1. Welcome to VegasMessageBoard
    It appears you are visiting our community as a guest.
    In order to view full-size images, participate in discussions, vote in polls, etc, you will need to Log in or Register.

Worst Casino in Town.

Discussion in 'Off-Strip Hotels' started by bnlphan, Jun 6, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jimboguy

    jimboguy MIA

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    2,577
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    80
    BJ Pays 3:2 at Longhorn. I played there on Friday, May 12, 2017 before playing in their daily BJ tournament.
    Around 11am they only had one BJ table open, but it wasn't full.
     
  2. notfromconcentrate

    notfromconcentrate Connoisseur of dive casinos and obnoxious outfits

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2015
    Messages:
    5,013
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    14
    Honestly, this surprises me. Filling in the blanks for some of the rules, I ran a house edge calculation based on 8 decks, CSM, H17, LS, 3:2, RSA, and resplit up to 4 hands (there was no option for unlimited resplits), and this comes up to 0.426% per wager. Say we calculate at 100 hands per hour, at a $2 bet, you're looking at less than $1 in theo loss. After two comp drinks, you're essentially ahead. Is there a catch to any of this?
     
    Ritz-Carlton Dove Mountain AZ / 4Q Slot Tourney / 1-2 Strip Casinos
  3. jimboguy

    jimboguy MIA

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    2,577
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    80
    You can double on your first two or three cards. Does that factor into your calculation?
     
  4. notfromconcentrate

    notfromconcentrate Connoisseur of dive casinos and obnoxious outfits

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2015
    Messages:
    5,013
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    14
    Ritz-Carlton Dove Mountain AZ / 4Q Slot Tourney / 1-2 Strip Casinos
  5. jimboguy

    jimboguy MIA

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    2,577
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    80
    Looks about right to me. I don't recall the side bet; maybe just because I didn't play it.
     
  6. TomTWI

    TomTWI Custom Title

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,842
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    55
  7. Knucklehead69

    Knucklehead69 Low-Roller

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2013
    Messages:
    368
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    40
    Looking at the Lucky Club website, the place looks to be filled with model type women eating $9.99 steak and lobster and playing $1 Black Jack!
    :evillaugh:
     
  8. vegaskid74

    vegaskid74 VIP Whale

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,008
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    999
    That must be during the day. I've only been there at night. At night, all of the women in the place (and I'm not being sexist - I'm sure this would apply to the men as well) wouldn't have enough teeth between them to successfully consume a $9.99 steak.
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
  9. Grid

    Grid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    3,485
    Location:
    Chicago
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    31
    Only one, you HAVE to play at Longhorn Casino! If your only goal is to lose less, go ahead and spend you vacation there. Let's be honest, its not like they have a players edge with these rules. It just limits your losses. The shit rules on the strip include your price of admission.You can get that free drink playing a penny a spin on a slot in Longhorn as well.

    The math says you will lose either way. Would you rather lose a little and have to play at Longhorn? Or lose a little more and get to play at Bellagio?
     
  10. notfromconcentrate

    notfromconcentrate Connoisseur of dive casinos and obnoxious outfits

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2015
    Messages:
    5,013
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    14
    I think you're asking a question that all of the casinos in Las Vegas are collectively asking the 40+ million annual visitors, whether they realize it or not. That is... are you here to play, or are you here to Vegas?

    To clarify what I mean by this, to Vegas, as a verb, you're getting to experience the glitz and the glamour that you see in movies. You're getting the privilege of telling people back home "when I was playing in the Bellagio...". You're getting the super cool Instagram and Snapchat postings featuring a luxe atmosphere in the background that's giving off the idea that you're in Vegas having a ball with all the high rollers.

    For retail, first-timer, "let's go to Vegas, honey!" visitors to the 702, the gaming rules and odds are of no consequence to them. They want to Vegas as in hop from one casino to another, enjoy the vibe, take in the scenery, and "spend our gambling budget of $___ per day because we're not expecting to come home with it anyhow". This is the backbone of Las Vegas gaming. What's changed over time is that in blackjack specifically (though this has changed for other games too), it's now a proven fact that you don't need to give anyone a fair game to get them to play. The cancer of 6:5 blackjack has spread to basically every single property on the strip, and it's somehow had no negative impact on getting people to play.

