All About Dotty's

In case you missed it, there was a huge fight at The Clark County Commission this week over Dotty's.

Some taverns came under fire from big casinos that argued Dotty’s and some similar establishments weren’t in compliance with regulations that allowed taverns to have a “restricted” gaming license if slot machines were “incidental” to the main business.

The Nevada Resort Association argued that some of the taverns used gaming as their main business, while Dotty’s said its business model was already approved by the Gaming Control Board and previous commissioners.

New ordinances initially were proposed by the Resort Association, the Nevada Tavern Owners Association and commissioners Giunchigliani and Steve Sisolak.

After more than three months of discussions, the two associations and some of the other interested parties came to an agreement on the proposed changes, but Dotty’s and a handful of other tavern operators still argued against the ordinance, saying they had done nothing wrong.

So what got passed? After a series of confusing votes Tuesday, this is what finally emerged.

The ordinance requires new taverns to be at least 2,000 feet apart, have a minimum of 2,500 square feet of space open to the public, a bar with at least eight slot machines built in, a kitchen, and a restaurant with at least 25 seats that serves food for at least 12 hours a day.

The changes also require existing taverns that don’t have a bar with machines to add one within two years. Existing establishments don’t have to add a restaurant or meet the other requirements.

Commissioners did add a line to the ordinance allowing existing taverns that are more than 20 years old to be grandfathered in and not have to meet the bar requirement.

But the changes essentially end Dotty’s business model of small establishments that only serve basic food and drinks.

So what is this about? Is there a real issue here? Or is Dotty's forced into a competitive disadvantage?

Believe it or not, there may really be a serious issue here.

Not even Dotty's own lobbyists and consultants can deliver a straight answer as to who and what they are. If they're casinos, then they need to abide by the same laws as other casinos. If they're bars, they need to obey the same laws as other bars. But until this week, they've been able to grow in this very murky legal environment where they make money on slot machines while escaping most of the legal regulation of casinos. And until this week, they've been able to enjoy the the more favorable regulations of grocery stores (with slot parlors near the entrance) without offering much more than slots.

So starting this week, everything changes... But is it fair?

There really are important issues to be resolved with "tavern" casinos, like Dotty's, that have skirted the law for the last 16 years. How many casinos, whether they be official or "incidental", should be allowed in a mostly residential neighborhood? Are local bars and other small businesses hurt by "taverns" like Dotty's? And are these "taverns" just more venues for gambling addicts to fuel their dangerous habit?

Unfortunately, this whole matter gets clouded when The Nevada Resort Association enters the scene and questions are raised over whether this new law fairly addresses the Dotty's problem, or if it's just another attempt by big gaming to snuff out competition.

Casinos: It's Official, MGM Resorts Intl., Moody's No Longer So Moody on Vegas,

So before I come home later today, I want to catch up on some of the important gaming news I've been missing.

- It's official, MGM Mirage is now MGM Resorts International. The company says they did it to "better reflect the resort developer's global presence as it expands in Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere", but I'm wondering if this means The Mirage will be up for sale next. MGM Resorts denies it (wow, I need to get used to saying "MGM Resorts"), but we'll see. Whatever they want to call themselves, they still have $13 billion total debt. And while they are making progress in paying it off, they may need more cash on hand soon if they intend to fast-track more debt payments and/or buy Cosmopolitan to integrate it into CityCenter and/or restart stalled renovation projects for their other casinos.

- In some much appreciated good news for the gaming industry, Moody's has upgraded is overall outlook for gaming from "Negative" to "Stable".

"Although monthly gaming revenue by jurisdiction varies considerably, overall, U.S. gaming revenue was flat year-over-year in March and April 2010, and it appears the trend will hold for May," Keith Foley, senior vice president at Moody's, said in a statement. "While not a stellar performance, it's a marked improvement over the consistent -- and often substantial -- declines of 2008 and 2009. It also has favorable implications for gaming company operating profits, a majority of which comes directly from slot machine and table game revenue."

