[dogromeo]

I do love my dog, but I don't ... "love" ... my dog

Originally Posted by BBMW

No. They make more money the current way.

Maybe, but by offering severely unfavorable gaming odds, they reinforce the perception that casinos are disreputable enterprises preying on the desperate and degenerate.

I have no idea whether it's possible, but imagine the growth potential if the industry could become truly mainstream. I think better "value" would be part of that formula.

[BBMW]

They could offer all the value possible while trying to stay marginally profitable. The same roundheads who complain about them now would still complain about them. Some of the locals places try this, and the locals market is much more value oriented. The ones that push this the hardest don't seem to get the most business.

I see this in other businesses. The companies that offer less value, but a more "luxury" experience seem to do best. They have higher margins, and can usually squeeze the value businesses out.

Originally Posted by dogromeo

I do love my dog, but I don't ... "love" ... my dog


Maybe, but by offering severely unfavorable gaming odds, they reinforce the perception that casinos are disreputable enterprises preying on the desperate and degenerate.

I have no idea whether it's possible, but imagine the growth potential if the industry could become truly mainstream. I think better "value" would be part of that formula.

[stevek64]

Originally Posted by BBMW

No. They make more money the current way.

If there's a problem with the new school, it's that they saw how much it made, and used that as an excuse to run up too much debt to expand too quickly, assuming the economy would expand forever. But that doesn't mean that going back to the 70's methods would be more successful. They weren't.

Your statements are contradictory. The "current way" is many of the big players take on lots of debt. Look at the balance sheets of many of the big players. Imho that's not a sustainable or smart way to run a successful business. Their "profits", if there are any, simply go to paying off large debt, often for a long period of time.

[ScoopLV]

Their "large debt" was the same problem as the 2005 housing bubble. People got greedy and overleveraged themselves. The casino execs were just as foolish as the person who found themselves badly underwater with a stated-income, interest-only loan.

If they hadn't overextended themselves, there would be no problem...

[stevek64]

I agree.

[Hemlock140]

I go there for a week every year for a business conference. It used to be held in various parts of the country, alternately east and west coast, until 2011. Since then due to the low cost and great entertainment opportunities, it's stayed in Las Vegas. The last 4 years have been at the Monte Carlo. Very few people attending gamble much, with conference sessions all day and events every evening. Last year I spent $20 on slots and won $140 in about an hour.
I think lotteries and especially power ball, along with online gambling has taken away the appeal of Las Vegas casinos.

[Charles22]

Didn't read the thread. Vegas is a parasite and sucks off the healthy blood. When the economy is back they'll be waiting to skim some more off the top.

[BBMW]

Two separate issues.

The first was changing the business plan from keeping everything cheap or comped to keep the gamblers gambling, to make every department turn a profit. This worked.

The second , issue was that the casino companies saw that this change was making them money. So they decided to turmoil up the volume. They borrowed lots of money to expand. In the beginning, this worked also. Thus us when they built Bellagio, Luxor, Parus, etc. These were successful, so they kept doing, it. But then the economy collapsed, and the debt started strangling them.

Originally Posted by stevek64

Your statements are contradictory. The "current way" is many of the big players take on lots of debt. Look at the balance sheets of many of the big players. Imho that's not a sustainable or smart way to run a successful business. Their "profits", if there are any, simply go to paying off large debt, often for a long period of time.

[stevek64]

Originally Posted by BBMW

Two separate issues.

The first was changing the business plan from keeping everything cheap or comped to keep the gamblers gambling, to make every department turn a profit. This worked.

The second , issue was that the casino companies saw that this change was making them money. So they decided to turmoil up the volume. They borrowed lots of money to expand. In the beginning, this worked also. Thus us when they built Bellagio, Luxor, Parus, etc. These were successful, so they kept doing, it. But then the economy collapsed, and the debt started strangling them.

"to keep the gamblers gambling" has been a success, "this worked"? No, this didn't work. You might want to take a look at a chart of gambling revenue and profit over the last decade or so in Las Vegas. You would not be saying "it worked" if you saw this chart.

[ScoopLV]

Agreed.

Transitioning to "a food and beverage resort with entertainment and ancillary gambling" has prevailed over the prior "gambling resort with entertainment and ancillary food and beverage" model.

Anyone who cannot see this is living in the early 1960s. Not a bad spot, for those in the entitled segment of society.