    Now, you know very well that I'm not a veteran Vegas patron, having only gone down for the first time in 2013 when I turned 21. But even then, you could find a $10 3:2 shoe game with relative ease. At that time, there was virtually no incentive to go off-strip to find better gambling. You'd get better comps and slightly lower limits, sure. But you didn't have to look for a 3:2 game, simply because it was the standard. The only 6:5 game I remember seeing was in a party pit at the Quad.

    Here's my point... since they've done away with the fairer rules, knowing that the retail gamblers wouldn't know the difference between 3:2 and 6:5... there is actually a distinct incentive to not play at Bellagio. But that's only if you're there to play. If I can get a $2 3:2 game with the rules mentioned in my analysis, I'm in line to lose $0.85 per hour at 100 hands per hour. Whereas at the Bellagio, I'm looking at a $15 6:5 game, where the house edge jumps to 1.84% per wager. My expected loss then is $27.60 per hour.

    That's a 3,247% increase in expected loss. For what? A nicer place to play? I'm going to be drinking the same Coronas and Heinekens for free while I'm playing, doing the same hand gestures to hit or stand, and counting the same currency as I walk away from the cashier's cage if I end up winning.

    Putting that into reality, I realize that "our type" of savvy gambler are the only ones who even attempt to think in these terms (or really, even know these terms exist). And I do realize that playing at the Longhorn is a substantial qualitative trade-off, compared to playing at the Bellagio. But we're using extreme opposite ends of the spectrum here. Obviously, everyone would rather play at the Bellagio. But those who would know (or even care about) the difference that it makes from a gambling perspective are extremely limited in their population. I just think that the more that off-strip properties step up their game, the more they'll lure away the savvier gamblers. You may not be able to Vegas at the Longhorn, or other off-strip equivalents with decent gambling. But for those who are there to play, the difference is becoming clearer and clearer, and I think that will give the glitzy properties with lousy games a real run for their money.
     
    Ritz-Carlton Dove Mountain AZ / 4Q Slot Tourney / 1-2 Strip Casinos
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  11. TomTWI

    TomTWI Custom Title

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,842
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    55
    I do agree with what your saying Notfrom however, 6:5 has spread offstrip also.

    TomTWI
     
  12. Grid

    Grid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    3,485
    Location:
    Chicago
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    31
    I agree with everything you said! That is why I pointed out the price of admission to play in a nicer joint. But I do take issue with your math. You cant compare the expected loses between the two joints based on a $2.00 bet VS a $15 one. Playing $15 a hand at Longhorn should net you a loss of $6.38 per hour. I'm using your math structure. VS $27.60 at Bellagio.

    That is an increase of just over 400%, but far from 3,247% when you compare true math, apples to apples (same bet size compared to the different rules). If your only goal is to score a $1.00 beer while playing BJ, I get your point. But if you are seeking out better rules for the sake of playing BJ, you should compare wages placed.

    But I would like to answer your second question. "For what? A nicer place to play?" A nicer place to play, yes. The vast majority of gamblers in town are visitors. I cant see many choosing to spend their time at the Longhorn to save 20 bucks a session with the Strip minutes away.

    Why would someone fly across the country to gamble in Vegas when they have a local Riverboat a few miles from their home? The experience...

    As to the "For What" the answer is comps. You got your free beer at both places. Now what? Will the Longhorn comp you anything past that for your action? Are you hoping to score a discount room in their motel? What tokes are you giving away in exchange for better rules? That $15 per hand while playing in the Tropicana on the strip should get you something in return after a few hours. So you are playing for the rating. Maybe get a free or discounted room, or a meal comp at a resort.

    But if we are JUST looking at the minimum action it takes to earn a beer, you are 100% spot on. But if you wanted to know the reasons why millions of gamblers still play BJ on the strip, with the shit rules and all, the answers range from ignorance, fun, comps and preference with a bunch of other things in between.

    Yes you are drinking the same beer & doing the same hand gestures. But that's like me saying watching a Cher impersonator is the same as being able to watch Cher herself perform. A show is a show...

    Why should I pay more to stay at the Hilton when the motel 6 down the road is 400% cheaper? Because so much more comes with my Hilton stay. But if I just compared them as a room with a bed (like your chasing a beer) then its foolish to pay more. But if I cared about the experience...
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2017
  13. Hurricane

    Hurricane Eat, drink, be merry and roll points

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    448
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    18
    Previous poster is correct but let me add one more consideration to the mix. Many people staying and playing on Strip, including myself, want action of at least $25 or more per hand for the few sessions per year that we get to play, which means that we can (sometimes easily, sometimes with a little work) find a 3:2 game on the Strip. And if you are comparing a favorable 3:2 game (say S17) vs an unfavorable 3:2 game (H17) and you want to play at the Longhorn instead of the Bellagio based on that difference, I think you may actually be crazy.

