Discussion in 'Misc. Vegas Chat' started by bnlphan, May 15, 2017.
You know Top Card, you get a little too dramatic.
Not to mention all the nuts playing that royal match...now those people are crazy.
While I do appreciate your positive attitude, and I agree most of these stupid fees can be cleared with a better club card. I like to bounce around in vegas. Thats why I love going there. It just isn't practical for me to earn a high level card for all of the places I want to see and stay at.
The resort fees are just a lumping of things that they previously gave you for free mixed in with a list of things you mostly don't plan on doing.It is a money grab plan and simple. Bally's hasn't so much as added a new weight rack in their fitness center, yet their resort fee went from $12 to over $34. Wynn resort fee include WIFI, but it sucks. So you have the option of paying an upgrade fee on top of your resort fee to get the good WIFI.
I agree the fee would be OK if you did utilize most of what you are paying for. But if you don't plan on doing the fitness center (I'm there to gamble or relax), getting something notarized (how many people do this?), read the newspaper or make unlimited local phone calls (I have a smart phone for both) it sucks that you HAVE to pay it.
I'd be all for resort fees if they gave me the option to opt out. I think that is the gripe most people have with fees, not that they exist, but that they are forced on you.
As for parking, if it gets waived at the place you are staying, that's great. But you have a car so you can visit other places. Free parking at Luxor does you no good if you plan on visiting Ballys or Tropicana while you are in town. I'm in Chicago, I'm used to paying for parking downtown myself. But I'm only used to it since it has always been that way. Vegas had free parking since 1946 and paid parking as of a year ago. People just miss something that was always there, like the ability to bounce around and park for free.
It is exploitation to maintain that the rules of the game must be 6:5 instead of 3:2 so that the casino remains profitable at $25+ tables... perhaps the better word is "lie" or "deception". In 1989, a $10 DD game with DAS was certainly profitable for virtually every casino on the strip. That same $10 is comparable to $20 today...so, I can buy the argument that lower-limit "blackjack" must be 6:5 in order for the casino to earn a profit for that table. Over $20? Nope...not buying it. It is a lie to suggest that $25 must be 6:5 in order for the table to be profitable. So, what other reasoning could there be? Exploiting those who are ignorant to the impact of the rule change, in order to generate even more profit.
I am about as "free market" as anyone you'll ever know...I am all for letting the marketplace decide prices, wages & availability of any product - including 3:2 blackjack.
To use your car dealer analogy - if the dealer tells some kid that the car he wants is priced as low as possible at his dealership - and that no other dealer will offer a better deal...(and it's not true), and he convinces the kid to buy it from him (based on that lie), THAT is exploitation.
In your 'Pappy' analogy, their product is actually different than that of their competitors...they are not claiming to be a different product than they are. They are not "exploiting", as they do not have to lie or deceive anyone. They set their price, and customers either buy or they don't. I'm good with that.
But on the other hand, if they falsely tell potential customers that they have the lowest price for that particular product - and that it cannot be priced lower and still assure a profit (and it's not true), then THAT is exploitation.
Now - I'm not saying that the casinos are regularly lying about the availability of 3:2... but some here on VMB have routinely suggested that the reason for 6:5 is because the casino would lose money running a 3:2 table at lower limits... well, below $20 and that assertion may be true...above $20? It is not (necessarily) true.
Frankly, I personally don't care...it does not impact me, as I will never play 6:5 so-called "blackjack"... I will gladly play at the El Cortez for $10-to-$30 a hand before I sit at any 6:5 table, regardless of how plush the casino is, or how high-end their nightclub or steak house is.
"Purity of the game"? I'm guilty. I would certainly like to see real blackjack remain available in Las Vegas. It is a key reason I go & I enjoy going. Take it all away & I am negatively impacted.
Sure - that's the "free market"... but so is trying to influence & educate potential customers so that they might avoid being exploited by the 6:5 bastardization of blackjack.
You appear to be in full support of the casinos remaining free to offer whatever games, with whatever rules they wish...you and I agree on this.
However, you seem to be opposed to those who wish to persuade customers to NOT accept an inferior product for their money... which is also the "free market" at work.
On that point, we disagree.
When I post after I've had a few, it can happen...a trait you & I share...("Bellagio comped suite" ring any bells?)
merlin...I'm guilty of that too (from time to time)... call it a "guilty-indulgence"... same with 'Lucky Ladies'.
...but I am aware of the outrageous house advantage of those silly bets...sometimes, I just don't care...
Same reason I'll play the 'Pair Plus' at 3-Card, or the 'Trips' bet in UTH... because for the fun of it.
I know the odds... and I'm not required-by-rule to make those bets... and the existence of those bets does not threaten the availability of 3:2 blackjack...if anything, they probably aid in keeping the game available!
