ihate17 said:
In places like the U.K. and moreso in Macau, where different ownerships have gotten together and agreed to be totally or nearly totally CSM's, the player has no choice, as there is no decent game nearby.
I have met cardcounters from areas near Macau who refuse to play there.
Simply the CSM is a failure when there is competition and a great success when there is none.
Speaking here as an Economist and a frequent Macau tripper, there is some competition in Macau. Yes, it is an oligopoly (of six players) with a more 'corporatist' style of competition than what we see in Vegas (unfortunately, this is typical of most business in Asia), but there is indeed competition.
Before the
relative liberalization of Macau's gambling sector, Stanley Ho's blackjack house edge was 0.89% (!) at most of his casinos. Now, his house edge is 0.16% (0.15% at the old Lisboa, and 0.02% (!) at Pharaoh's Palace). The Wynn advertises its low table minimums on its marquee. Clearly, properties and providers compete with each other.
There are reasons for the proliferation of CSMs besides market collusion. First, there is a genuine cultural preference (amongst Chinese generally) for games of pure chance with no dependent trials. Secondly, the game of choice in Macau is Baccarat... the more "non-Western" a Casino is, the more likely there will be almost no blackjack tables and/or the blackjack rules will suck.
The most western casinos (Wynn and MGM Grand) have house edges of 0.1% and 0.08% respectively. The most non-western casino operator (besides SJM) is Galaxy Entertainment and they have double the house edge. They also have less Western clientele than any other operator.
So yes, there is indeed competition between Macau's operators. I concede it isn't the same kind of competition you get in Vegas, but it is far from being a cartel.