    Edit: I play 3:2 almost exclusively, but every once in a while I play 6:5 in a party pit, such as next to Bond in the Cosmo. I always think something like "worth the cover?" or "worth paying for my drinks?" when I sit down at one of those tables, and depending on the music and the people watching, sometimes the answer is a definite yes.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. The Rumor

    The Rumor VIP Whale

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2015
    Messages:
    4,708
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    25
    The real comparison on the Strip for a lot of people isn't playing 6:5 for $2 and 3:2 for $25; it's playing 6:5 for $10-$15 or 3:2 for $15-25. Or even not bothering to go downtown for one night to play 3:2 for $5 or $10 a hand

    When I can sit at Cromwell for hours playing 3:2 for $10-15 a hand, the 6:5 seems for $10 a hand at Flamingo is just totally unappealing to me.
     
  15. notfromconcentrate

    notfromconcentrate Connoisseur of dive casinos and obnoxious outfits

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2015
    Messages:
    5,013
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    14
    While I agree that comparing the rules at even wagers would be a truly level analysis, I disagree with this approach in terms of determining "the better game to play" (strictly from a gambling math perspective). For many blackjack players, they just want to play. It's not about how much they're playing for. I believe this is why the lower-limit tables are the ones that fill up the quickest. If I've got $300 to gamble with today, am I going to buy-in for 12 units at a $25 table, or am I going to buy-in for 30 units at a $10 table? Yes, some players will choose the $25 table because it (usually) has better rules. Some will choose it because getting up $200 is an eight-unit victory, as opposed to a 20-unit victory. Some may even choose it because it's not going to be filled with amateurs like a $10 table might be.

    Having said that, comparing Longhorn to Bellagio isn't just a comparison of the available rules. It's also a comparison of the available limits. You cannot play blackjack at the Bellagio for less than $15 a go. So, if you want to play, you must bet $15 per play. Playing for $2 isn't an option. Whereas at Longhorn, playing for $2 is an option. I highly doubt that anyone is going to go in there saying "I'm a $15 bettor, so I'm not going to be seen betting $2!". Yes, you have the option to bet $15, if you would prefer to. But I think that the majority of gamblers size their wagers based on the lowest suitable availability, not a pre-determined dollar amount irrespective of the posted limits.

    My point is that the math I did was based on "the cost of playing". If you want to play the lowest possible bet, you will lose $0.85 per hour at Longhorn, and $27.60 per hour at Bellagio. You are absolutely correct that the gap is significantly narrower when comparing the two sets of rules at the same wager amount. But I contend that most gamblers do not think that way. I believe the bets are set more frequently by the table limits, not by a preference-based action amount.

    Comps change all this, of course, which I'll get to in the next quote.

    I agree that "playing for the rating" comprises a lot of the motive to play at specific properties, and to play at higher limits. But realistically... we all know that a red-chip blackjack player will earn very little in the way of comps and even discounts. Green chip is widely considered to be the minimum to be rated, let alone earn free rooms. In any case, at least four hours of action is usually required to be considered for such comps. So, if you're playing four hours of $15 blackjack that's costing you $27.60 per hour, you're out more than $110 in theoretical loss per day. If they're comping a third of that, you've got about $35 in comp value. That might get you a weeknight room at the Excalibur or at Harrah's. But that's really pushing it.

    By comparison, you can get weeknight rooms on the strip all day long for $50-ish per night on Expedia, or even directly through MGM/CET. So, in that way, what makes more sense? Pay $50 of your own money for a room and play where you please? Or play a game that's going to cost you $50 in less than two hours in hopes that it might score you a free room?

    Playing for the rating makes a lot more sense, I think, for slot and VP players, simply because their action is precisely rated, their possible win is capped by fixed paytables, and they're not subject to advantage play like blackjack is. If we were debating this for a slot/VP player, I think there would be no question, in favour of the nicer strip resorts. But when there is comparatively less to gain as a blackjack player, I think there's a notable absence of value in playing for the rating at a property where you will lose more, both by way of higher minimums and worse rules.

