(1) It would cost a small fortune to do so for every hallway on every floor.
(2) Their high risk areas are in gaming, not hallways.
IPVMU Certified | 10/08/13 07:39pm
Do they have cameras in the elevator cabs? Seems like a more economical option, even with the pain of a traveling cable and all that garbage.
IPVMU Certified | 10/08/13 07:54pm
Ok guys you can stop pretending you're not waiting for Carl to chime in.
Btw, this same question can be asked for regular hotels (even higher end ones), where floor cameras are uncommon as well.
What happens in 'Vegas stays in 'Vegas, and perhaps the hotel/casino operators would rather not document who goes to what room. Privacy versus security issue?
From my understanding, the "gaming" and "hotel" security operations are essentially 2 very different groups.
Cameras on the casino floor are there to protect the casino
Cameras in the hallway are there to protect the guests.
Without guests, I suppose you don't have much gaming, but I think this is mostly a matter of financial incentives. If you've made it up to your room, you're already past the gaming floor and not worth much to them ;)
Sorry for the late reply. I was out of the loop for a while.
Casinos' camera coverage depends on regulatory requirements, budgets and the perceived value of video surveillance by owners and/or management. Corporate-owned casinos are notoriously budget concious when it comes to any expenditure that doesn't contribute directly to income. Not every one, mind you, but many "suits" would prefer to deploy the minimum surveillance necessary to meet regulatory needs. This explains why there are still a number of casinos recording their video on VCRs in this day and age.
In Nevada, the Nevada Gaming Control Board has licensing authority for all gaming operations. Regulation 5A Surveillance Standards for Nonrestricted Licensees specifies camera coverage of Slot Machines, Table Games, Card Games, Keno and Bingo, Sports Wagering, Cages and Vault, Count Rooms and Security Offices. No mention is made of hallways or elevator landings. Strictly speaking, any area not specifically mentioned is up to the owners/management. New Jersey and other states with legalized non-Indian gaming have their own sets of rules and regulations, most based at least in part on Nevada's (why reinvent the wheel?).
"Tribal Casinos" must meet other sets of regulations depending on the tribe's tribal-state compact and class of gaming (II (based on Bingo) or III (Vegas-style)). All casinos also make their own decision on how much coverage they want/need above the minimums.
So you wind up with some casinos, like ours, where every square inch of the gaming floor and most of our "back of house" is covered whereas others just deploy required cameras on gaming tables, progressive slot machines which exceed specified minimum jackpot payouts and cash handling, counting and storage areas.
The sureveillance dept doesnt generate any income so there isn't an ROI for upper management to justify any purchase that's not required or going to save them money on insurance premiums. Additionally, many Vegas casinos require that new camera runs be housed in conduit all the way to the camera/drop. This compounds the cost of installation.
I agree with J. Honovich, most casinos monitor they're tables and slots because that is where they make they're money and that is where people cheat...
I always cringe when I am at Gaming Protection Conferences and surveillance executives indicate that they don’t get the support they need from the C-Suite “because surveillance doesn’t generate revenue”. In my experience, this is an excuse used by those who have not learned to successfully educate the C-Suite and can’t demonstrate the value of a properly managed surveillance department.
In fairness to C-Suite/Property Owners, why should they provide valuable capital funds to a department that simply states they have a need (training budget, technology, etc) but fail to back the request with data to support their argument?
From building a new casino to managing an existing property, when value is demonstrated and the budget is properly prepared, there isn’t much that I have been denied. But understand that to get to this point, it takes commitment and the ability to provide specific and measurable data to support your design/budget needs.
I understand what you're saying but having dealt with both open-minded organizations and closed-minded organizations in my career, I can vouch for the existence of the mindset that views Surveillance as a nonprofitable albatross around the casino's neck.
It's not the savings that can be demonstrated that are the problem but the savings in terms of prevention that are the most difficult to justify. If we catch an employee stealing, the amount stolen and potential future loss can be estimated. If we catch an advantage player and back him off or flat bet him, the amount of gain he made can be extrapolated out in terms of house losses.
In any well-run casino organization, the quantified total of the above savings is typically a small fraction of the Surveillance Department's budget and therein lies the problem. How does a department quantify potential losses prevented just by their existence or their efficiency? I've discussed this with a number of Surveillance departments that have run into that wall. So-called bean counters often go on tangibles alone and defining the intangibles typically does nothing to convince them otherwise.
By the way, considering what I've heard from people at some other organizations, I count myself lucky that I'm employed by an open-minded organization that recognizes both the value of our department and that we don't ask for or spend more than we actually need.
Melissa, Carl, the last few comments have become very high level - demonstrating value, don't make excuses, etc.
I do not see, though, any specific comments on how one can specifically demonstrate sufficient value relative to the cost for cameras in hallways of room areas.
It seems that the 'value' of cameras is far higher in gaming than in room hallways. Yes/no?
I would have to agree with John and say that its based on number of incidents and overall history of where crime happends.