Hacker News Reader

Comment by s3p | Hacker News Reader

That doesn't make any sense. If you were already buzzed before going, then you would need a cheaper price to continue drinking, since you already have some in you. If you were dead sober and wanted to drink, then it makes sense to shell out the money.

View on HN

If you were already buzzed before going, you're probably not making super sound financial decisions inside.

It's Vegas, people don't go there to make sound financial decisions :P

Possible counter-strategy is that the prices are high so people stay relatively tame inside. Who wants to pay ($20/unit of alcohol) to even try to get drunk?

Yea anyone who's visited Vegas knows that from the time your plane lands to when you takeoff, you're basically just spewing money to everyone constantly. I think there are at least 5-10 people just between your airline gate and your hotel room door with their hands out looking for tips.

Not a place to go if you're frugal.

Funny that this is the general perception of Las Vegas after 50 years of marketing itself as a budget destination

My boss came back from a vendor conference in Vegas recently and went to the sphere. He said in the 90s you could go and find a cheap all you can eat buffet full of steak and it was like $10 to get in. Drinks were $2 or something like that. But now you can expect to spend $40-$50 per meal for a single person.

Every place is expensive if you go for a few days as a tourist. SF is definitely more expensive. I lived in Vegas as a regular dweller, near the Mantis in downtown, for a few months, nothing particularly expensive there. To the contrary, you get free live concerts every day and basically free marijuana - just inhale the air around you!

> If you were already buzzed before going, then you would need a cheaper price to continue drinking

Because judgement and rational decision making are things that already being under the influence of alochol increases, rather than the opposite?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com