    Higher limit play is a different story, of course. But we're not talking about the type of players who will bet $100+ per hand. We're talking about lower-rollers who are playing for fun.

    These are very good analogies. I quite like your thinking here.

    I just feel like the "experience" didn't have such a high price tag historically. Again, when I first went down to Vegas in 2013, finding a $10 3:2 game on the strip didn't take a whole lot of hard work. But now, it basically doesn't exist, having been replaced by $15 6:5 games. That doesn't matter to someone who just wants to Vegas. It costs a lot more, but you get to play in the glamorous resorts that they rave about in magazines. That's all that matters to such a person.

    The way that the cost of playing in the nicer casino doesn't matter to someone who just wants to Vegas is the same way that the cost of a nice suite for a couple on their honeymoon doesn't matter. For the couple, they're not there specifically there to screw each other's brains out. They're there to gawk at their lovely surroundings, drink champagne looking at waterfalls, and be waited on hand and foot. Like the Vegas visitor who is in town to Vegas, this couple is in town to Honeymoon. Thus, they want that nice experience no matter what it costs. That is... until it does matter. You can get a nice suite at the Wynn for under $1,000 per night, which would be fantastic for a honeymoon weekend. Who cares that you could stay at Treasure Island across the street in a two-queen room overlooking the highway for $99? It's the experience that matters, so it doesn't matter that you'll be spending hundreds of dollars more per night. This notion, I think justifies the "higher spend" for honeymooning couples and Vegas-ing tourists, alike.

    But what if that suite went up to $2,000 per night? Or $3,000 per night? Or $5,000 per night? And the cost of that TI room stayed at $99? There can, and will be, a breaking point where you have to ask "what are we really here for?". Suddenly, if it's going to cost you multiple mortgage payments just to have that "experience", a cheaper alternative doesn't look so bad. Like I said, that couple isn't on honeymoon specifically to screw each other's brains out. Just as someone who's in town to Vegas isn't in Las Vegas specifically to play the same game of blackjack they can play on a riverboat. In either case, it's something they're going to do anyway. So, if the cost of doing it the "fancy way" is too high, I think it perfectly justifies staying at Treasure Island, or playing at the Longhorn, since they've still got beds, and blackjack tables, respectively, but at a cost that isn't going to break the bank.

    While certain frills such as a nicer experience, a good place to have your play rated, and bragging rights to your friends back home all justify a premium, I believe that there is a breaking point where paying extra simply isn't worth it. If $10 3:2 games were still abundant on the strip, the higher wagers you'd have to place, and sliiiightly worse rules you'd have to play on (e.g. nRSA) wouldn't be such a big deal, in terms of the qualitative benefits you're getting in return. But if that price goes up, up, up, you have to wonder what you're really there for. And I think that the strip resorts are being extremely bold in pushing that boundary, simply by having the upper hand in terms of the experience they provide visitors.
     
    Ritz-Carlton Dove Mountain AZ / 4Q Slot Tourney / 1-2 Strip Casinos
    • Like Like x 1
  16. CaptCampion

    CaptCampion High-Roller

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2016
    Messages:
    932
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    22
    NOTFROM is pretty f*cking smart for being about 25 years old. Spot on dude

    It's why I stay at MSS or Southpoint
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Hurricane

    Hurricane Eat, drink, be merry and roll points

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    448
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    18
    I think most of the folks in this thread (and on this board) know exactly what they are doing and why. There are just a lot of different motivations for people who gamble and people who Vegas, and that's why we do them differently!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. notfromconcentrate

    notfromconcentrate Connoisseur of dive casinos and obnoxious outfits

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2015
    Messages:
    5,013
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    14
    Many thanks! :) Agreed about staying downtown/off-strip. There's much greater combined quantitative and qualitative value, where you'll make moderate sacrifices in the latter, to gain in the former. Of course, this is completely off the radar of retail/first-time visitors - and that's what makes Vegas what Vegas is. But for anyone who's serious about Vegas or gambling, the difference that gaming quality makes is becoming more and more apparent. There will always be a constant supply of suckers providing cash flow to strip properties. But the downtown/off-strip operators know what savvy gamblers value, which is why they keep giving it to them.
     
