by law. But the business model is changing as many states are now adding live table games to what have been traditional e-table jurisdictions. Live table games contribute too additional tax revenue and employment.
E
How does this impact the business model for casinos, product manufactures and the distributors of e-tables? Is the industry headed for a mass replacement cycle for live tables verse e-tables? Or a co-existence of both. E-tables are classified as slots units in most US jurisdictions because their win is determined and monitored by computer. They generate more profit per square foot than a live table. Generally it can be debated that the revenue from e-tables is less per square foot than what would be classified as a regular slot machine (often dependent on the specifics of a properties marketing and placement strategies.) But it is a fact that e-tables require a minimal labor force, and offer a faster game cycle when compared to live tables.
Why are some gaming jurisdictions across the US pursuing live tables? An example is Pennsylvania which established live tables this year. The tax rate for live table games in PA is set at 16%. The breakdown is 14% to the state and 2% is split between the county and municipality. And there is an additional fee to be paid by each of the state’s nine casinos for the initial license.
With live tables, employment opportunities will increase anywhere from 500 to 1000 new jobs at each casino. Through the increased employment created by the additional jobs the state will also reap the benefits of the employee taxable infrastructure; as well as benefits to the local business community -with employee wages being brought back to the community in goods and services.
But what about the already established e-table pits? I recently witnessed an e-table niche develop in the Midwest at a casino where I was involved in the placement of two electronic pits of six tables each. There were no live tables by law so we added live hosts (that were trained on the games) and beer & wine sales were offered directly from the pit. The WPU was staggering.
Would we have had the same result if there were also live tables pits on property? First the game cycle
lectronic Tables have been a steady revenue source for casino jurisdictions in the United States where live table games are prohibited
with “live-tables” is slower. Each table for a live pit requires a dealer. The e-pit set up we had on property consisted of six tables; two DigiDeal Tables and four Shuffle Master Table Master units, (no digital dealer screen.) Three to six trained hosts were at the games, they worked the table for sociability offering occasional raised hand “hi fives” to player, handshakes and assistance with the game; these table hosts provided a catalyst needed to keep the games alive and put a face on the casino. Plus they also initiated beer and wine sales from the pit providing an additional revenue point of sale.
It should also be noted that many jurisdictions with e- tables also have electronic poker rooms. In the Midwest we developed a separate e-poker room with (the cooperation of PokerTek) ten tables hosting ten positions each. We were able to offer daily play as well as tournaments. It had quite a following. The room was staffed on average with two-three trained employees as opposed to a dealer at each table.
With the e-table niche in place at a property like the one in the Midwest or in Pennsylvania it is worth the wait-to see where the customers will lay their bets down. Obviously there will be cross over betting and a “live-table market only” customer base-line established. But the wait and see approach seems to be the general thought in Pennsylvania, at least in keeping a portion of the e-tables as the casino floors reconfigure to accommodate live tables.
In past years when some casinos in the US tried sharing the floor space with the two gaming options (e-tables and live) the e- table’s survival depended on what the casino did to support the experience as something unique and different. If the electronic units were left to stand on their own against the live table games, (even with a faster game cycle than live) they did not do well. And of course the dealers viewed them as a threat to their job. This was before the US economy took its downturn spiral. The reservoir containing consumer gambling dollars has become smaller and every option offering gaming products for customer play should be factored into to the casino floor environment. Also the technology for e-tables has changed offering more games, additional sophisticated interactive capabilities, more bonus options and realistic graphics.
A choice to the customer of both live and electronic table gaming could be part of the adjusted casino floor business model. Keeping some e-tables within the live table experience can be viewed as another part of the gaming experience for the customer when marketed to both customers and employees correctly. Yes I did say market to employees. In a mixed
17
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52