While Moody's is not yet all-out bullish on gaming (they later noted the continuing struggle to get more tourists to spend more money), it at least reflects Wall Street's re-embrace of the casinos after going so sour on gaming in 2008 and 2009.

- There's some increasing controversy over online hotel reviews and who's actually doing the reviewing. Apparently, paid casino promoters are now taking to sites like Expedia, Yelp, and TripAdvisor to shill for their clients and/or attack their clients' competitors. I guess the 'net is always prone to this kind of abuse. Whatever. The travel sites say they're cracking down on it, and the casinos deny that they pay people to do this kind of sh*t. And moi? Well, I have ways of determining which reviews are real and which aren't... And ultimately, it isn't these anonymous reviews that make my hotel decision for me.

- $1.2 billion in Fontainebleau contracts have been pulled... So construction will be resumed soon? Not so fast. Carl Icahn has said for some time that he wants to wait until Vegas stabilizes some more before he finishes F-bleau, so we can't be so sure this is a sudden change of heart.

- And finally, Steve Friess recently did an interview with Donny Osmond. He talks about the recent death of Marie's son, their return to The Flamingo, his "teen fame" in the 1970s vs. Justin Bieber mania today, and more. As always, Mr. Steve keeps it interesting!

And that's all for now. I may pop out one more blog post before I fly out of Long Beach this afternoon, and I promise to resume regular Nevada blogging later this week once I settle back into "life in paradise".

Casinos: On the Passing of "Theme Park Casinos"

Casinos may no longer be done like this, but the debate rages on. Were we right in ditching the theme parks for something else?

Hunter at RateVegas posted a photo of TI, and it got me thinking... And arguing.

In the early 1990s, Circus Circus mastered the art of bringing middle class families (with the kids!) to Las Vegas in building Excalibur, and later Luxor. And from there on, the other major casinos were trying to follow suit. MGM Grand originally had a giant theme park (where The Signature towers now stand). Treasure Island was intended to be a place where the kids could explore while the parents gambled. Vegas was a very different town back then.

These '90s theme parks were evidence of the Vegas casinos pursuing the "middle class family" sector that regularly takes trips to the two Orange Counties (California and Florida). That's what all the heavy theming was really all about. The kids wanted somewhere fun, and the parents wanted somewhere for the kids to have fun while they gambled. They were "exotic destinations" that the whole family could supposedly enjoy. But ultimately, the formula didn't work. I couldn't ever imagine Disneyland with a casino.

And by the early 2000s, attitudes were changing. The Strip was becoming "adults only" again. Mandalay Resort Group was already starting the de-theming with Luxor v.1996 and Mandalay Bay. The Palms didn't even go with any type of theme park, opting for a "hip party palace" vibe instead. And after initially flirting with Vegas in the '90s, the family set ultimately stuck with the two Orange Counties while MTV's "Real World: Las Vegas" (FINALLY) made Vegas look attractive to younger crowds.

Let's be honest here. Las Vegas has never really been considered the ideal "family friendly destination", and that's why I think the "theme park casino" concept was doomed from the start. Sure, there are places here in town where the tourists can take the kiddies. Obviously if we can raise kids here year-round, tourists can survive with the kids in tow. However, we'll never be a place like Orange County where families can go from Disneyland to Surf City and keep the kids excited all day.

And you know what? That's OK. We have gambling. We have fine dining. We have shopping. We have great spas. And of course, we have nightclubbing... And now dayclubbing! We're an adult oriented destination, and that's OK.

That's why I honestly don't miss the "theme park casinos" that dominated The Strip in the 1990s. It seemed then like they were pretending to be something they weren't. The casinos were pretending to be "kid-friendly fun zones" when they really just wanted the parents' cash, and Las Vegas was pretending to be another Orange County when we could never really fit that mold.