    Ritz-Carlton Dove Mountain AZ / 4Q Slot Tourney / 1-2 Strip Casinos
  19. notfromconcentrate

    notfromconcentrate Connoisseur of dive casinos and obnoxious outfits

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2015
    Messages:
    5,013
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    14
    Absolutely. I can identify a serious Vegas-goer from a mile away, and I can say that I get that vibe from all established users here on VMB - which, by extension, says that they know exactly what they are doing and why, as you say.

    I agree that the motives are, indeed, highly variable. This, by itself, I believe is responsible for the great variety of attractions, and even gaming in Vegas. As an unmarried low-roller who just wants to play, I can get a 10-hour day of blackjack and beer in with relatively low inconvenience, and relatively low expense by trekking out to the Longhorn. If I was attached, wealthier, and perhaps going with a group of friends, my activities would vary considerably. There would be no 10-hour days of blackjack, perhaps less beer ("oh honey, let's all go to a cocktail bar!"), and certainly no Longhorn.

    Just remember... our sample size here on VMB is extremely small compared to people who go through Vegas every day. While we're here debating average losses and expected comps, there are about 5,000 permutations of retail gambler tourists perusing their "Vegas, baby!" journey on Expedia at this very moment, planning a $300 gambling budget for their five-day trip, destined to go into whichever slot machine looks like the most fun, or whichever blackjack table has the hottest-looking dealer. We may know what we're doing, but they don't. But hey... we're all having a ball doing whatever what we're doing. Our ball just lasts a lot longer, and has a lot more free alcohol.
     
    Ritz-Carlton Dove Mountain AZ / 4Q Slot Tourney / 1-2 Strip Casinos
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Grid

    Grid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    3,485
    Location:
    Chicago
    Trips to Las Vegas:
    31
    notfromconcentrate said:
    While I agree that comparing the rules at even wagers would be a truly level analysis, I disagree with this approach in terms of determining "the better game to play" (strictly from a gambling math perspective). For many blackjack players, they just want to play. It's not about how much they're playing for. I believe this is why the lower-limit tables are the ones that fill up the quickest. If I've got $300 to gamble with today, am I going to buy-in for 12 units at a $25 table, or am I going to buy-in for 30 units at a $10 table? Yes, some players will choose the $25 table because it (usually) has better rules. Some will choose it because getting up $200 is an eight-unit victory, as opposed to a 20-unit victory. Some may even choose it because it's not going to be filled with amateurs like a $10 table might be.

    The game at Longhorn is, obviously, "the better game to play". I just questioned you pointing out the expected loses of a player betting just 2 bucks a hand to the player betting 15 bucks a hand. No matter what game, in any casino, the player betting nearly 8 times more will lose more money while playing. So your 3,247% increase in expected loss, that you trumpeted, is really only a 400% increase in expected loss for matching bets. Your math model was flawed when running comparatives. You will lose 4 times as much playing a shit game on the strip VS better rules off. You will not lose 33 times as much, unless you compare wagers at a fraction to one another.

    You now are pointing out units, that is a great measurement. Unit to Unit shows an increase of expected loss. But forcing the numbers towards higher bets is misleading. Why not compare expected losses at $1 a hand to $100 a hand. That would really bring the WOW factor!


    Having said that, comparing Longhorn to Bellagio isn't just a comparison of the available rules. It's also a comparison of the available limits. You cannot play blackjack at the Bellagio for less than $15 a go. So, if you want to play, you must bet $15 per play. Playing for $2 isn't an option. Whereas at Longhorn, playing for $2 is an option. I highly doubt that anyone is going to go in there saying "I'm a $15 bettor, so I'm not going to be seen betting $2!". Yes, you have the option to bet $15, if you would prefer to. But I think that the majority of gamblers size their wagers based on the lowest suitable availability, not a pre-determined dollar amount irrespective of the posted limits.

    Like I previously said "If your only goal is to score a $1.00 beer while playing BJ, I get your point." Your original question, that started my replies, was "Is there a catch to the better game at Longhorn. My answer was, and still is, the Catch is you have to play at Longhorn. There is zero argument from me, or anyone, that Longhorn (and most off the strip shithole casinos) offer a better gamble. They HAVE to. Or else why would anyone go there? Yes you can bet less. Yes you have better odds (Not life changing ones, the casino still has an edge no matter what).

    My point is that the math I did was based on "the cost of playing". If you want to play the lowest possible bet, you will lose $0.85 per hour at Longhorn, and $27.60 per hour at Bellagio. You are absolutely correct that the gap is significantly narrower when comparing the two sets of rules at the same wager amount. But I contend that most gamblers do not think that way. I believe the bets are set more frequently by the table limits, not by a preference-based action amount.

