I have no data, but feel strongly that if all casinos went smokeless
that there would actually be an increae in patronage. What say you?
Non Smoking Casinos
I wish you were right, but I'm guessing that you may be incorrect.
While at the G2E a couple of weeks ago, my wife and I stopped to talk
to one of the reps at a booth where they were selling some of the air
filtration/purification systems.
While she did not cite to us a specific source for her information, I
believe she said that the numbers work this way.
About 20+% of the u.s. population are smokers.
About 60% of the gambling population are smokers.
Clearly, a highly disproportionate number of gamblers are smokers.
As my wife put it, she would love to see some casinos find out if
people are more addicted to smoking or to gambling....
Kil
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@...>
wrote:
I have no data, but feel strongly that if all casinos went
smokeless
that there would actually be an increae in patronage. What say
you?
···
According to the LVA Question of the Day for 27 Nov, the result in
Delaware and Canada was a 10 to 20% drop in business.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "kilroydq2" <kilroydq@...> wrote:
I wish you were right, but I'm guessing that you may be incorrect.
While at the G2E a couple of weeks ago, my wife and I stopped to talk
to one of the reps at a booth where they were selling some of the air
filtration/purification systems.While she did not cite to us a specific source for her information, I
believe she said that the numbers work this way.About 20+% of the u.s. population are smokers.
About 60% of the gambling population are smokers.
Clearly, a highly disproportionate number of gamblers are smokers.
As my wife put it, she would love to see some casinos find out if
people are more addicted to smoking or to gambling....Kil
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@>
wrote:
>
> I have no data, but feel strongly that if all casinos went
smokeless
> that there would actually be an increae in patronage. What say
you?
>
kilroydq2 wrote:
I wish you were right, but I'm guessing that you may be incorrect.
While at the G2E a couple of weeks ago, my wife and I stopped to talk to one of the reps at a booth where they were selling some of the air filtration/purification systems.
While she did not cite to us a specific source for her information, I believe she said that the numbers work this way.
About 20+% of the u.s. population are smokers.
About 60% of the gambling population are smokers.
Clearly, a highly disproportionate number of gamblers are smokers.
I have some serious doubts about the objectivity of someone who sells air filtrations systems. This (vpFREE) is a large group of gamblers and the polls I have seen here indicate that smokers here are in a minority about commensurate with the population in general. Maybe it's time for a new poll. A lot more folks here since the last one. Another fact that has me thinking the air filter peddlers were uh, blowing smoke, is that about 2/3 - 3/4 of the hotel rooms in Las Vegas hotel/casinos are non-smoking.
Anyway back to the original post. The question is, has the smoke been keeping more non-smokers away from casinos, than the smokers non-smoking casinos would keep away. Of course large separate (but equal) smoking and non-smoking sections would keep neither away and would cost almost nothing to implement.
Skip
www.vpplayer.com
VPFREE DISCOUNT: http://www.vpplayer.com/GROUP/vpfree.html
(use vpfree/vpfree)
kilroydq2 wrote:
> believe she said that the numbers work this way.
> About 20+% of the u.s. population are smokers.
> About 60% of the gambling population are smokers.
> Clearly, a highly disproportionate number of gamblers are
smokers.
>
Skip wrote:
I have doubts about the objectivity of someone
who sells air filtrations systems. This (vpFREE)
is a large group of gamblers and the polls I have
seen here indicate that smokers here are in a
minority about commensurate with the population
in general. Maybe it's time for a new poll.
I think the poll data is no more reliable than
the sales person's spiel. With a self-selecting,
n of < 150 I'm not sure I'd make too much of that
data. However, I do agree with your observation
about the nonsmoking sections. I wonder why
some joints haven't given it a shot yet? Based
on my experiece outside LV I would have
expected it some time ago, particularly at the
high-end places.
I always assume the people that run casinos are
smart and there's logic behind their policies.
They leave nothing to chance in these environments;
lighting, colors, carpet design et al. And it's
all designed to make you lose your inhibitions
and gamble more.
Clearly they're smart enough to see potential
liability from their employees for second hand
smoke exposure, yet still choose not to ban
smoking. How many other corporations have made
a similar conscious decision? How much political
juice do you suppose they expended to ensure
these smoking restrictions didn't directly impact
their business?