When I step into Wynn and Encore, it feels like a place where Steve Wynn and Roger Thomas finally had the full freedom to create a unique and luxurious experience. When I step into Aria, it feels like a cool and jazzy place that is really its own place. I even feel very comfortable at Mandalay Bay, as I think Circus Circus/Mandalay Resort Group saw where Steve Wynn was starting to go with Bellagio and taking it further in dropping the heavy theming to instead just provide a classy resort that doesn't have to pretend to be something else (save for perhaps the wave pool/"beach").



For me, it's OK for casinos to just be casinos... OK, maybe not. Still, I appreciate the casino resorts of today that aim higher. Wynn and Encore are a study in "maximalist" postmodern design that simultaneously incorporated the rich history of "Old Vegas" opulence and "New Vegas" chic. CityCenter is what happens when a casino resort complex takes a new direction in incorporating natural elements, contemporary minimalist cool, and the great postmodern art of our time.



So what's wrong with Las Vegas being herself? Especially when we have nothing to be ashamed of? Let's just be ourselves, especially now that we've matured into

What's the Big Deal About Casino Gambling?

OK, so I get sh*t all the time about it these days. What am I, "Ms. Radical Homosexual Femi-Enviro-Nazi Leftist Socialism-loving Progressive", doing in a state that depends on the "horribly regressive habit" of casino gambling? Aren't casinos supposed to be evil in my book?

Not necessarily.

I was thinking about it this morning when I read Steve Friess' well reasoned Philadelphia Inquirer op-ed in favor of Wynn Resorts' new Philadelphia casino plan. And while I don't really like what I consider the unfortunate "liberal elite" right-wing framing, I otherwise dig what "The Friesster" is saying about the reality of casino gambling today.

But what's really behind the objections is the East Coast liberal elite's instinctive propensity to react badly to gambling. For some reason, the fact that the vast majority of casino-goers have no trouble keeping their spending within reason escapes these critics, who also tend to believe that poor people are stupid, defenseless, and without willpower.

Gambling is regressive, they claim, rarely noting that the lottery already exists in Pennsylvania. Lotteries create no jobs and require no infrastructure or capital investment. Casinos, by contrast, are actual physical spaces focused on customer service.

To play in a casino, one must make an effort to go somewhere and enter a controlled, adults-only environment. Taking a go at the lottery requires nothing more than a trip to the corner store. Even if you buy the notion that poor folks are idiots who are incapable of controlling the urge to bet with their milk money, isn't it better to separate gambling from the places where people actually buy milk?

Casino-goers are suckers, gambling foes always say. And yet, after many years covering the business in Las Vegas, I have yet to meet a patron who is unaware that the odds are against him. Most gamblers expect to lose; if they break even or win, they're pleasantly surprised.

Most players see gambling not as investment, but as entertainment - which is why your Aunt Fern goes to the church for bingo night. Nobody ever suggests people are suckers for spending big bucks at an Eagles game, so why the judgment of folks who define a good time as a few hours at a blackjack table?

The irony of criticisms to the effect that Wynn will create something "cheesy" is that his record of accomplishment in design is the strongest argument in his favor. This is a man batting a thousand in creating places with class and beauty. It's unlikely that he would put his reputation behind something lousy for a quick buck.

As you all know quite well by now, I'm not a fan of Steve Wynn's far right economic theories and political philosophy. However, I do LOVE his casinos... And I do agree that it's unfair to criticize him for "preying after the poor" when he's clearly after a more well-heeled set of customers.

And stepping back to the larger question of casino gambling, I have to object to all the "holier-than-thou" arguments about casinos being thieves and casino-goers being greedy fools. Most players these days know that casino gaming is entertainment, plain and simple. Occasionally I might hear my dad or another visiting family member or a friend complain about "tight slots", but they know they can't make a living off the casinos.

And ultimately, this comes down to the question of free will, consumer choice, and civil liberties. Do we really want to use the force of local, state, and or (gawd, I hope it never comes to this!) federal government to tell people what they are and are not allowed to do on their free time?

I especially find some of these anti-casino cries hypocritical when the same folks don't object to lotteries. Lotteries are gambling, too... But unlike casinos, they don't provide as many jobs and economic opportunities.

