For Clark County, the three-month trend was down 0.7 percent and the Strip fell 3.07 percent. But downtown Las Vegas climbed 6.42 percent for the period.
The Strip, is suffering.
But is it really?
Occupancy rates remained at 91% (which is very high) and average daily room rate increased to $130.49.
So the Strip casinos are taking in less on gaming, despite tightening the odds, but are seemingly making more everywhere else. And if they're not, they cutting into their muscle to trim costs.
It's always viewed as "an bad thing" when gambling hold for the casinos drop. It's certainly a bad thing for the State of Nevada, whose budget relies mightily on this income, but is it a bad thing for the casinos?
Under some certain circumstances I would say no. And those circumstances appear to be happening.
1. Gambling as a percentage of earnings is dropping on the Strip, and this trend shows almost no sign of abating.
In fact, it appears to be gaining steam as casinos such as the LINQ announcing a bevvy of new, non-gaming entertainment options opening in the coming months. Most CET casinos are shrinking their gaming areas, and are installing areas for non-gaming activity.
2. People buy in to these entertainment options.
This is far from a sure thing (See: Level Up! at MGM Grand) but IF some of them are successful they provide the casinos with a more predictable income stream. If you spend $500 on Baccarat it's possible that you could leave out of there with almost $1000. If you spend $500 on Dinner, or a show it's 100% certain that you're leaving out of there -$500.
While it's true that Wall Street, and the Stock Market, have been described as a gamble, the main difference is the house is operating things in order for the players to (ideally) win.
Does this mean that gambling in Strip casinos is going the way of the Dodo? No, I don't think so. I think there will always be gambling in some form, because people still want to gamble, but it will be shoe-horned into smaller spaces and offer worse odds. It will also be geared for more 'immersive' social activities.
And the odds will suck.
I've written before that the Strip is no longer the place for the serious gambler, with a few exceptions the most notable of those being super-high roller types, of which you are probably not (nor am I) I think this becomes even more pronounced over the coming years as most of the good gambling migrates either Downtown, or (increasingly) way, way off Strip. I've already decided to swear off CET and MGM properties and, if you take your gambling seriously, you might want to consider that as well.
It's not like the Strip casinos are going to care much, they're too busy living in their own virtual reality.
I do not now, nor have I ever, had a host at a casino.
This is not for lack of trying. On a normal trip over two to three days I'll put in around $4000 in play per day. Unfortunately, for me, most of that is on video poker, a game where I can mitigate the house advantage through use of advanced strategy, and whose (still) relatively small house advantage damages my theoretical loss.
But I play a LOT of video poker.
On my one trip to Vegas this year, in February, I spent two days at Luxor and wagered $10,050.75 primarily on video poker. That's over $5000 per day. Even using MGM's horrid pay-tables (7.5 DDB) the house 'edge' 4.288%. That leaves me with a theoretical loss of $430.76 for the trip, or only around $215.00 per day. Hardly enough to grab any attention in a world where people are gambling what I gamble over two days in one hand.
Even IF I played other games, I dabble in slots, I still wouldn't make the mark. But playing quarter video poker is never going to grab the attention at a casino. I'm what's known as a mid-level low-advantage player and that puts me near the bottom of players Strip casinos care about.
They want people playing 6:5 blackjack at $25 a hand, ordering drink and playing for 4 or 5 hours per day. Those players can lose what I bet on a trip in a day. Most do, because most don't understand, or take the time to learn even basic strategy. I know blackjack at the basic strategy level, I just don't play it much because I'm averse to 6:5. (Which might seem odd, since I like VP and will play MGM pay tables despite them having a much higher house hold.)
But I KNOW VP better. And I understand how to play it at an advanced level. Do I make the occasional mistake? Sure, I'm human. And although Mr. Dancer thinks you shouldn't ever make a mistake (or have fun gambling) I tend to go down a different path. As long as I'm not making horrific mistakes, I'm OK with the occasional button flub.
But that still will never get me a host.
I know several slot players, who plat at, or slightly above, my level of play and they have hosts. Not on the Strip obviously, but they have them. And one day I might get one at one of the lower end casinos, where I'm OK playing, but for now I'm pretty happy living without them.
For example:
On my last trip to L'Auberge in Lake Charles (where I'm nowhere close to a host but I am an 'invited guest') I pretty much limited my play to quarter video poker (9/5 DDB or a house edge of 2.13%) and I did very well. In two days of playing I hit a Royal Flush ($1000), 4 Aces with a kicker ($500) 4 4's with a kicker ($200) and 4 4's with no kicker ($100) three additional times. I left the weekend with no host, but with $1100 in profit.
