So I was reading a thread about Nevada Casino revenue in February 2024 and ended up down one of those rabbit holes, as you do. I was surprised to note that in 2009, there were 114 separate poker rooms and 905 poker tables in the state. I didn't even know Nevada had 114 separate casinos! However, this does not mean that Nevada had the most poker tables that year - that prize goes to 2010, where Nevada lost 5 poker rooms (now 109) but gained 15 poker tables for a maximum of 920 poker tables. That's a far cry from now, where we only have 39 rooms to choose from, and they have a combined 484 tables in play. However, the bigger surprise was this. Up until the COVID-19 pandemic, the highest year for revenue taken from poker tables was 2007, where the combined rake of 907 poker tables was a whopping $167,975,000. Since then, it's only gotten worse for poker players. 2021-2023 have smashed that number, with last year posting the highest amount of poker revenue. 484 tables provided the gaming companies with a ridiculous $228,945,000. Simple math basically tells me that at the height of the poker boom, each table averaged out at $185,198.46 per year taken from players' bankrolls, yet last year each table averaged out at $473,026.86 per year! That's a 255.42% increase in the last 15-16 years. Poker isn't as much of a loss leader as people make it out to be, from these figures! I know inflation has been bad but has it gone up 255% in 16 years? Source of numbers: https://gaming.library.unlv.edu/reports/NV_poker.pdf - Nevada Poker: The Evolution. Las Vegas: Center for Gaming Research, University Libraries, University of Nevada Las Vegas, 2024.
Really interesting numbers. But if you consider that each table requires 3 shifts of 2 dealers to run 24 hours, or probably around 8 dealers to run 7 days a week. If we consider the tables to be half full that's around 4 fulltime dealers per table. That probably takes up half the revenue in dealer cost alone. Add in cocktail waitresses, free drinks, floor managers, $1-2 per hour player comps etc the actual profit per table is a lot less. I'm sure the casinos made their calculations and many decided it's not worth it and hence closed their poker rooms. With fewer rooms to play at, each table's revenue goes up.
I don't think poker is a loss leader at all these days. Your numbers aside, my local CET property just completely gutted their old poker room and built out a really nice one in the old buffet space in combination with their sportsbook. New CET doesn't want anything to do with loss leaders.
One thing I have noticed is that limit poker is much harder to find. I don't play no-limit so I don't know how big the rakes can be, but there are only about 3 poker rooms left in Nevada that spread low limit holdem on a regular basis. So many that contributes? Low limit seems easier to find in Arizona and California poker rooms.
I think this is also a case where averages distort the reality and mean & median would provide a clearer picture. In 2007 how many tables generated $10k or less in revenue? What would be more informative is comparing Bellagio's poker revenue in 2007 vs 2023.
Good point. Lots of tables in large rooms sit empty when a tournament isn't going on. Also, now that poker is no longer a big part of the zeitgeist, i assume people who play live poker are likely to be more serious players willing to risk higher stakes than the poker-curious of the 2000s.
Apart from paying the operating costs of a poker room, there are promotions that are paid for from the rake. Just considering the Horseshoe 's High Hand Madness, $100 is given back to the players every 15 minutes, from 10am till 3am - that's $6800 each day. I would prefer a "profit" figure reported instead of just what is raked.
This is likely the answer, combined with the shift to higher limit and no limit, and especially the shift away from low limit games. But if you look at just the Venetian, that rakes something ridiculous like $7 per hand, $3 even without a flop for the jackpots, it's easy to see how these numbers differ. Also wonder how removing a lot of the low buy in tournaments impacted this as well.
I should also add, I don't believe that poker was ever a loss leader, or at least not since the Moneymaker boom. It's not as profitable as slots or table games per sq ft. (although it was more profitable than sports betting pre-online sportsbooks), but I don't believe it was losing money. Otherwise, how would the dedicated card rooms you see in places like Texas survive?