But anyway, back to casinos. I'm always irritated when the religious right tries to shove its "moral values" down our thorats in telling us what we can and can not do (determined by how they interpret The Bible). However, I'm equally irritated when I hear progressives try to make the case that gambling is some viral disease that infects people, and we somehow must enforce bans to prevent people from catching it.

Gambling is ultimately a choice. One can choose to play, and one can choose not to. Kids have video games and arcades, and adults have video poker, slot machines, table games, and sports betting. And seriously, what's the difference between those "video games" at Dave & Buster's and casino slot machines? One accepts tickets and offers prizes... While the other accepts tickets and offers prizes.

I guess this is my "libertarian streak" coming out. Whatever. I just don't understand those on the right and the left who want to criminalize fun. And ultimately, that's what we all need to remember about casinos. They're operating to provide a fun experience to players, NOT to offer "free money" or "prey after unknowing victims". It's a business. Period.

And while I don't think it's ultimately smart for Nevada for solely rely upon casinos for financial survival, it's foolish to deny that they're an essential part of our economy that won't be disappearing any time soon. And for other states that are now legalizing casino gaming, all they need to do is look at how we handle gaming in Nevada to realize that it isn't scary, it isn't some "one way ticket to hell", and everyone will be fine.

Penn National DOES Want F-bleau, After All

I guess this is good news?

Penn National Gaming Inc. on Monday made a $50 million "stalking horse" bid to buy the stalled Fontainebleau casino-resort in Las Vegas, with plans to spend another $1.46 billion to complete the project.

Penn's offer, filed in Miami's bankruptcy court, sets in place an auction process in which other investors will have an opportunity to bid for the property.

Fontainebleau also said in a court motion Monday that Penn National and unnamed lenders have agreed to provide $51.5 million in debtor-in-possession financing to cover its costs since filing for bankruptcy and to keep the company afloat during the sales process.

Court papers indicated Penn National has committed $50 million to buy the project, less unspecified "remediation costs" and costs to cure defaults on leases and contracts it would inherit.

The Penn affiliate offering to buy the project is Nevada Gaming Ventures Inc. Penn for some time has been looking at opportunities to enter the Las Vegas gambling market, the nation's largest.

Now $50 million seems like small change for such a massive Strip resort... But let's remember just how all of this got started. This place has been one hot mess for quite a while, and Penn will still need to settle at least $350 million in debt and spend another $1.46 billion just to finish this resort.

But attorneys for Fontainebleau said they're hopeful Monday's bid is not the only offer for the project, which was developed by affiliates of Miami-based Turnberry Associates. Turnberry is known in Las Vegas for developing high-rise luxury condominiums and the Town Square Shopping Center.

"The debtors are both hopeful and optimistic that finalizing the purchase agreement marks the beginning of a competitive sale process that will drive substantial incremental value to the debtors' estates and their creditors over and above the purchase price offered by Nevada Gaming Ventures," Fontainebleau attorneys said in Monday's court filing.

Once valued at $2.9 billion, $1.675 billion has been borrowed against the 3,815-room Fontainebleau, where construction shut down this summer after Bank of America and other big banks canceled a loan agreement because of cost overruns and other problems.

This may be the end of the line for Turnberry's Las Vegas operations. At the very least, I'm not expecting any more Turnberry projects on or near The Strip any time soon.

But hopefully, this will be a much needed turn of the page for F-bleau. It needs to be finished ASAP to start making money. And if Penn succeeds in gobbling it up in bankruptcy court, then Penn will be getting it in a real steal of a deal! I hope they'll finish F-bleau soon enough so that it won't be just another North Strip "abandoned construction" eyesore. Hopefully by late 2010 and early 2011, the economy will have recovered enough to absorb the new rooms online.

How to Bring Back the Tourists?

Strip gaming revenue is down again. Station Casinos is mired in bankruptcy and controversy. So is The Fontainebleau. Vegas' gambling industry is hurting badly, so what can the casinos do to lure the tourists back into town?

