music here. (If you think there's a correlation between gamblers and smokers, have a gander at the bar demographic before the ban.)

But none of that happened. As fuel economy improved, cars got *cheaper*. Same deal for fridges. And the bar business in Austin is booming after the ban. Here's a quote from just one bar owner: "I’m very pleasantly surprised that the turnout that’s happened since then....[W]e deterred people from coming in because of the smoke. But because of the ban, it’s definitely increased our sales. I think that people who wouldn’t have come in are now coming in because it’s not smokey … I’ve been pleasantly surprised with the outcome of the smoking ban. It’s helped my businesses for sure." The nonsmoking nonprofit lists hundreds of gaming venues in the U.S. that are nonsmoking. There's enough patronage to keep them going.

So, when naysayers claim that consumer costs will explode or business will dry up because of increased regulation, all I have to say is, their track record on such predictions is pretty poor.



Casinos are already the most regulated establishments in America (not including Native American casinos and unregulated online casinos...), except for maybe banks. It would be hard for somebody to think normal casinos are under regulated.

A good anecdotal example in NJ, was the Revel it was opened to be a smoke free casino (the only in AC, granted briefly) , their profits were nonexistent, it quickly went back to 25% of the casino floor smoking (as all other casinos were). When other casinos have smoking, it puts at a huge disadvantage one if they do not. You can argue, that many other factors other than the non smoking contributed to its failure, but the revenue did change after unbanning smoking (granted not enough to save it)...

If going 100% non smoking was profitable, smoking would be banned overnight. Casino owners don't care about public satisfaction, they will do whatever increases their revenue.

Honestly, I think the NJ model of 25% smoking is a reasonable compromise. But, that rule only exists because of law, or else most casino would have well over 25%.

You can argue that regulators should do what is in the best health interest of the public and not worry about profits. But smoking is profitibale for casinos (or else the free market would have already banned it).

Smoking does seem to be good for casinos by all metrics that can be evaluated.
MichaelBluejay
MichaelBluejay
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
  • Threads: 44
  • Posts: 1009
September 28th, 2019 at 8:50:23 PM permalink
Quote: Gandler

A good anecdotal example in NJ, was the Revel...

(1) Then why would you ignore all the *other* examples the show the opposite result? As I said, there are literally *hundreds* of other gaming establishments in the U.S. without smoking which are *not* going bankrupt. Note that after Iowa banned smoking in casinos, bars, and restaurants, there's no evidence that establishments have suffered, an "in fact the number of licenses for establishments that sell alcohol has increased and the state has experienced continued growth". (source) My post offered evidence of even more establishments. So, I'll see your lone Revel and raise you by Several Hundred Others.

(2) You haven't noticed all the SMOKING casinos in Atlantic City that went bankrupt too? Revel example proves nothing.

(3) Lots of other factors contributed to Revel's failure. "The enormous cost of the property, its vast size and its peculiar configuration—patrons had to ride a steep escalator from the lobby to get to the casino, the 57-story hotel and the restaurants—made it difficult to turn a profit." (source) They also had no buffet, no player's club, and no bus trips to/from the casino. We could go on and on and on. Pinning the Revel's failure on the non-smoking policy isn't convincing.


Quote: Gandler

When other casinos have smoking, it puts at a huge disadvantage one if they do not.

(1) Could be exactly the opposite: the one that goes smoke-free gets a competitive advantage. After all, there are *way* more non-smokers than smokers.

(2) When smoking is banned by legislation, then all casinos are on a level playing field.

Quote: Gandler

...the revenue did change after unbanning smoking...

What's your evidence for that? I searched pretty hard but I couldn't find it. And were any *other* changes implemented at the same time that you didn't mention?

Quote: Gandler

If going 100% non smoking was profitable, smoking would be banned overnight....smoking is profitibale for casinos (or else the free market would have already banned it).