Likely they have research data that drive their
policies and they are neither capricious nor fools.
Not that I like smoky environments, just trying
to objectively note what I observe. The only
inference I can make from the behavior I see is
that these corporations are convinced that they
will lose money if smoking is not allowed in their
casinos.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Skip Hughes <skiphughes@...> wrote:
Casinos would be more than happy to get rid of smokers: no more ashes
to clean, no more burned felts, no more complaints from non-smoking
patrons, no more outrageous expenses to clean the air-conditioning
systems (the main reason for the smoking ban in airplanes), etc. But
the truth is compulsive smokers tend to be compulsive gamblers (if we
gamble every day with our own lives, why not gambling our money away?)
and the potential savings from a smoking ban would be dwarfed by the
lost of income from smoking gamblers. It doesn't matter if you are in
great numbers - we give more profit to the casinos!
Tobacco smoke annoys you? Put pressure on the casinos to create bigger
and better non-smoking areas (I would suggest a boycott, with
non-smokers boycotting a casino a day). Do not cry for a smoking ban
because casinos will not forego their profits just to preserve their
patrons and employees health!
Marcio,
Sao Paulo, Brazil
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@...>
wrote:
···
I have no data, but feel strongly that if all casinos went smokeless
that there would actually be an increae in patronage. What say you?
Look to Harrah's Laughlin. Two separate and equal (relatively speaking)
gambling floors devoted to smoking and nonsmoking. On my visits to Harrah's
L the nonsmoking section did a brisk business.
Chandler
···
-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com]On Behalf Of
worldbefree22001
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 8:37 AM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Non Smoking Casinos
However, I do agree with your observation
about the nonsmoking sections. I wonder why
some joints haven't given it a shot yet? Based
on my experiece outside LV I would have
expected it some time ago, particularly at the
high-end places.
Skip Hughes wrote:
The question is, has the smoke been keeping more non-smokers away from
casinos, than the smokers non-smoking casinos would keep away. Of
course large separate (but equal) smoking and non-smoking sections
would keep neither away and would cost almost nothing to implement.
Segregation always seems to result in mixed results, but is a far
better gesture than none at all. In AC, Borgata had a limited
non-smoking area that fortunately included a reasonable 9/6 Jacks
inventory. But it suffered peripheral smoke exposure from smoking at
some adjacent unrestricted machines, and even more so from the endless
passing parade of cigarette toting patrons.
Trump Plaza has been the stand out example of non-smoking space, with
an entire separate floor cordoned off to smoking. There's ample room
to inventory games (and tables, if they chose) to satisfy all.
However, the occasions on which very attractive paytables have been
housed in that area of the casino have been relatively few.
(Interestingly enough, the area still houses the only nickle 9/6 Jacks
to be found in AC.)
It's the inventory issue that is thorniest. Unless a casino should
choose to offer an extensive selection of stronger plays, I'm
personally loathe to lobby for relocation of a limited number of
machines. It's my experience/observation that pushing casino
management to take any action with regard to specific machines largely
falls on deaf ears, other than perhaps drawing modestly undesirable
attention. By and large, casinos prefer that we be paytable oblivious
(at least in AC) ... even if they find that they necessarily must
appease a modest market that isn't with a few desirable machines.
···
------------
My take on the general topic, from a casino's perspective, is that I
would fight tooth and nail any measure that would curtail smoking in
my establishment.
By and large, casino play is a far less rational exercise than
patronizing a bar or restaurant. I always find it difficult to
believe that wholesale spoking prohibitions by the government
significantly hurt the latter. I simply can't imagine someone cutting
back on their bar visits tremendously because of the smoking ban --
stepping outside for a quick smoke seems a managable (albeit awkward)
compromise to continue enjoying the establishments they've frequented
in the past.
However, not only does any time away from the machines/tables to
satisfy a nicotine jones cost the casino money, it carries heavy risk
that the player won't return until a good couple of hours later. I
think all of us experience a certain compulsion to chase moderate
losses at the machine, looking for a turn in luck. However, my
personal experience is that if I've been suffering rather poor play,
any unintentioned break leaves me with a considerably reduced drive to
return to immediate play. And, often, it's such a break that
determines when I end my day/visit.