    You showed math to make it seem like an extreme disadvantage to play on the strip. I pointed out the true expected loss was just a 4X. If your bet level shows you will lose $7 per hour at a dump, you can expect to lose $28 per hour someplace fancy. And I completely disagree that most gamblers would view expected losses your way. Someone that plays BJ for 20 a hand would rate their loses as such. If you are a player that only looks for tables that they can bet a buck or two on, the consideration for the shit odds on the Strip are moot. They couldn't play there anyway. But an average player would view units, not the lowest they could possibly play.

    I will relent, if your budget is extremely low, and you only have $40 a day to play with and you LOVE BJ (who doesnt love a good BJ, ammaright?) you should go directly to Jokers Wild or Longhorn and play until the money is gone. It certainly will last longer. But that isnt the average player in Vegas.


    Comps change all this, of course, which I'll get to in the next quote.



    I agree that "playing for the rating" comprises a lot of the motive to play at specific properties, and to play at higher limits. But realistically... we all know that a red-chip blackjack player will earn very little in the way of comps and even discounts. Green chip is widely considered to be the minimum to be rated, let alone earn free rooms. In any case, at least four hours of action is usually required to be considered for such comps. So, if you're playing four hours of $15 blackjack that's costing you $27.60 per hour, you're out more than $110 in theoretical loss per day. If they're comping a third of that, you've got about $35 in comp value. That might get you a weeknight room at the Excalibur or at Harrah's. But that's really pushing it.

    100% agree. But, as a gambler, you are still playing to win. You can lose money and get comped while being rated. And you can win money, and still get the same comps while being rated. No one is sitting at a table just expecting the inevitable loss. You are hoping to get lucky. Adding in the fact that your play at a resort can earn you something of value certainly helps when comparing why most people wont play at a tiny casino with a motel out back. They just don't want the expected tokes that come from the shitty joint.

    By comparison, you can get weeknight rooms on the strip all day long for $50-ish per night on Expedia, or even directly through MGM/CET. So, in that way, what makes more sense? Pay $50 of your own money for a room and play where you please? Or play a game that's going to cost you $50 in less than two hours in hopes that it might score you a free room?

    Completely missing the point. We are talking about gamblers and what you can get for free with your play. Would you rather pay $50-ish a night for a room, hop in a cab ( or Uber) your way 10 miles away, 30 mins in a cab (car) to get to Boulder to play $2.00 BJ where you assume you will just lose $30 a day on 2 buck BJ. Then take that cab (Uber) back to your hotel and count the $80 spent playing/driving to Longhorn, and the missing hour out of your trip to do so, and compare that to maybe getting your room comped at a lower end strip place for a $110 theo?

    The smart play is to pay for a room, enjoy the resort and pools, and not gamble. My point is a player that is going to play anyway will certainly take in any comps their play may warrant. And at the Longhorn, that's pretty much just a beer.


    Playing for the rating makes a lot more sense, I think, for slot and VP players, simply because their action is precisely rated, their possible win is capped by fixed paytables, and they're not subject to advantage play like blackjack is. If we were debating this for a slot/VP player, I think there would be no question, in favour of the nicer strip resorts. But when there is comparatively less to gain as a blackjack player, I think there's a notable absence of value in playing for the rating at a property where you will lose more, both by way of higher minimums and worse rules.

    Higher limit play is a different story, of course. But we're not talking about the type of players who will bet $100+ per hand. We're talking about lower-rollers who are playing for fun.

    If you are a local, and you just want to sit at a table for hours, there is no catch to not play at Longhorn. But if we are looking at average players, those that actually visit Vegas (and not live there) and why people are not flocking to the Longhorn type casinos, with their better rules, in mass. I think the reasons why are obvious. People are willing to pay a little more for the luxury of playing somewhere better. And to the average BJ player that costs about $20 more per hour.

    Personally, I would rather lose $80 more a day and spend an evening at Bellagio gambling, not even looking at comps, then spend 4 hours with Benny the bum and Pete the pervert at Longhorn, where I'm only going to lose $20. To me that is money well spent.


    These are very good analogies. I quite like your thinking here.