The figure in the original post contained was on average each table pulled 473,000 $ and change. Over 365 days that’s close to 1,296 $ a day or 54$ an hour if open 24 hours. The rate would obviously go up per table when not maximized. Not a great amount unless you’re that guy with a room containing 7 tables but only 3 are ever Open at any time other than tournaments. That’d skew things…..$ (I too miss low limit poker. Orleans on Tropicana had it for more than a few tables back when most other casinos had a table or 3’or 4…
Yeah, it's more about opportunity cost. Slots generate more income per unit of space on average, but adding 100 slot machines to a room that already has 2000 of them will be less impactful than building a new room with 2000 slots.
There should be two drops at the table one of each side of the dealer. One for the jackpots and one for the rake. I believe that NCG stipulates the jackpot money cannot be reported as income and is reported as a holding or player account. So the numbers from OP are legit income numbers. However the per table average is going to be skewed a bit. The 484 tables most likely does not include tournament tables that are both temporary (like those at the WSOP) and permanent (for example the Wynn has that dedicated tournament area just on the other side of the poker room).
The idea that poker rooms don't make money is a myth largely founded on 'creative' accounting practices, the need for staffing and liability issues. Poker rooms that offer free drinks are usually charged retail rates by the F&B dept that provides them rather than the far lower cost price of the beverages. This is usually done to transfer income from Gambling to F&B, either because taxation of F&B profit is at a lower rate than that of Gambling profit or to artificially inflate Bar revenue for other reasons (possibly related to Bonus structures). The need for significant staffing creates both cost and liability issues due to benefit requirements and potential injury liabilities - slot machines don't tend to sue when they are abused or injured. One big reason for the increase in the $$$ figures going into the rake box is that rake has increased significantly. Both because the Max Rake has increased from $3 or $4 to $5 or $6 and because of an increase in the stakes being played. 4-8 Limit rakes significantly more than 2-4 Limit and 1-3NL significantly more than 1-2NL (in 2010 there were still 0.5-1NL games on the strip). Max buy-ins have also increased. All of which means that Max Rake is reached more often nowadays, making the average rake per hand a greater no. than 10-15 years ago. Combine all of that with more hands per hour due to the increased prevalence and speed of shuffle machines and it all adds up (unfortunately!!)
I think this is because on the Strip, the rooms there tend to cater for tourists. 95% probably just want to play what they've seen on the TV or what they play online, which is NLHE because the online Limit game is dead at low limit. All of the Vegas rooms I can think of that spread low LHE games tend to be locals rooms eg SP or Orleans. Not many tourists go to California or Arizona for poker. They tend to go to Florida/Vegas/Texas and they're the main NLHE hubs.
I imagine it's mostly dependent on taxes. I know here in the UK it's definitely not profitable. Even DTD (biggest club in UK) loses money every year on poker cos of taxes (up to 50% depending on take!)
[QUOTE="Adam, post: 2745712, member: 6066" Not many tourists go to California or Arizona for poker. They tend to go to Florida/Vegas/Texas and they're the main NLHE hubs.[/QUOTE] Poker is huge in Maryland at MGM National Harbor and Maryland Live! and in New Jersey at Borgata. Maryland and New Jersey are bigger hubs than Texas or Florida for NLHE.
I don't really think this is the best measure of what you think it is, because it doesn't factor in occupancy at all. You are looking at how many tables were in the room, not how many were staffed and operating for how long on how many days. I mean, the first thing that happened as the first boom faded was that some of the less successful rooms went away. But even on their way out they were reducing hours and for long stretches did not have any games going. So I really don't think dividing the revenue by the number of tables makes a lot of sense. You could have just as many raked player-hands happening now as in 2007 and just have the volume concentrated into the remaining rooms. I would focus more on the dollar figure. I plugged 167,975,000.00 into an inflation calculator from 2007 to now and got 246,849,738.35, so net of inflation the take is still slightly down.
Has the rake gone up over 3%? I haven't played live poker in Vegas in decades, but that's what it used to be.