I have little doubt that driving a player outdoors for an occasional
(frequent) smoke would cut back a smoker's play by at least 20%. And
I truly don't expect that increased play by non-smokers would compensate.
- Harry
Harry's right - there is no question that the casinos will never voluntarily go to a non-smoking environment. However, as pointed out, the dual casinos at Harrah's Laughlin works wonderfully. Last time I was there, it was easier to find a machine on the smoking side than the non-smoking side. There's also no question that if the casinos don't make some kind of accommodation like this (and possibly even if they do), the non-smoking laws will eventually extend to casinos. It make take quite a while, but the trend shows no sign of letting up.
Skip
www.vpplayer.com
VPFREE DISCOUNT: http://www.vpplayer.com/GROUP/vpfree.html
(use vpfree/vpfree)
Harry Porter wrote:
···
Skip Hughes wrote:
The question is, has the smoke been keeping more non-smokers away from casinos, than the smokers non-smoking casinos would keep away. Of course large separate (but equal) smoking and non-smoking sections would keep neither away and would cost almost nothing to implement.
Segregation always seems to result in mixed results, but is a far
better gesture than none at all. In AC, Borgata had a limited
non-smoking area that fortunately included a reasonable 9/6 Jacks
inventory. But it suffered peripheral smoke exposure from smoking at
some adjacent unrestricted machines, and even more so from the endless
passing parade of cigarette toting patrons.Trump Plaza has been the stand out example of non-smoking space, with
an entire separate floor cordoned off to smoking. There's ample room
to inventory games (and tables, if they chose) to satisfy all. However, the occasions on which very attractive paytables have been
housed in that area of the casino have been relatively few. (Interestingly enough, the area still houses the only nickle 9/6 Jacks
to be found in AC.)It's the inventory issue that is thorniest. Unless a casino should
choose to offer an extensive selection of stronger plays, I'm
personally loathe to lobby for relocation of a limited number of
machines. It's my experience/observation that pushing casino
management to take any action with regard to specific machines largely
falls on deaf ears, other than perhaps drawing modestly undesirable
attention. By and large, casinos prefer that we be paytable oblivious
(at least in AC) ... even if they find that they necessarily must
appease a modest market that isn't with a few desirable machines.------------
My take on the general topic, from a casino's perspective, is that I
would fight tooth and nail any measure that would curtail smoking in
my establishment.By and large, casino play is a far less rational exercise than
patronizing a bar or restaurant. I always find it difficult to
believe that wholesale spoking prohibitions by the government
significantly hurt the latter. I simply can't imagine someone cutting
back on their bar visits tremendously because of the smoking ban --
stepping outside for a quick smoke seems a managable (albeit awkward)
compromise to continue enjoying the establishments they've frequented
in the past.However, not only does any time away from the machines/tables to
satisfy a nicotine jones cost the casino money, it carries heavy risk
that the player won't return until a good couple of hours later. I
think all of us experience a certain compulsion to chase moderate
losses at the machine, looking for a turn in luck. However, my
personal experience is that if I've been suffering rather poor play,
any unintentioned break leaves me with a considerably reduced drive to
return to immediate play. And, often, it's such a break that
determines when I end my day/visit.I have little doubt that driving a player outdoors for an occasional
(frequent) smoke would cut back a smoker's play by at least 20%. And
I truly don't expect that increased play by non-smokers would compensate.- Harry
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
Is it possible that non-smokers would begin to increase in the
percentage of gamblers as non-smoking gambling venues become more
available? I think a lot of us in the 40% minority would at least
spend more time if the atmosphere were more pleasant and our non-
smoker friends who refuse to go to casinos to gamble because of the
smoke might reconsider and go with us.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "kilroydq2" <kilroydq@...> wrote:
believe she said that the numbers work this way.
About 20+% of the u.s. population are smokers.
About 60% of the gambling population are smokers.
Clearly, a highly disproportionate number of gamblers are smokers.
Non smokers need to wake up, LAS haas no non smoking
casino, Laughlin has two, they do 10% of the business
the smoking sides do (Edgewater and Harrah's)---
···
worldbefree22001 <krajewski.sa@pg.com> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Skip Hughes
<skiphughes@...> wrote:
>
> kilroydq2 wrote:
>>
> > believe she said that the numbers work this way.