It seems that it really does take the worst recession in a generation to get the creative juices flowing again. Steve Wynn is now offering trip packages for visiting SoCal'ers including a semi-private jet ride, limo and champagne service, and 3 nights at either a Wynn resort room or Encore resort suite starting at just $1,200. If I were still in Orange County, I'd probably save up my pennies to take up this offer. Come on, who doesn't like living in "the jet set"?

LVCVA is releasing new "What Happens Here Stays Here" ads that they hope will encourage tourists to forget the pains of the recession and explore their naughty sinful side here. Will it work again like it did to end the last tourism slump just after 9/11? I guess it's worth a try, especially if Vegas can commit to keeping the fun alive and not "sanitizing" The Strip too much.

Meanwhile, the luxury ante keeps getting upped higher and higher... Especially with CityCenter hotels starting to open in less than two months!

So are we moving in the right direction again? Not if you believe the "Old Vegas" enthusiasts who still miss the $4.99 buffets, Rat Pack impersonator shows, Mafia control, and liberal comp policies. And yes, there are probably a whole lot of tourists out there who think The Strip has become too "high class", "corporate", and expensive. But hey, isn't that why we have Downtown?

But really, the big casinos must be doing something wrong if the tourist numbers keep falling and they're suddenly making all these changes. So are they the right changes?

It's probably too soon to know. Once we have figures for the second half of this year, we'll get a better idea of what's working and what isn't. Still, I feel I must opine yet again on the continuing controversy over what went wrong and what Vegas needs to do to hit the jackpot again.

First off, "Old Vegas" has left The Strip for good. No really, it's left pretty much everywhere along Las Vegas Blvd. south of Sahara. And honestly, that isn't really a bad thing. People my age no longer associate Vegas with The Rat Pack and the mob. It's OK for The Strip to keep up with the times.

However, it's not OK for Vegas casinos to bilk tourists and basically steal from them. For far too long, they were getting away with overcharging guests for inadequate food, substandard accomodations, and ridiculous "nightlife concepts". Hopefully, this recession has taught them the important lesson of not taking customers for granted. Not all tourists long for "Old Vegas" cheapo-weapo, but they certainly do expect value and real bang for the buck.

If the hotel claims to be 4 or 5-star, the room must be spacious and comfortable. If the restaurant charges $30+ for an entree, the food had better be tasty and utilize quality ingredients. And if the casinos demand gmablers, they should offer better odds and real rewards.

Treat the customer right, and the businesses will be rewarded. Respect The Golden Rule. The customer is always right.

It wasn't necessarily the tackiness, but rather the standard of service and bang for the buck that always seemed to work for Vegas in the past and make us "recession proof". Perhaps if the gaming industry returned to those good ol' fashioned values, we can see another revival of this town and our grand Strip.

Vegas Is Losing Its "Theme". Should We Mourn Its Loss?

Today's Sun article really got me thinking about just that. The "theme casinos" now look to be a thing of a past, or at least on The Strip. Downtown's still as kitschy as ever, and some see it as a good thing.

So are the "theme casinos" just distant trashy memories of the past that should be left there? Or are we losing some genuine parts of Vegas with every Strip casino that's renovated and "de-themed"?

I guess I'm somewhere in the middle here. On one hand, I LOVE the design of Wynn & Encore. Hands down, they're my favorite Strip casinos. The gardens inside relax me, and the gaming "rooms" give the casino a nice, intimate feel.

I'm also excited about CityCenter. A number of the buildings were just awarded LEED Gold for their eco-friendly design, and the architecture really proves that Vegas has "grown up" and become a truly sophisticated destination.

But on the other hand, I'll also admit that I have a special place in my heart for Fremont Street and the old "grande dame" casinos downtown. Yes, they're mostly kitschy and trashy... But they're also Vegas history and it would be a shame to ever lose them.

