Well, they have to pay staff, pay electric bills, pay the mortgage....and
win enough to cover all that AND pay the shareholders. They may well lose
money if their hold is less than 2%.
In a message dated 11/13/2005 5:58:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
whitejeeps@yahoo.com writes:
casinos
think they lose money when their overall win is less than 2% or there
about.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Good point. However, I wasn't suggesting casinos should have all
gaming set at 2%. I just wonder if by eliminating the low casino win
games, are they sending some $$ down the road. Of course, it's
possible a lot of players will convert to the lower pay games. The
players casinos lose may not be worth catering to. I am inclined to
believe that history shows many new upstart casinos offer good plays
to get players in the door. Rio comes to my mind. Now they don't need
those players who helped put them on the map. Palms may be another
casino to, in the future, send the "players" down the road. We will
see.
Just one opinion that really doesn't matter anyway. We might as well
talk about the weather....Jeep
.
.
Well, they have to pay staff, pay electric bills, pay the
mortgage....and
win enough to cover all that AND pay the shareholders. They may
well lose
money if their hold is less than 2%.
In a message dated 11/13/2005 5:58:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
whitejeeps@y... writes:casinos
think they lose money when their overall win is less than 2% or
there
.-- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, ezfromnwon@a... wrote:
about.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]