> > About 20+% of the u.s. population are smokers.
> > About 60% of the gambling population are
smokers.
> > Clearly, a highly disproportionate number of
gamblers are
smokers.
> >> Skip wrote:
>
> I have doubts about the objectivity of someone
> who sells air filtrations systems. This (vpFREE)
> is a large group of gamblers and the polls I have
> seen here indicate that smokers here are in a
> minority about commensurate with the population
> in general. Maybe it's time for a new poll.I think the poll data is no more reliable than
the sales person's spiel. With a self-selecting,
n of < 150 I'm not sure I'd make too much of that
data. However, I do agree with your observation
about the nonsmoking sections. I wonder why
some joints haven't given it a shot yet? Based
on my experiece outside LV I would have
expected it some time ago, particularly at the
high-end places.I always assume the people that run casinos are
smart and there's logic behind their policies.
They leave nothing to chance in these environments;
lighting, colors, carpet design et al. And it's
all designed to make you lose your inhibitions
and gamble more.Clearly they're smart enough to see potential
liability from their employees for second hand
smoke exposure, yet still choose not to ban
smoking. How many other corporations have made
a similar conscious decision? How much political
juice do you suppose they expended to ensure
these smoking restrictions didn't directly impact
their business?Likely they have research data that drive their
policies and they are neither capricious nor fools.Not that I like smoky environments, just trying
to objectively note what I observe. The only
inference I can make from the behavior I see is
that these corporations are convinced that they
will lose money if smoking is not allowed in their
casinos.
there are three kinds of people in this world. Those that make things happen! Those that watch things happen! and those that don't know what's happening!
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
you are wrong. And I am a non-smoker that is
allergic to tobacco and most near damn everything.---
···
deuceswild1000 <deuceswild1000@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have no data, but feel strongly that if all
casinos went smokeless
that there would actually be an increae in
patronage. What say you?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
"Isn't having a smoking section in a casino, like
having a peeing section in a swimming pool?"
Skip Hughes <skiphughes@earthlink.net> wrote: Harry's right - there is no question that the casinos will never
voluntarily go to a non-smoking environment. However, as pointed out,
the dual casinos at Harrah's Laughlin works wonderfully. Last time I was
there, it was easier to find a machine on the smoking side than the
non-smoking side. There's also no question that if the casinos don't
make some kind of accommodation like this (and possibly even if they
do), the non-smoking laws will eventually extend to casinos. It make
take quite a while, but the trend shows no sign of letting up.
Skip
www.vpplayer.com
VPFREE DISCOUNT: http://www.vpplayer.com/GROUP/vpfree.html
(use vpfree/vpfree)
Harry Porter wrote:
···
Skip Hughes wrote:
The question is, has the smoke been keeping more non-smokers away from
casinos, than the smokers non-smoking casinos would keep away. Of
course large separate (but equal) smoking and non-smoking sections
would keep neither away and would cost almost nothing to implement.Segregation always seems to result in mixed results, but is a far
better gesture than none at all. In AC, Borgata had a limited
non-smoking area that fortunately included a reasonable 9/6 Jacks
inventory. But it suffered peripheral smoke exposure from smoking at
some adjacent unrestricted machines, and even more so from the endless
passing parade of cigarette toting patrons.Trump Plaza has been the stand out example of non-smoking space, with
an entire separate floor cordoned off to smoking. There's ample room
to inventory games (and tables, if they chose) to satisfy all.
However, the occasions on which very attractive paytables have been
housed in that area of the casino have been relatively few.