Again, you can argue this only if you ignore the evidence I already provided. e.g., Austin bars fought tooth and nail against the smoking ban, but have been doing *better* since the ban. If what you say is true, why did the free market fail to ban smoking in that case?
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1540
September 28th, 2019 at 9:08:14 PM permalink
Quote: MichaelBluejay

(1) Then why would you ignore all the *other* examples the show the opposite result? As I said, there are literally *hundreds* of other gaming establishments in the U.S. without smoking which are *not* going bankrupt. Note that after Iowa banned smoking in casinos, bars, and restaurants, there's no evidence that establishments have suffered, an "in fact the number of licenses for establishments that sell alcohol has increased and the state has experienced continued growth". (source) My post offered evidence of even more establishments. So, I'll see your lone Revel and raise you by Several Hundred Others.

(2) You haven't noticed all the SMOKING casinos in Atlantic City that went bankrupt too? Revel example proves nothing.

(3) Lots of other factors contributed to Revel's failure. "The enormous cost of the property, its vast size and its peculiar configuration—patrons had to ride a steep escalator from the lobby to get to the casino, the 57-story hotel and the restaurants—made it difficult to turn a profit." (source) They also had no buffet, no player's club, and no bus trips to/from the casino. We could go on and on and on. Pinning the Revel's failure on the non-smoking policy isn't convincing.


(1) Could be exactly the opposite: the one that goes smoke-free gets a competitive advantage. After all, there are *way* more non-smokers than smokers.

(2) When smoking is banned by legislation, then all casinos are on a level playing field.

What's your evidence for that? I searched pretty hard but I couldn't find it. And were any *other* changes implemented at the same time that you didn't mention?

Again, you can argue this only if you ignore the evidence I already provided. e.g., Austin bars fought tooth and nail against the smoking ban, but have been doing *better* since the ban. If what you say is true, why did the free market fail to ban smoking in that case?



All of your examples are government forced smoking bans, not free-market driven smoking bans...

Sure, if the government bans smoking across all businesses in a certain industry (such as bars), it will not impact anything.

However, if smoking is still legal in a certain market, many businesses will choose to have smoking areas (some will not), because it will allow more customers....

Again, you are assuming casinos are not revenue driven, if full smoking bans worked, they would already be everywhere...

All examples, such as Revel, in states where smoking is legal, show that a single casinos trying to go 100% non smoking does not work and gets scaled back.

I don't know anything about local politics in Austin, but did revenue increase after the ban? If not your point is irrelevant.... Before and after the ban all bars were probably roughly the same on average....

Edit: Revel I mentioned because it was marketed as a non smoking casino before launch.... It quickly backpedaled when revenue did not meet par... Yes, lots of casinos went under, but Revel backpedaled while still in operation because they knew it was a chance to change their revenue....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2014/12/01/revel-without-a-cause-the-spectacular-fall-of-atlantic-citys-biggest-casino/amp/

'Sadly, Revel fell far short of its hyped earning expectations, and in fact never turned a profit. On March 13, 2013 DeSanctis resigned. Twelve days later Revel filed for bankruptcy, claiming that its value has dropped from $2.4 billion to $450 million. Weighed down by $1.5 billion in debt, owner Revel AC Inc. filed a reorganization plan that included adding high-end slots, a new and less-expensive food court, a private VIP players’ lounge, and a smoking area. But 14 months later, Revel filed for Chapter 11 again.'

It was pretty well known that adding smoking areas would increase revenue....
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 258
  • Posts: 8407
September 28th, 2019 at 9:41:37 PM permalink
Quote: Gandler

Quote: MichaelBluejay

(1) Then why would you ignore all the *other* examples the show the opposite result? As I said, there are literally *hundreds* of other gaming establishments in the U.S. without smoking which are *not* going bankrupt. Note that after Iowa banned smoking in casinos, bars, and restaurants, there's no evidence that establishments have suffered, an "in fact the number of licenses for establishments that sell alcohol has increased and the state has experienced continued growth". (source) My post offered evidence of even more establishments. So, I'll see your lone Revel and raise you by Several Hundred Others.

