[ QUOTE ]
Translation:
They think there's tons more money to be made catering to chain-smoking middle aged women chained to video poker machines than there is listening to 19-year-olds with fake ids complaining about the $10/hour time charges.
[/ QUOTE ]
Per square meter they're probably right -- slots and video games are 100% automated and basically just require labor to sell the quarters and to take the quarters out of the machines.
However, it's not an either-or proposition. Both nations have plenty of land on their reservations to cater to all the slot players AND have a poker room. Since one doesn't rule out the other, the real business question is, "Does a poker room have a positive
net present value?", not, "Does a poker room have a higher NPV than any other gaming use?" Besides, there's a certain advantage to having both (as was pointed out to me): couples who might otherwise stay home can have one member go play the slots all day while the other plays poker.
So I find it hard to believe that a well-managed casino couldn't make money in a poker room, and it would be absurd for Mohegan to cede 100% of the market in New England (and half of that in NYC) to their competitor. Something's fishy with that explanation.