[s3p]

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.

[sfitz]

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

[I_Am_Nous]

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?

[ryandrake]

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.

[EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK]

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!

[andy800]

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

[I_Am_Nous]

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.

[dragonwriter]

> 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?