(Interestingly enough, the area still houses the only nickle 9/6 Jacks
to be found in AC.)It's the inventory issue that is thorniest. Unless a casino should
choose to offer an extensive selection of stronger plays, I'm
personally loathe to lobby for relocation of a limited number of
machines. It's my experience/observation that pushing casino
management to take any action with regard to specific machines largely
falls on deaf ears, other than perhaps drawing modestly undesirable
attention. By and large, casinos prefer that we be paytable oblivious
(at least in AC) ... even if they find that they necessarily must
appease a modest market that isn't with a few desirable machines.------------
My take on the general topic, from a casino's perspective, is that I
would fight tooth and nail any measure that would curtail smoking in
my establishment.By and large, casino play is a far less rational exercise than
patronizing a bar or restaurant. I always find it difficult to
believe that wholesale spoking prohibitions by the government
significantly hurt the latter. I simply can't imagine someone cutting
back on their bar visits tremendously because of the smoking ban --
stepping outside for a quick smoke seems a managable (albeit awkward)
compromise to continue enjoying the establishments they've frequented
in the past.However, not only does any time away from the machines/tables to
satisfy a nicotine jones cost the casino money, it carries heavy risk
that the player won't return until a good couple of hours later. I
think all of us experience a certain compulsion to chase moderate
losses at the machine, looking for a turn in luck. However, my
personal experience is that if I've been suffering rather poor play,
any unintentioned break leaves me with a considerably reduced drive to
return to immediate play. And, often, it's such a break that
determines when I end my day/visit.I have little doubt that driving a player outdoors for an occasional
(frequent) smoke would cut back a smoker's play by at least 20%. And
I truly don't expect that increased play by non-smokers would compensate.- Harry
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
---------------------------------
Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
According to the LVA Question of the Day for 27 Nov, the result in
Delaware and Canada was a 10 to 20% drop in business.
What they fail to point out at least in the case of Delaware, that
just like with most of the non smoking restaurant changes in cities
across the US, the initial drop in business was temporary. Delaware
revenues have hit new records since then. Shame on the LVA for not
giving the full story.
Agreed.
There are (4) cardrooms in LA and all are nonsmoking....business has
never been better.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "caribou_123" <caribou123@...> wrote:
>
> According to the LVA Question of the Day for 27 Nov, the result in
> Delaware and Canada was a 10 to 20% drop in business.
>What they fail to point out at least in the case of Delaware, that
just like with most of the non smoking restaurant changes in cities
across the US, the initial drop in business was temporary. Delaware
revenues have hit new records since then. Shame on the LVA for not
giving the full story.
Look to Harrah's Laughlin. Two separate and equal (relatively
speaking)
gambling floors devoted to smoking and nonsmoking. On my visits to
Harrah's
L the nonsmoking section did a brisk business.
Chandler
Quite a few years ago we wer at the casino at Niagra Falls. One floor
was smoking and one was not. Had trouble finding a machine on each.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Chandler" <omnibibulous1@...> wrote:
Can you site your source?
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Joe Pucek <joepucek@...> wrote:
Non smokers need to wake up, LAS haas no non smoking
casino, Laughlin has two, they do 10% of the business
the smoking sides do (Edgewater and Harrah's)---
worldbefree22001 <krajewski.sa@...> wrote:
I never thought we'd see so many poker rooms go smokeless. So I think perhaps non-smoking casinos may eventually be common - but perhaps not in my lifetime unless I live to be very old. There is a growing concern about the health issue for casino employees.
···
________________________________________
Jean $¢ott - "FRUGAL VIDEO POKER"
This new book (autographed) and other
frugal products are now available at my
new Web site, http://queenofcomps.com/.
E-mail address is queenofcomps@cox.net.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joe,
I do not understand the above posting. What data are you quoting?
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Joe Pucek <joepucek@...> wrote:
you are wrong. And I am a non-smoker that is
allergic to tobacco and most near damn everything.---
deuceswild1000 <deuceswild1000@...> wrote:
We just got back from Harrahs Laughlin. Great no smoking room. Nice because it is not upstairs from the smoking room...don't these people know smoke rises?? Sometimes the smell in upstairs is really bad. The cigar smoke is the worst.
>
> Look to Harrah's Laughlin. Two separate and equal (relatively
speaking)
> gambling floors devoted to smoking and nonsmoking. On my visits to
Harrah's
> L the nonsmoking section did a brisk business.
>
> Chandler
Quite a few years ago we wer at the casino at Niagra Falls. One floor
was smoking and one was not. Had trouble finding a machine on each.
···
deuceswild1000 <deuceswild1000@yahoo.com> wrote: --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Chandler" <omnibibulous1@...> wrote:
---------------------------------
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]