Maybe I'm being too Goldilocks here, but I do think there's a "just right" balance between the old and the new for Vegas that I hope we can achieve and sustain. I personally don't miss the cheap buffets and lousy hotel accomodations at all, but there's some redeeming value in downtown that I'd never want to lose. I also sometimes feel that MGM Mirage and Harrah's have gone too far at times in redefining The Strip and making way too many Strip casinos just generic, but at the same time I hope more residents and "old timer" visitors also open their minds to the new "Haute Vegas" of The Strip at the casinos that have done it right (like Wynn/Encore, Caesar's, and Mandalay Bay).

So do you agree with me? Or am I missing something here? Go ahead, let me have it. ;-)

Is There Life After The Great Recession?

Apparently, there may be for the casinos. Despite weak earnings (profit), uncertainty over when Nevada's economy will turn around, and a lack of optimism for strong tourism numbers in 2010, casino stocks are soaring again.

Why?

“There’s nothing going on fundamentally, in the near term, to get enthusiastic about unless you think the economy has turned and we’ll see more domestic and international travel (to Las Vegas), and I’m somewhat skeptical on all those,” said Dennis Forst, a stock analyst with KeyBanc Capital Markets.

So what’s to love?

Some of the rebound is tied to the fact that MGM Mirage and Las Vegas Sands — among the most leveraged of the casino companies — have escaped bankruptcy in the near term. Like many American companies, they have injected new equity and borrowed more, giving them more time to ride out the economic storm. The capital markets have opened somewhat since the market crash, giving companies the ability to raise needed cash.

“These companies’ balance sheets are in much better shape,” Forst said.

So basically, the casinos are being "rewarded" for not going bankrupt. Wow. I wish investors would give us money for pulling something like that off! (LOL.)

Oh yes, and things may be looking up for Wynn and LV Sands in China.

Much of the rise in Wynn and Sands stocks, which have increased the most in recent months, is driven by news from Macau, the Chinese enclave halfway around the world from Las Vegas where these companies generate most of their earnings. Earnings have improved there, in part because of improved high roller business, even though the Chinese government has restricted travel to Macau from its chief feeder market, mainland China. Both companies’ shares also have traded up on news that they will raise money in Hong Kong-based initial public offerings of their Macau assets.

So are we seeing a turnaround with the casinos? I hope so, but let's not get our hopes too high just yet. Again, even the most optimistic gaming analysts aren't expecting a return to boom-years levels of tourist spending on The Strip this year or even next year. And even if MGM Mirage's CityCenter can pull off a successful opening, they will still have to cut room rates and condo prices to lure those tourists into the "condotel". Oh yes, and CityCenter's opening may force the competition to keep their room rates low, further depressing hotel revenue for the casinos.

Still, there may be reason to hope. The economy is slowly but surely turning around. Tourists are now coming back, even if they're not spending as much as they used to. The pain isn't over yet, but hopefully the light at the ned of the tunnel isn't a speeding train and the casinos will learn how to adapt to the "new reality" of tourists actually demanding more bang for their buck.

Monday Open Forum: Are the Luxury Strip Properties Self-Defeating?

(This is the first in what I hope can be a weekly gathering where we can talk business, pleasure, the arts, food, or whatever else we want to talk about here.)

Today's Sun piece on the four and five-star Strip casinos reducing their room rates really got me thinking. Is it all just too good to be true? Or just bad business?

I first remembered my trip here in March:

When I was still in the process of buying my condo in March, I needed a hotel to stay. I was first thinking of getting something closer to Henderson, but I couldn't help myself when I found a suite at Encore going for $120 per night via Expedia.com. This was my dream come true, and I FINALLY had the power to fulfill it!

