This one maybe? http://www.gamingfloor.biz/forum/Pro21 said:I saw a forum for surveillance people once that I can't seem to find now.
In many ways, I find it ironic that CSMs are only used on low limit tables.newb99 said:Yes, if you think about it it's a wonder that all casinos don't drop a CSM on every table where a card game is dealt? They solve the problem of having to identify and take steps against APs (surveillance costs), potential dealer collusion (loss prevention), iron out the variances so the HE bites in quicker (less chance of long swings against the house) and of course speeds the game up (so more goes across the felt and is subject to the HE).
I think the only reason some of the major chains in the UK don't use them are the leasing costs, and the fact that they would eat into what are already very thin margins. In the UK I suspect there would be little cost reduction in surveillance (as it's probably minimal in most places here anyway - I do wonder at times whether they're real cameras above the table) and the advantages in the other areas mentioned wouldn't justify their cost. Just as well really.
newb99 said:Yes, if you think about it it's a wonder that all casinos don't drop a CSM on every table where a card game is dealt? They solve the problem of having to identify and take steps against APs (surveillance costs), potential dealer collusion (loss prevention), iron out the variances so the HE bites in quicker (less chance of long swings against the house) and of course speeds the game up (so more goes across the felt and is subject to the HE).
I think the only reason some of the major chains in the UK don't use them are the leasing costs, and the fact that they would eat into what are already very thin margins. In the UK I suspect there would be little cost reduction in surveillance (as it's probably minimal in most places here anyway - I do wonder at times whether they're real cameras above the table) and the advantages in the other areas mentioned wouldn't justify their cost. Just as well really.
Biggest threat has to be a down economy. Casinos have high fixed costs, and if no one is there to play, margins get squeezed to the breaking point.tribute said:Of these, what really can affect them the most? Or have I left out anything?
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.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.
StudiodeKadent said: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.