The Economy & Las Vegas

Baby Boomers might be inclined to buy up some of those VEGAS houses IF Vegas offered more of the things Seniors value in a retirement community:
- Good Healthcare Facilities
- Good parks and recreation facilities..and golf
- Low crime rates

Take a ride a few hours north of Vegas to St George, Utah and you will see a community that is and will continue to benefit nicely from the Baby Boom retirement onslaught largely for the reasons I mention. And if they want to go to Vegas its not that far away.

Vegas has very good recreational facilities and decently available golf, when comparing to other similar target markets in the bustling desert sw. Agree on crime and healthcare, and the educational system is a burden. One problem with BB retirees is that they're not retiring like their parents. They are looking for more than a Sun City and weekly macrame lessons. They're opting for "regular" towns, even if they still chose to live within an enclave--though many are rejecting that. They want and need good mixed services, from jobs to schools, because those sustain the type of community in which they choose to live. For many, and we should see this trend grow, they're workirees, as well. There are two St. Geos, the retirement community St. Geo and the regular town St. Geo. We go up there frequently--great part of the region, that area is--and my gut tells me the latter is outpacing the former, even as/if more bluehairs move in.

And as for all that available cheap housing: It's still in Vegas. For everyone who visits occasionally and soils him/herself over the prospect of one day living the dream in Vegas, far more visitors who don't even think such a thing. We twice in the past made a serious run at moving to Vegas, but it being Vegas ultimately turned the table against it. Most visitors still look at Vegas as a place to play on occasion.

I have now located the most recent of the articles that I was mentioning about allowing players money to last longer. The article is called "Do slot machine paybacks really matter to players?" It was written by Liz Benston and is in the Las Vegas Sun (whose website is at https://www.lvsun.com ) in the Wednesday, May 11, 2011 edition, so check that out if you're interested.

And there is an actual direct link to this article from the thread that Westie originally started in the Gambling Message Board on May 11th. It is called the title of the above-mentioned article.

RecVPPlayer

If payouts mattered no one would go to the Strip, they'd of course go where the "smart" players go. What people say and what they do, as we all know, don't always mesh.

There are many people who have no idea whatsoever that payouts can differ a lot between the Strip and Downtown and/or Locals' Casinos (and so they don't know that they may very well be better off [for their money to possibly last longer] to go to Downtown and/or to Locals Casinos) and then there are players who don't care at all whether they Win or Lose.

So you may be assuming that people who go play on the Strip just automatically don't care whether they win or lose or how long they might be able to play on their money, but that is not necessarily the case.

Many people just don't know that they actually do have a better choice if they want to exercise it, and then there are those (who again) just don't care or who even if they do know that there is someplace out there that might make their money last longer there, then they either don't want to exert the effort to go there or they don't for some reason think that it's worth it to go elsewhere.

RecVPPlayer

Enjoying the banter, David.

Let me try to reprise my thoughts. I realize people are being quoted saying they want more gambling bang for the buck, which short of them actually learning anything means adding a point or two of EV to games. However, that EV kick just as easily could be attributed to the big event as opposed to a tiny scattering of enhanced happiness elsewhere in the pay scale; for the latter, VP is the obvious example of adding another tick for a flush or whatever. Though it could as easily come in the form of a tweak for the RF. So, in other words, people just won't see the benefit in the vast vast vast x 1,000 vasts majority of their playing time.

Also, back to what people are saying or telling reporters or what not, that they talk the talk does not mean they walk the walk. Period. Only a fool is gonna go on record saying, "Yep, let's increase that house edge," when posed the question. I've interviewed a lot of politicians over the years, for instance.

Lastly, as I said early on. People are LEMMINGS. Savvy LVAers are a huge minority in that vast sea of Vegas goers. And even here we have people who play slots and carnival games and VP at McHa$$ah'$ properties and the like, so they obviously are choosing worse plays though they have the knowledge to choose better plays. Again, winning/losing, people are gonna say they want the former but most play it at the latter. I've gone on record plenty of times saying I'll play 9/6 DDB at a place I like and where I want to get comps and be versus playing 10/6 DDB at a Binion's or a Riviera or a Plaza.