(2) You haven't noticed all the SMOKING casinos in Atlantic City that went bankrupt too? Revel example proves nothing.

(3) Lots of other factors contributed to Revel's failure. "The enormous cost of the property, its vast size and its peculiar configuration—patrons had to ride a steep escalator from the lobby to get to the casino, the 57-story hotel and the restaurants—made it difficult to turn a profit." (source) They also had no buffet, no player's club, and no bus trips to/from the casino. We could go on and on and on. Pinning the Revel's failure on the non-smoking policy isn't convincing.


(1) Could be exactly the opposite: the one that goes smoke-free gets a competitive advantage. After all, there are *way* more non-smokers than smokers.

(2) When smoking is banned by legislation, then all casinos are on a level playing field.

What's your evidence for that? I searched pretty hard but I couldn't find it. And were any *other* changes implemented at the same time that you didn't mention?

Again, you can argue this only if you ignore the evidence I already provided. e.g., Austin bars fought tooth and nail against the smoking ban, but have been doing *better* since the ban. If what you say is true, why did the free market fail to ban smoking in that case?



All of your examples are government forced smoking bans, not free-market driven smoking bans...

Sure, if the government bans smoking across all businesses in a certain industry (such as bars), it will not impact anything.

However, if smoking is still legal in a certain market, many businesses will choose to have smoking areas (some will not), because it will allow more customers....

Again, you are assuming casinos are not revenue driven, if full smoking bans worked, they would already be everywhere...

All examples, such as Revel, in states where smoking is legal, show that a single casinos trying to go 100% non smoking does not work and gets scaled back.

I don't know anything about local politics in Austin, but did revenue increase after the ban? If not your point is irrelevant.... Before and after the ban all bars were probably roughly the same on average....

Edit: Revel I mentioned because it was marketed as a non smoking casino before launch.... It quickly backpedaled when revenue did not meet par... Yes, lots of casinos went under, but Revel backpedaled while still in operation because they knew it was a chance to change their revenue....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2014/12/01/revel-without-a-cause-the-spectacular-fall-of-atlantic-citys-biggest-casino/amp/

'Sadly, Revel fell far short of its hyped earning expectations, and in fact never turned a profit. On March 13, 2013 DeSanctis resigned. Twelve days later Revel filed for bankruptcy, claiming that its value has dropped from $2.4 billion to $450 million. Weighed down by $1.5 billion in debt, owner Revel AC Inc. filed a reorganization plan that included adding high-end slots, a new and less-expensive food court, a private VIP players’ lounge, and a smoking area. But 14 months later, Revel filed for Chapter 11 again.'

It was pretty well known that adding smoking areas would increase revenue....



But the article says they filed for chapter 11 again after 14 months of adding the smoking section

So it didn't add revenue?
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1540
September 28th, 2019 at 9:45:46 PM permalink
Quote: darkoz

Quote: Gandler

Quote: MichaelBluejay

(1) Then why would you ignore all the *other* examples the show the opposite result? As I said, there are literally *hundreds* of other gaming establishments in the U.S. without smoking which are *not* going bankrupt. Note that after Iowa banned smoking in casinos, bars, and restaurants, there's no evidence that establishments have suffered, an "in fact the number of licenses for establishments that sell alcohol has increased and the state has experienced continued growth". (source) My post offered evidence of even more establishments. So, I'll see your lone Revel and raise you by Several Hundred Others.

(2) You haven't noticed all the SMOKING casinos in Atlantic City that went bankrupt too? Revel example proves nothing.

(3) Lots of other factors contributed to Revel's failure. "The enormous cost of the property, its vast size and its peculiar configuration—patrons had to ride a steep escalator from the lobby to get to the casino, the 57-story hotel and the restaurants—made it difficult to turn a profit." (source) They also had no buffet, no player's club, and no bus trips to/from the casino. We could go on and on and on. Pinning the Revel's failure on the non-smoking policy isn't convincing.


