An observation-led approach to incremental floor performance
My objective is simple: understand the floor before recommending a change. Every conversation I have with a slot director begins the same way — with observation, not assumption.
What is happening across the floor?
Where might there be an opportunity?
What could we test together?
Structured thinking separates a sales conversation from a consulting one. I use a four-stage discipline on every floor walk — before I ever open a conversation.
What can I directly see?
What might those observations mean?
What don't I know yet?
What would I test if the data supports the hypothesis?
I separate what I know from what I believe — then use data to close the gap.
Observation only. The following cards are placeholders — to be completed following the Park MGM floor walk. No performance claims are made without data.
[One-sentence observation to be added after floor walk]
[One-sentence observation to be added after floor walk]
[One-sentence observation to be added after floor walk]
A floor walk generates a hypothesis. Performance data determines whether it's a real opportunity. Here is the framework I use to stay intellectually honest.
"Based on what I observed, I believe [** opportunity area **] may represent a meaningful path to improving [** performance metric **] on your floor."
WHY I BELIEVE THIS
Working hypothesis — subject to performance validation with Park MGM data.
"I need competitive choice on my floor. If I give Aristocrat more share, what protects me?"
That's the right question. Here's how I think about it:
Additional floor space must create incremental value — not simply redistribute existing revenue from one position to another.
Competitive mix remains an important part of your floor strategy. A healthy floor is a balanced one.
A measured pilot gives Park MGM the ability to evaluate before expanding — on your timeline, against your metrics.
The specific recommendation below will be completed following the Park MGM floor walk and data validation. The framework is set — the details will follow the evidence.
[Game / product — to be confirmed post observation]
[Specific bank / zone / placement — to be confirmed post observation]
[Business logic — tied directly to validated observations]
[Number of units / defined test area — sized for minimum disruption]
[What we are trying to prove — stated in performance terms]
ADD / MOVE / TEST / REPLACE / LEAVE — The recommendation is designed to test incremental value, not to move revenue from one position to another.
Does the proposed location make sense within your floor strategy? Are there constraints I haven't seen?
Does the game complement the existing floor? Does it serve your player mix and segment strategy?
What would concern you about the test? What outcome would tell you it isn't working?
The scorecard should be set before the test launches. If we agree on what winning looks like, the result is easier to trust — and easier to act on.
Win-per-unit (WPU)
Coin-in volume
Incremental revenue vs. baseline
Seat occupancy
Machine utilization
Sustained demand over the test window
Total-floor performance
Surrounding-bank impact
Competitive mix balance
No fabricated numbers. The scorecard will be built together, using your data and your benchmarks.
Confirm performance data with your team
Agree on pilot parameters, scope and scorecard
Execute the test with minimal floor disruption
Review agreed KPIs at the defined checkpoint
Decide together — expand, adjust, or remove
"If the opportunity is real, let's prove it together."
Let's schedule the follow-up now so we're looking at the results together.
PARK MGM