For five days and four nights, I had one of the best weeks of my life. I ate at places like Sinatra and Daniel Boulud. I saw Le Reve. I partied at Blush. And of course, I FINALLY had a chance to laugh at the folks paying the same or more for inferior rooms on The Strip. ;-)

The article is quite correct about those of us who shop around for low rates at high-end properties. But contrary to what some the commenters are saying here, most of us online bargain-hunters aren't the typical "discount travelers". I actually put much of my hotel savings back into the local economy as I was able to afford luxuries like 5-star restaurant meals, more souvenir gifts for the family in California, and more gambling money. IMHO these Vegas hotels are now offering rooms at something closer to fair market value than ever before.

I know that the hotels will eventually raise rates again as the economy recovers and the desire to expand profit margins returns, but now really is the best time to see the best of Vegas at shockingly good prices. If I weren't already a Henderson homeowner, I'd probably be grabbing one of those $109 per night suites at Mandalay Bay's THE Hotel!

I know not all travelers, especially people who travel here, do as I do. I'm one of those odd ducklings that prefer to spend my hard-earned money on real meals and shows than on a "one-armed bandit". Maybe I am part of the problem. But then again, I at least spend some cash on food and entertainment. What about those travelers that don't do the restaurants and shows that have truly made this town great?

But ultimately, we the consumers can only be blamed so much for this problem. Ultimately, the casinos need to accept some responsibility for getting us into the dilemma. We can argue over whether or not Vegas has gone "too high-end" (for the record, I don't think so), but we can at least all agree that we should at least be getting our money's worth.

Here's another of my comments:

The megaconglomerates [Harrah's and MGM Mirage] have taken The Strip and turned most of it into a somewhat generic experience. So many of the casinos don't seem to have any character these days. While I'm certainly not one of those folks who wish for the "Old Vegas" days of mafia rule, cheap & crappy food, and rigid racial segregation, I can see how "New Vegas" hasn't always lived up to its promise with lame players' club benefits, low payout table games, "skin tight" slots, "celebrity chef" restaurants that are all celebrity and no chef, and once-overpriced rooms at the mid-range places that even Motel 6 would be embarrassed to call its own. (Hint: Don't ever stay at Harrah's or Imperial Palace! At least save up a few extra bucks to go to The Rio.)

The key here is value. I can't speak for all of you here, but I can say for myself that I don't mind paying for something good so long as I know it's truly good quality. Don't make me fork $100+ for a dinner for that I could have had at the neighborhood diner for 1/3 of the price. Don't expect me to spend more than $20 at the slots if I know all of that will just be flushing it down the drain. And for goodness sake, don't expect me to pay $10+ for a cocktail with cheap liquor!

I hope the "independent" casino bosses like Steve Wynn and Phil Ruffin still have enough sense in them to rethink "New Vegas" in a way that will really bring the consumers back and get them spending again. People want value. If we're paying a premium for "five star cuisine", that meal should knock my socks off. If we're paying for a luxury hotel, I want room to roam, a comfortable bed, and a big enough tub for me to enjoy a nice bubble bath. If I'm paying, I want real bang for my buck!

Yes, I know Steve Wynn isn't really the great political mind he thinks he is. But hey, we must admit that he knows how to run casinos well. Wynn and Encore are the crown jewels of The North Strip. And hopefully with the new promos he's trying at his properties, such as "Taste of Wynn" prix fixe menus at the restaurants and reduced room rates, along with amenities we expect from a good hotel/casino, like comfortable rooms, quality dining, and great entertainment, he can help in rethinking The Strip.

So can Phil Ruffin. He just took over TI from MGM Mirage, and so far things are going well. Perhaps if MGM Mirage and Harrah's had avoided taking on too much debt as he did, they wouldn't be in such dire straits.

So maybe with better corporate governance and more value being provided to consumers, The Strip will still be able to revel in all its luxury. Or maybe not? Got any ideas on what to be done to make those luxury Strip casinos make money again?

What Next for Nevada's Gaming Industry?

I'm about to step out the door to see a movie. But before I do, I want to share with you something I just read in today's Sun about the casinos. They asked three retired casino executives about what went wrong in recent years, and what may be done now to get back on track. I don't know if I completely agree with what they say, but it's certainly interesting to see how we got where we are now.