Now, odds are I'll dump those winnings back into a casino in June, when I head to New Orleans, or in August, when I head back to Vegas, but it gives me a bigger bankroll with which to play.
And I STILL won't have a host.
My point is that, when you from all these gambling experts about their "hosts" and all of the wonderful perks they receive remember this: They are gambling at a very high level to attain these give-aways and they will need to continue to gamble at that level to keep them. There are no grandfather clauses in Vegas casinos.
Your secret to success in gaming is as follows:
1. Find your comfort zone. Whatever money you gamble make sure that it's money you can afford to lose. Establish a gambling savings account and ONLY use that money. NEVER ATM at a casino except in emergencies.
2. Stay in your land: Don't be tempted to venture out. Discipline, whether it's through an envelope system or some other bankroll management system do whatever you can to ensure you both keep your winnings and don't dump them back in, and also that you don't exceed your comfort zone.
3.Don't chase comps. You'll find yourself gambling way more than you wanted to, often with disastrous consequences.
4. Consider any money you bring to gamble with to be gone before the trip starts. They don't build those beautiful casinos on the backs of winning gamblers.
5. Enjoy your wins. Because they are few and far between on most trips and you should take a minute to savor large wins. Have a celebratory glass of Champagne after every Royal Flush, or a shot. Then take the winnings and lock them in the room safe before venturing back out with your original daily stake.
You may never have a host, but that doesn't mean that you can't live the large life in a casino. You'll just have to book your rooms yourself and pay for some things. But you might find it to be worth it.
While this is not a horse racing blog I've felt the need recently to blog a lot about this sport that I love, mainly because I'm afraid in the future there won't be much opportunity to do so.
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Monday renewed her call for an "immediate moratorium" on racing at Santa Anita Park, where three equine fatalities in nine days have track safety issues under the magnifying glass again.
"How many more horses must die before concrete steps are taken to address what is clearly an acute problem?" Feinstein said. “I once again call for an immediate moratorium on racing at Santa Anita. We need a thorough investigation of practices and conditions at the track before any more races are held."
I'm going to point out a thing or two here that is not a defense of the Stronach Group, whom I deplore, but only serves to show just how silly and convoluted the current drama surrounding horse racing really is.
First, these attacks against horse racing are coordinated. When you have multiple groups spouting the exact same talking points you cannot assume that they are being honest when they say their complaints are occurring in a vacuum. In fact, all of the people who spoke in front of the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) who claimed to be a "private individual, without affiliation to any group" who then proceeded to spout the same talking points were not being truthful. These people were coached what to say.
Second, the goal of PeTA and other groups is NOT safe horse racing. It's NO horse racing at all in the United States. Much like the lies they repeatedly told about the circus, they will not stop until they reach their goal. And yes, I have first hand knowledge of former circus behavior. I've seen how the animals were really treated and it wasn't in the same manner as heavily edited video from PeTA activists. In almost all cases the animals were treated better than the humans who worked there. (The latter was the REAL controversy surrounding the circus, that never got any media play)
Finally, You cannot trust a group like PeTA when it comes to animal welfare issues. They are not legitimate actors in the game. In fact, PeTA has been directly responsible for more animal deaths than any of the groups they claim to be against. PeTA are bomb-throwers, their job is to make noise and try to disrupt traditional American culture. They could give two-figs about animal welfare.
All of this doesn't mean that the complainers are wrong.
In fact, in one important aspect, horse drugging and overall welfare, they could be onto something.
Even more pathetic is the horse industry's response. I Am Horse Racing is saccharine and overly sweet, but it doesn't even begin to address the problems that the industry is having. It's great that everyone involved is "3rd generation" and "loves horses" but that doesn't mean that every trainer, doctor, horse guru is operating under the same pretext.
The horse racing industry's failure to get control of the racing drug problem is problematic at best, damning at worst. The entire industry is built not around the customers, but profit for the suppliers. What that creates is an ungoverned, uneven playing field and a dearth of consistent, fair, regulations under which the suppliers operate.
Because of this the betting markets are skewed, viewed as unreliable under the most generous reading. But many consider them unfairly skewed, which has led to a shrinking customer base frustrated by late-moving tote-boards, inconsistent race stewardship and, even worse, increasingly high take-outs which make profitability in gaming extremely difficult to attain. We haven't even broached the subject of breakage and it's detrimental effect.