(1) Could be exactly the opposite: the one that goes smoke-free gets a competitive advantage. After all, there are *way* more non-smokers than smokers.

(2) When smoking is banned by legislation, then all casinos are on a level playing field.

What's your evidence for that? I searched pretty hard but I couldn't find it. And were any *other* changes implemented at the same time that you didn't mention?

Again, you can argue this only if you ignore the evidence I already provided. e.g., Austin bars fought tooth and nail against the smoking ban, but have been doing *better* since the ban. If what you say is true, why did the free market fail to ban smoking in that case?



All of your examples are government forced smoking bans, not free-market driven smoking bans...

Sure, if the government bans smoking across all businesses in a certain industry (such as bars), it will not impact anything.

However, if smoking is still legal in a certain market, many businesses will choose to have smoking areas (some will not), because it will allow more customers....

Again, you are assuming casinos are not revenue driven, if full smoking bans worked, they would already be everywhere...

All examples, such as Revel, in states where smoking is legal, show that a single casinos trying to go 100% non smoking does not work and gets scaled back.

I don't know anything about local politics in Austin, but did revenue increase after the ban? If not your point is irrelevant.... Before and after the ban all bars were probably roughly the same on average....

Edit: Revel I mentioned because it was marketed as a non smoking casino before launch.... It quickly backpedaled when revenue did not meet par... Yes, lots of casinos went under, but Revel backpedaled while still in operation because they knew it was a chance to change their revenue....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2014/12/01/revel-without-a-cause-the-spectacular-fall-of-atlantic-citys-biggest-casino/amp/

'Sadly, Revel fell far short of its hyped earning expectations, and in fact never turned a profit. On March 13, 2013 DeSanctis resigned. Twelve days later Revel filed for bankruptcy, claiming that its value has dropped from $2.4 billion to $450 million. Weighed down by $1.5 billion in debt, owner Revel AC Inc. filed a reorganization plan that included adding high-end slots, a new and less-expensive food court, a private VIP players’ lounge, and a smoking area. But 14 months later, Revel filed for Chapter 11 again.'

It was pretty well known that adding smoking areas would increase revenue....



But the article says they filed for chapter 11 again after adding the smoking section

So it didn't add revenue?



It did, along with their "gambler wanted" campaign, but not enough to save the casino. They were so far in the hole a small increase in revenue hardly mattered at that point...

But, the point is, smoking bans do not work when other casinos allow smoking at least in part, you will drive away customers.

Again, all examples show that smoking bans do not work, if they did every casino would have been doing it long ago without government force....
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 258
  • Posts: 8407
September 28th, 2019 at 9:58:20 PM permalink
Quote: Gandler

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Gandler

Quote: MichaelBluejay

(1) Then why would you ignore all the *other* examples the show the opposite result? As I said, there are literally *hundreds* of other gaming establishments in the U.S. without smoking which are *not* going bankrupt. Note that after Iowa banned smoking in casinos, bars, and restaurants, there's no evidence that establishments have suffered, an "in fact the number of licenses for establishments that sell alcohol has increased and the state has experienced continued growth". (source) My post offered evidence of even more establishments. So, I'll see your lone Revel and raise you by Several Hundred Others.

(2) You haven't noticed all the SMOKING casinos in Atlantic City that went bankrupt too? Revel example proves nothing.

(3) Lots of other factors contributed to Revel's failure. "The enormous cost of the property, its vast size and its peculiar configuration—patrons had to ride a steep escalator from the lobby to get to the casino, the 57-story hotel and the restaurants—made it difficult to turn a profit." (source) They also had no buffet, no player's club, and no bus trips to/from the casino. We could go on and on and on. Pinning the Revel's failure on the non-smoking policy isn't convincing.


(1) Could be exactly the opposite: the one that goes smoke-free gets a competitive advantage. After all, there are *way* more non-smokers than smokers.

