Why Casinos Lack Surveillance In Their Hallways?

(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.

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.

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?

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.

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...

Melissa,

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.

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.