I believe your earlier premise was decreasing the house edge would help Vegas overall. It doesn't matter as Vegas goers have proven throughout the life of Vegas. Practice thumps theory.

Yes, Ken, I'm enjoying the banter here as well!

I do know that pay schedules aren't necessarily everything (most especially if other comps that the player may be receiving might end up making up for the shortfall), but the only way that I can think of for people's $ to be more likely to last longer than it has been lasting is for the casino to lower at least a bit more the house advantage (and/or the volatility) that the casinos are currently offering.

I do think that people might want to come back more often or play or stay for a longer time if their money could last longer in the casino.

RecVPPlayer

If a player were to lose their $700 over x hours of playing versus x+1 hours of playing, they're still out $700.

It would be big BUENO if the house edge was tweaked downward. But I remain unmoved that a tweak is going to cause anyone to make more trips or extend their trips. Having X $$$$ to lose is the typical turistas battle plan. Let's assume a monster tweak of four or five points. IF it comes distributed lower in the pay schedule it might keep 'em in that seat an extra hour or two a day, but they're still out the same amount of coin and I just don't see them adding more trips or extending stays as a result.

Your idea is logical but Vegas history says logic need not apply.

Still say the payback is irrelevent. Players are getting a longer play time out of their buck by the added animations and bonus screens without the house having to up the payback at all. And its nicely done over a long period. A player is not going to recognize he lost his $100 bankroll over 4 hours at one place with a higher payback while losing it in 3 hours and 50 minutes in another with a lower playback but more little cartoon action. But those 10 minutes add up to the bean counters when figured against dozens of machines times dozens of play sessions. The house sucks more money over a given time and the players unlikely to notice. They are playing these slots for fun, they had it and plus or minus 10 minutes will not matter. The fact of the matter is paybacks are down across the board yet take, on the penny slots, is up. Those are the facts

Ken, I think that the less and less time that a Player ends up having to play (most especially if they are going there to play in the casino more than do anything else), the less that they might want to come to or return there.

People also could end up (if not either extending the number of times that they come or extending the length of days that they will visit) either shortening the length of their trip or the amount of trips that they take there per year if they believe that their money is going to last them less time rather than more time. Less playing time can equal less gaming entertainment time for them to have.

It would be good if the powers-that-be in LV would loosen things up a bit (both return and volatility-wise) so that they could end up suffering somewhat less rather than more by them ending up having idle machines and people not wanting to come back as much or for as long a time even if it is the same amount of money that is likely to be lost!

I do think that this pig-headedness and closed mindedness on the part of the casinos that has been employed for such a long time has finally started taking its cumulative effect (toll) and now they are really starting to suffer! I think that they are now reaping what they have sewn.

But even if the people don't end up extending their trips (or keeping them the same as before), they could end up (as I mentioned earlier) shortening the number and/or the length of them or they could cut them out almost completely if not entirely their trips due to it not being the same (or as "fun" entertainment-wise) as before (when casinos offered a lower casino advantage for players to face).

I do think that there are some people who will think that if they are not having as much fun (that their money is not lasting as long) as before, that they might not want to come back as much as before.

And so the perception of the public should be taken into account by the powers-that-be in LV. If the powers-that-be don't want to do this, then they more have themselves to blame for what's happening! If they don't want to open their minds to this, then they get what they deserve (from the public doing what they are going to do which is to cut down coming to visit LV anywhere from somewhat to just about completely if not entirely)!

I do think that the casinos need the public more than the public needs the casinos. And so I think that if the casinos can't give the public more playing time for their money (even if the public is going to lose the money that they have allocated for play), then in the end they can really end up suffering!

RecVPPlayer