[knightline]

In today's (December 2) Question of the Day at the Las Vegas Review they claim that Las Vegas casino sports books are loss leaders. I find that hard to believe. Heck - if you have to put up $110 to win $100 that's a 5% vig which is bigger than their table games. How can they lose in the long run? I'm aware on how they lose - too much money bet on one side that wins for the bettors can cost the casino money. But if they do their job in the long run they will have pretty much equal money bet on each side and then they are sure of winning their 5% vig. Of course they have expenses and not all bets have those odds, of course - still - I don't see how they can lose in the long run! Anybody have any stats on the profitability of Vegas sports books?? Thank you!!

[unluckysob]

Sportbooks earn much less than other games----casinos would love to replace books with slot machines.

[Ian]

I read the LVA QoD, and the assertion by Fezzik (the author and shameless tout) is not true. Books are not as profitable as other games, but they are not loss leaders. In fact, Vegas books are extraordinarily profitable, grossing 9 figures every year.

[Ian]

Sportbooks earn much less than other games----casinos would love to replace books with slot machines.

If casinos replaced books with slot machines they would have fewer slot players and lose all book revenue.

[Trident]

In fact, Vegas books are extraordinarily profitable, grossing 9 figures every year.

[edawg]

It is all about time value of money someone bets 50 bucks and waits watching the game for 3 hours. Casinos want quick action slots and table games. Remember they have an edge on every bet placed so they want as many bets placed in the shortest amount of time that is why live betting on sports is the next big thing.

[mrmarket]

You know some corporate sycophant has his panties in a twist wringing his hands eagerly anticipating the moment he can put a room full of slot machines in if a book loses too much money. Ideally they are small winners and tolerated to keep whales on the property. Even then I think some casinos refer them to affiliated properties for a cut if they don't want the hassle of a book.

[Leo Bello]

In today's (December 2) Question of the Day at the Las Vegas Review they claim that Las Vegas casino sports books are loss leaders. I find that hard to believe. Heck - if you have to put up $110 to win $100 that's a 5% vig which is bigger than their table games. How can they lose in the long run? I'm aware on how they lose - too much money bet on one side that wins for the bettors can cost the casino money. But if they do their job in the long run they will have pretty much equal money bet on each side and then they are sure of winning their 5% vig. Of course they have expenses and not all bets have those odds, of course - still - I don't see how they can lose in the long run! Anybody have any stats on the profitability of Vegas sports books?? Thank you!!

Nobody shares a good thing! Sounds simple enough, no? The posters above who tried to explain to you the speed at which slots money, blackjack money, craps money, etc., is turned around is only one good example of why sports books are a pain. You are correct, they are not 'loss leaders,' but they are becoming more problematic as time goes on. Even the Island books are finally coming to realize this. Why would successful casinos sign contracts with Cantor Gaming to run their books? You won't see the same behavior for slot machines or baccarat pits. Didn't you read the article about Billy Walters and how he or any other big bettors cannot get big money down on sports. Walters used to play casino games. They never barred him from those games. Odds for sports can only be stated as "theoretical holds." They are not like a dice cube or random number generator for other games. Have you ever heard of professional gamblers playing dice? Add in player bonuses, dime lines in baseball, and profits can be razor thin for sportsbooks. Just read the posts here and keep track of all the gimmicks the sharper players use, not to mention the unethical things players will do to fleece a book, and one has to wonder why more of them aren't closing or stiffing or absconding. You'll never hear about that, though, because thieves always keep their secrets 'close to the vest.' Like I have always quoted the Macchiavellian saying, "Gamblers have no conscious; they don't care how they win." But in answer to your question, sportsbooks aren't the panacea you think they are. Most casinos only have them to keep the suckers close to the tables and in-house. Were I a casino executive, I would have been the first in line to turn them over to Cantor Gaming, especially with their state-of-the-art live betting platform and guaranteed return for my establishment. It's a no-brainer. You just watch and see what happens if Cantor's paradigm is successful. Sports books will be gone, as we know them. Everybody now is just waiting for an excuse.

[McFly86]

They probably make a small amount, but it's a lot of hassle/bad use of space.

[Kindred]

If it was a loss leader why the hell would they rig the casino??????? http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_768058.html

[Reload]

Most books take in chump change compared to other areas of the casino.

[princecharles]

Well said Leo B.
I think you may be a bit premature envisioning the
way of the Dodo for books
should Cantor's model succeed.
There will always be a market for sports action (full game wagers), and live betting will only increase the
overall traffic.