Now, horse racing has reached it's nadir. It is now a sport with an aging fan base who has taken few good steps to attract an younger audience. It is operating primarily on income driven from slots, and the locations that do not have them fall further and further behind. Media coverage is non-existent, except for organizations who are profiting off the sales of historical data, which are free in other sports. Bettors are stuck with a devil's choice of high-takeout wagers, or high-takeout "jackpot" wagers which are almost impossible to hit.
The tracks that have tried to buck the high-takeout trends get little attention or action from the very bettors and horse players who grouse about these things. In many cases the gripers are no longer betting, and are just (pardon the term) continuing to beat a dead horse for attention.
This is one of those increasing events in the world where, no matter who wins, we are all losers. Because the eventual winners in all of this are going to either be the "Bad folks" at PeTA, or the "Bad Folks" running horse racing. Evil, always, wins. The arc of history in sports does not bend to justice or fairness, it bends toward greed.
Horse racing in America in on the precipice of falling victim to it's own greed, and the powers in charge could give a damn as long as they can move overseas and continue their practices there.
Dianne Feinstein doesn't care about horses, she cares about votes. And right now she thinks that there are more votes to be gained by trying to demolish an industry (which, by the way, would lead to the death of thousands of horses who suddenly don't have a purpose in life).
I'm going to close with this: One of the largest criticisms leveled against horse racing in recently held CHRB meetings, and one that (amazingly!) was uttered by dozens of "independent citizens" was that the horses in the races were "non-consenting participants." (seriously, ALL of these supposedly unrelated people used the exact same words). Their argument centered around the belief that these horses did not want to be there and that, given the choice, they would not run.
To those people I have always said that they should actually go watch a horse and see what they do in a pasture. They run if you've never seen one.
To them now I say, watch Bodexpress in the Preakness, who unseated his rider at the gate.
For about the past 25 years I've been a horse player. Not every day mind you, not even every week. I'm what you might call a 'social horse bettor'. I like to bet the Kentucky Derby Prep races, including the 2YO races the year prior, the Triple Crown, the Royal Ascot, Meydan Carnival and the bigger races in the Fall.
It's not much, and I'm not a huge player, but I've enjoyed it and horse racing has always been something that I've been drawn to, despite only riding a horse two times in my life.
I'm not great, but I'm not that bad either. I can handicap slightly above-average and it's a rare card that I don't at least hit something on which allows me to break even, or sometimes better. Are their exceptions? Sure. This year I whiffed on the Kentucky Derby Day card, doing a good job picking two out of the top three horses to finish in every race. This would have been great but I was betting mainly trifectas.
I pulled an O-fer on the Derby, which is not unusual, but with the disqualification this year even my wife missed, which is unusual for her. (She had Maximum Security of course, so she's not happy).
So we go forward to the Preakness, traditionally my 'get back' race, the card where I have historically recouped my losses from Derby Day, and then some.
And I'm not betting it this year.
In fact, I'm not betting any race on a track that's owned and operated by the Stronach Group. This includes anything ran at Gulfstream Park, Gulfstream Park West, Pimlico, Laurel Park, Golden Gate or Santa Anita.
Which means that, this year and for the foreseeable future, I will not be placing a wager on the Preakness. I will be a spectator.
I'm doing this for three reasons:
First: I am unhappy with the way TSG handled the horrific breakdown situation at Santa Anita, how they dithered while the horse racing industry took a black eye, and how they tried to appease PeTA before realizing that that group of crazies don't want safe horse racing, they want no horse racing at all. They also want all horses to be relegated to sanctuaries, thinking that "horse deaths will stop happening" if they are. That alone shows you how silly these groups are and that they should never be engaged in matters such as this.
But TSG CEO Belinda Stronach reached out, provided them credibility, and now we're looking at the very real possibility of horse racing being eventually banned in California.
Second: The betting structure at TSG tracks is among the worst in the Nation. Take-out, the portion of the betting pools that tracks keep, is incredibly high at most of their tracks. Quite often at the maximum rates that States will allow.
But it goes further than that. TSG has introduced the scourge of betting that are so-called "jackpot" vertical wagers, where a pick six pays only a tiny portion of the pool if their are multiple winners, and only pays out the entire pool (less the high takeout) if there is one single winning ticket.