Thanks for the input Grid! I've only been going to Vegas regularly for the past 6 - 7 years (and I'm young), so save for my "family trips" as a kid, I don't remember much about "old Vegas". However, after reading some of your blog posts, I have a better idea of where you're coming from.
I agree that if you don't utilize what the resort fee is paying for, why pay extra? And the parking issue is an interesting point. I've only been to Vegas twice since the paid parking has been instated...last time I went for a concert though and stayed at Golden Nugget with a rental car (SD to Vegas, a mere 5hr drive). I took Uber to the venue and then stayed downtown the duration of my trip, not worrying about paying for parking at other locations I might venture to. "People just miss something that was always there, like the ability to bounce around and park for free." - I wholly agree and can understand from that point.
I play the match each trip until I win once, and I can proudly say I'm lifetime ahead, the longest it's taken so far is 3 hands(I only play the 3-1 version). What I find interesting is that some of the el-co regulars bet more on the match than on their hand, then they verryyy slowly grab their cards and move them aside ever so gently to see if they have a match.
People who think they dont make money on their $5 table haven't been there obviously, bad players, betting recklessly, pounding the high house edge side games.(not to mention most of them are drunk)
Now I feel like an Old Man LOL. You and I probably Vegas the same way. I was speaking in general, on why people have such a hard on for these fees. But in reality they don't effect me much at all. I stay at MLife properties, I'm Gold there. I could get free parking, but I don't drive. All of my resort fees are waived, except at MGM. So I just don't stay at MGM. Problem solved for me.
I don't stay where I'm not rated. And where I'm rated, I don't pay fees. But I still don't like they idea that they exist. But I will relent that these fees are not a Vegas thing. Vegas just came late to the party with them. I've been paying these resort fess in Orlando for as long as I can remember.
"Vegas just came late to the party with them" - HA!
I used to bounce around at different venues throughout Vegas...now I'm concentrating my efforts on The Cosmo (I love the food, and at 5x the points on food + my slot play, it's an ideal way for me to tier up!). Trying to see if there's any other property I want to tier up with, I gave up on CET a year or so ago so we'll see.
I love how many of the resort fees include a "free newspaper". Welcome to 20 years ago.
You mean the free USA Today you have to go down to the gift shop and wait in line to get?
I'm not sure what my favorite "perk" of the resort fees is. Maybe the notary and fax services. But it's hard to compete with the "complimentary truck parking" at Super 8 for those trips when you're bringing your 18-wheeler to town.
You should see him at a blackjack table....
So you've seen topcard and myself playing at ElCo.....
Let's add the swimming pool and daily maid service, both "paid" items that not all use.
I was thinking toilet paper and booze.
That unlimited local phone service is priceless!
Boycotts don't work, market forces do. Every year more people go to Vegas than the year before. The casinos are growing revenues, and the customers growing their revenue streams don't care about 3/2 tables, good VP payouts or having to pay resort or parking fees. As long as the economy is great, they can provide bad service at high prices. But the economy goes up and down; someday Vegas may resume appreciating the gambler.
The Vegas many here knew and loved isn't likely going to come back. Tex is right that market forces will dictate. Boycotts could work but it would have to come from the part of the market that would make enough of a difference. Today, the gambler is less important to Vegas and Vegas is less important to most gamblers (at least for the strip). That trend started before PGP, parking fees and resort fees. Non-gaming income overtook gaming income last year and that trend is probably going to continue. A downturn in the economy won't change that as it would probably affect both the non-gambler and the gambler. Only a shift from the importance of the gambler compared to the non-gambler could change that.
Vegas, as usual does a pretty good job in adjusting to make sure it stays relevant. I like that, as it means I will likely be able to continue to visit my "happy place" even though it is not the same as before. Vegas is no longer the only gambling game and gambling is no longer the only game it town. It might work for some off-strip places because in some of those places, gambling is still the key. But even downtown and some of the other bigger off-strip places, there is a shift to relying less on the gambling.
The price of admission has gone up as the gambling no longer subsidizes the behemoth that is Vegas. At the end of the day, Vegas needs to extract $xxx from the customer. That number isn't the same as it was 20 years ago or 10 years ago and it won't be the same 10 years from now. You either cover it with fees and low gambling with poorer rules or you gamble at a level high enough to get it waived. The subsidies to parking and rooms and drinks from gambling are being eroded. You need to pay your share to play now. Unfortunately for the gambler, that cost includes a lot of things that are not important to him/her (Big name chefs, Top name residencies, Bellagio fountains, Beach clubs...). But that is Vegas staying relevant and it is backed up by record visitation numbers.
PS Just take Atlantic City as an example of what Vegas may have become if it continued to rely solely on gambling and didn't adapt as it has.
Separate names with a comma.