    I just feel like the "experience" didn't have such a high price tag historically. Again, when I first went down to Vegas in 2013, finding a $10 3:2 game on the strip didn't take a whole lot of hard work. But now, it basically doesn't exist, having been replaced by $15 6:5 games. That doesn't matter to someone who just wants to Vegas. It costs a lot more, but you get to play in the glamorous resorts that they rave about in magazines. That's all that matters to such a person.

    The way that the cost of playing in the nicer casino doesn't matter to someone who just wants to Vegas is the same way that the cost of a nice suite for a couple on their honeymoon doesn't matter. For the couple, they're not there specifically there to screw each other's brains out. They're there to gawk at their lovely surroundings, drink champagne looking at waterfalls, and be waited on hand and foot. Like the Vegas visitor who is in town to Vegas, this couple is in town to Honeymoon. Thus, they want that nice experience no matter what it costs. That is... until it does matter. You can get a nice suite at the Wynn for under $1,000 per night, which would be fantastic for a honeymoon weekend. Who cares that you could stay at Treasure Island across the street in a two-queen room overlooking the highway for $99? It's the experience that matters, so it doesn't matter that you'll be spending hundreds of dollars more per night. This notion, I think justifies the "higher spend" for honeymooning couples and Vegas-ing tourists, alike.

    But what if that suite went up to $2,000 per night? Or $3,000 per night? Or $5,000 per night? And the cost of that TI room stayed at $99? There can, and will be, a breaking point where you have to ask "what are we really here for?". Suddenly, if it's going to cost you multiple mortgage payments just to have that "experience", a cheaper alternative doesn't look so bad. Like I said, that couple isn't on honeymoon specifically to screw each other's brains out. Just as someone who's in town to Vegas isn't in Las Vegas specifically to play the same game of blackjack they can play on a riverboat. In either case, it's something they're going to do anyway. So, if the cost of doing it the "fancy way" is too high, I think it perfectly justifies staying at Treasure Island, or playing at the Longhorn, since they've still got beds, and blackjack tables, respectively, but at a cost that isn't going to break the bank.

    While certain frills such as a nicer experience, a good place to have your play rated, and bragging rights to your friends back home all justify a premium, I believe that there is a breaking point where paying extra simply isn't worth it. If $10 3:2 games were still abundant on the strip, the higher wagers you'd have to place, and sliiiightly worse rules you'd have to play on (e.g. nRSA) wouldn't be such a big deal, in terms of the qualitative benefits you're getting in return. But if that price goes up, up, up, you have to wonder what you're really there for. And I think that the strip resorts are being extremely bold in pushing that boundary, simply by having the upper hand in terms of the experience they provide visitors.

    100% agree with you as well, Vegas is getting pricey and some people are getting priced out of Vegas. But that is getting off the topic. The conversation you started was "What's the catch", which I took as "Why aren't more people playing at this sort of place". And my answer still is, Because you would have to play in that sort of place".

    If you had two local casinos, both offering the same amenities, one had good table rules and the others was shit. Your questions would resonate and we would both be laughing at people going to one over the other.

    But in this case, the catch is gambling in a shitty locals oriented casino with nothing to offer you but a cold beer for you expected lose. Versus gambling at a resort hoping to get lucky, but expecting some sort of comp in return for your action. The reason why 70% of gamblers play on the strip is for the reasons I pointed out. Another 15% play on Fremont, since they enjoy a different sort of fun. 14% more might be scattered in and around the strip at smaller resorts. And the 1% that visit Vegas (Non Locals) who are playing 2 buck BJ at the Longhorn, are the ones either sharpening their skills before heading off to a better place, or the ones that just want a free beer on the cheap.

    My question to you, if your only goal is to just play BJ and not lose so much, why fly all the way to Vegas for that? If you live in Toronto, you can get to Atlantic City a lot faster and feast on a $5 table midweek. Or drive to Casino Niagara. Everyone does what makes them happy, I'm not questioning you at all. But why go through all the trouble JUST to lose a little a less on vacation? If you were talking about playing at Sam's Town, with better rules VS the strip (but still not better than Longhorn) I'd get it. Still a resort, still drawing comps for something useful. But why, on a list of the shittiest places to play, would you chose one of them for just a little better gamble?

    Compare BJ at Longhorn and then run that against Sams Town also in Boulder, or a Stations casino in town. I'm sure you are only talking about $5 more per hour in loses. THAT is next to nothing to get a better experience in return.


    I love the back and forth, I just hope we aren't annoying anyone LOL
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2017
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.