(2) When smoking is banned by legislation, then all casinos are on a level playing field.

What's your evidence for that? I searched pretty hard but I couldn't find it. And were any *other* changes implemented at the same time that you didn't mention?

Again, you can argue this only if you ignore the evidence I already provided. e.g., Austin bars fought tooth and nail against the smoking ban, but have been doing *better* since the ban. If what you say is true, why did the free market fail to ban smoking in that case?



All of your examples are government forced smoking bans, not free-market driven smoking bans...

Sure, if the government bans smoking across all businesses in a certain industry (such as bars), it will not impact anything.

However, if smoking is still legal in a certain market, many businesses will choose to have smoking areas (some will not), because it will allow more customers....

Again, you are assuming casinos are not revenue driven, if full smoking bans worked, they would already be everywhere...

All examples, such as Revel, in states where smoking is legal, show that a single casinos trying to go 100% non smoking does not work and gets scaled back.

I don't know anything about local politics in Austin, but did revenue increase after the ban? If not your point is irrelevant.... Before and after the ban all bars were probably roughly the same on average....

Edit: Revel I mentioned because it was marketed as a non smoking casino before launch.... It quickly backpedaled when revenue did not meet par... Yes, lots of casinos went under, but Revel backpedaled while still in operation because they knew it was a chance to change their revenue....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2014/12/01/revel-without-a-cause-the-spectacular-fall-of-atlantic-citys-biggest-casino/amp/

'Sadly, Revel fell far short of its hyped earning expectations, and in fact never turned a profit. On March 13, 2013 DeSanctis resigned. Twelve days later Revel filed for bankruptcy, claiming that its value has dropped from $2.4 billion to $450 million. Weighed down by $1.5 billion in debt, owner Revel AC Inc. filed a reorganization plan that included adding high-end slots, a new and less-expensive food court, a private VIP players’ lounge, and a smoking area. But 14 months later, Revel filed for Chapter 11 again.'

It was pretty well known that adding smoking areas would increase revenue....



But the article says they filed for chapter 11 again after adding the smoking section

So it didn't add revenue?



It did, along with their "gambler wanted" campaign, but not enough to save the casino. They were so far in the hole a small increase in revenue hardly mattered at that point...

But, the point is, smoking bans do not work when other casinos allow smoking at least in part, you will drive away customers.

Again, all examples show that smoking bans do not work, if they did every casino would have been doing it long ago without government force....



I understand your argument. Without government force one casino would be buried if it banned smoking while others allowed it.

However, to say revenue would be significantly lower without smoking would mean jurisdictions where government disallows smoking would never be able to generate anything comparable either.

With smoking banned indoors everywhere (NYS for example) the casinos do quite well, such as aqueduct.

If NJ and Vegas etc passed similar laws, then the casinos would not suffer.

There are plenty of things the government forces on us for our own protection. Many of those things do lower profits but I dont see smoking as one that does.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1540
September 28th, 2019 at 10:16:30 PM permalink
Quote: darkoz

Quote: Gandler

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Gandler

Quote: MichaelBluejay

(1) Then why would you ignore all the *other* examples the show the opposite result? As I said, there are literally *hundreds* of other gaming establishments in the U.S. without smoking which are *not* going bankrupt. Note that after Iowa banned smoking in casinos, bars, and restaurants, there's no evidence that establishments have suffered, an "in fact the number of licenses for establishments that sell alcohol has increased and the state has experienced continued growth". (source) My post offered evidence of even more establishments. So, I'll see your lone Revel and raise you by Several Hundred Others.

(2) You haven't noticed all the SMOKING casinos in Atlantic City that went bankrupt too? Revel example proves nothing.