Except on mandatory payout days, these wagering structures are punitive toward players, as they lower the expected return and allow the tracks to earn interest on money instead of returning it to horse players. Most jurisdictions have regulations that aren't current enough to contemplate wagering of this type, so the tracks are given carte blanche to payout whenever they want. In some cases they might carry a pool past the end of the meet, waiting until the next meet to hold a mandatory payout day.
Third: TSG is becoming more and more aggressive toward Off-Track-Betting pari-mutual sites such as BetAmerica that they do not control. If you're not familiar with this situation, TSG went to BetAmerica at the 11th hour and proposed onerous financial terms for BA to continue offering wagering at their track. The result of this is that anyone with a BetAmerica account, will not be able to use it to bet the Preakness card.
That's short-sighted, dumb, and ultimately will benefit TSG, but will further damage horse racing as a whole. It's as dumb as Twin Spires and their argument with TVG, fortunately cooler heads prevailed on the latter issue.
So, while I've analyzed the field and I've provided a sure-to-not-win Superfecta for the Preakness I will not be putting any of my hard-earned money into a Stronach ran pool.
That feels wrong, but I know it is the right thing to do.
Enjoy the races, good luck to your if you're betting.
1. War of Will (15-1) Tyler Gafflione - Brutal post draw for a horse that needs to be on or near the front. If he gets squeezed back as the rail closes his path down early, it's over.
2. Tax (20-1) Junior Alvarado - Also not the best of post draws. He'll have to do something special to win this.
3. By My Standards (15-1) Gabriel Saez - Not the worst post draw for him, but I'm not a fan of closers in this crowded a field.
4. Gray Magician (50-1) Dreydan Van Dyke - Maybe you take a flyer because of the hot jock on board, but he's probably out-classed here.
5. Improbable (5-1) Irad Ortiz Jr. - It does hurt that he's going to be to the inside of Omaha Beach, but if he runs his race he's potentially the most talented of the lot. Ignore him at your peril.
6. Vakoma (15-1) Javier Castellano - He'll be my longshot pick but to be honest I'm not entirely confident given that we're likely to have a sloppy track.
7. Maximum Security (8-1) Gabriel Saez - Like many others, I'm not sure what to make of this horse. I'll probably include him in the bottom half of my exotics but I don't think he's good enough to win.
8. Tacitus (8-1) Jose Ortiz - He's a contender, and is ridden by the current top jock in the US. He'll play in both my horizontals and my vertical wagers.
9. Plus Que Parfait (30-1) Ricardo Santana - Tossing him out. I just don't think he's fast enough to compete here.
10. Cutting Humor (30-1) Corey Lanarie - At most, a bottom of the verticals play.
11. Haikal (30-1) Rajiv Maragh - Good horse, good post position, will need to improve to stay with the best of the best here, but not out of hand if you're looking for a longshot. Could be the "sharp" horse in this race however which might make him too low to play.
12 Omaha Beach (4-1) Mike Smith - What many believe is the best horse in this race has the best big race jockey and great post. You can bet against him, but I wouldn't.
13. Code of Honor (12-1) John Velasquez - I don't love this spot for him, but I do like him being outside of Omaha Beach which means Johnny V can stalk if he so chooses.
14. Win Win Win (12-1) Julien Pimentel - I think Battaglia put this horse too high. The post draw isn't bad but he's going to have to work to avoid massive trip trouble.
15. Master Fencer (50-1) Julien Leparoux - Good story, the first Japanese bred horse granted entry to the Derby. Pretty horse, will ultimately be just too slow. Draw a line through him.
16. Game Winner (9-2) Joel Rosario - The 2 year old champion feels a little bit like last year's 2YO champion who won the Breeder's Juvenile, and then never progressed. I'll use him in my exotics however.
17. Roadster (5-1) Florent Giroux - Not the best post for him, and a post that's never won (0-44) but if any horse can win from here it's the third Baffert horse in the race. In the end though I think he has trip trouble and this becomes a "what if" face for him.
18. Long Range Toddy (30-1) John Court - Good to see Court get a Derby mount, might not be such a good result but you never know.
19. Spinoff (30-1) Manny Franco - If Franco gets this horse a good trip through 19 other horses, given his lack of early speed, it would be the ride of the year.
20. Country House (30-1) Flavien Prat - Seemingly a horse with more hype than ability, I just can't seem him starting way out here and competing.
AE Bodexpress (30-1) Chris Landeros - IF he gets in I wouldn't use him. Has nothing in his past that suggests he's a KY Derby caliber horse. So Bodexpress' connections now have a decision to make. If they take the option, they draw into 12. If not, then War of Will will break out of the two slot.