(3) Lots of other factors contributed to Revel's failure. "The enormous cost of the property, its vast size and its peculiar configuration—patrons had to ride a steep escalator from the lobby to get to the casino, the 57-story hotel and the restaurants—made it difficult to turn a profit." (source) They also had no buffet, no player's club, and no bus trips to/from the casino. We could go on and on and on. Pinning the Revel's failure on the non-smoking policy isn't convincing.


(1) Could be exactly the opposite: the one that goes smoke-free gets a competitive advantage. After all, there are *way* more non-smokers than smokers.

(2) When smoking is banned by legislation, then all casinos are on a level playing field.

What's your evidence for that? I searched pretty hard but I couldn't find it. And were any *other* changes implemented at the same time that you didn't mention?

Again, you can argue this only if you ignore the evidence I already provided. e.g., Austin bars fought tooth and nail against the smoking ban, but have been doing *better* since the ban. If what you say is true, why did the free market fail to ban smoking in that case?



All of your examples are government forced smoking bans, not free-market driven smoking bans...

Sure, if the government bans smoking across all businesses in a certain industry (such as bars), it will not impact anything.

However, if smoking is still legal in a certain market, many businesses will choose to have smoking areas (some will not), because it will allow more customers....

Again, you are assuming casinos are not revenue driven, if full smoking bans worked, they would already be everywhere...

All examples, such as Revel, in states where smoking is legal, show that a single casinos trying to go 100% non smoking does not work and gets scaled back.

I don't know anything about local politics in Austin, but did revenue increase after the ban? If not your point is irrelevant.... Before and after the ban all bars were probably roughly the same on average....

Edit: Revel I mentioned because it was marketed as a non smoking casino before launch.... It quickly backpedaled when revenue did not meet par... Yes, lots of casinos went under, but Revel backpedaled while still in operation because they knew it was a chance to change their revenue....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2014/12/01/revel-without-a-cause-the-spectacular-fall-of-atlantic-citys-biggest-casino/amp/

'Sadly, Revel fell far short of its hyped earning expectations, and in fact never turned a profit. On March 13, 2013 DeSanctis resigned. Twelve days later Revel filed for bankruptcy, claiming that its value has dropped from $2.4 billion to $450 million. Weighed down by $1.5 billion in debt, owner Revel AC Inc. filed a reorganization plan that included adding high-end slots, a new and less-expensive food court, a private VIP players’ lounge, and a smoking area. But 14 months later, Revel filed for Chapter 11 again.'

It was pretty well known that adding smoking areas would increase revenue....



But the article says they filed for chapter 11 again after adding the smoking section

So it didn't add revenue?



It did, along with their "gambler wanted" campaign, but not enough to save the casino. They were so far in the hole a small increase in revenue hardly mattered at that point...

But, the point is, smoking bans do not work when other casinos allow smoking at least in part, you will drive away customers.

Again, all examples show that smoking bans do not work, if they did every casino would have been doing it long ago without government force....



I understand your argument. Without government force one casino would be buried if it banned smoking while others allowed it.

However, to say revenue would be significantly lower without smoking would mean jurisdictions where government disallows smoking would never be able to generate anything comparable either.

With smoking banned indoors everywhere (NYS for example) the casinos do quite well, such as aqueduct.

If NJ and Vegas etc passed similar laws, then the casinos would not suffer.

There are plenty of things the government forces on us for our own protection. Many of those things do lower profits but I dont see smoking as one that does.



Well NV already has the most profitable and popular casinos within the U.S. and has the least restrictive smoking laws in gaming establishments of any non Native American land/state (you can smoke pretty much anywhere in casinos, not restricted to certain percentages of the gaming floor).

If you want to make the argument about health that is one thing. But pretending it is about increasing profits, it's not, if it did, casinos would already be throwing smokers to the curb.... Casinos spend millions to do everything they can to make players feel more welcome and spend more money, trust me, if there was an argument for banning smoking from a revenue standpoint, casinos would have already experimented with it..... Casinos are specialists in endless psychological tricks to make everyone spend more, if banning smoking was one of those tricks, it would be in place....

  • Jump to: