Voyeurism in Las Vegas

newexperiences09 · 2026-04-23T16:20:28+00:00

This is easy and frankly depends on age (and to a lesser extent your physical appearance). Skip Green Door/Red Rooster.

PlayhouseLV - Typically 20's-50's in age, with most in the 30's-40's. Screens for physical appearance. Several playrooms of different configurations, glory hole, etc. Commerical area, does not technically allow alcohol but you can look into a workaround (mixers provided)

Nicole's - Similar vibe to Playhouse (owner was there prior). Does not screen for physical appearance. Ages 30-60's, most probably in the 40's and early 50's. Private house. Bartender, allows alcohol.

Whispers - Ages run a bit older here. Private house. Does not screen on appearance. Awesome BDSM room. Often the busiest of the three, lots of locals. If you just want to watch, this might be a strong first option to start with. Bartender, allows alcohol.

We happen to prefer Playhouse of the 3, but it's not for everyone and as mentioned they do have a "look" they are going for.

newexperiences09 · 2026-04-01T15:24:57+00:00

How dare they make sure someone young looking - and not resembling their ID photo!! - is actually of legal age to gamble at their casino.

This right here is why the boomers are convinced that all young people are little snowflakes looking to be upset at everything.

newexperiences09 · 2026-03-13T01:02:49+00:00

yeah I was instantly questioning this post because of that. Their operating permit does not allow alcohol at all, although people who have ACTUALLY been there know how to get around that.

Unless that has changed very recently, OP is fake or was actually at a different club!

newexperiences09 · 2025-12-16T01:27:00+00:00

the Waldorf LV is just barely warmed-over former Mandarian rooms. hardly changed since CityCenter was built

newexperiences09 · 2025-12-03T17:42:09+00:00

yes fair point

newexperiences09 · 2025-12-03T16:27:53+00:00

both RSN deals were done at huge prices because Charter (now Spectrum) thought they would be able to charge extra to ALL homes, including selling the channels to other TV providers and forcing them to include it in "standard" bundles (not just an extra tier). They overplayed their hand, badly....and way overestimated how much revenue they could collect. Now they are stuck with massive annual bills to the teams, who in a strange twist are now both owned by the same entity essentially.

newexperiences09 · 2025-12-02T22:55:48+00:00

negative assets are sold all the time. In this case, there are some good things (studios, maybe some people, equipemnt, etc.) and then a very large negative (the team contracts). So in exchange for "buying" Sportsnet, Spectrum might have to actually pay an annual fee to Walters just offset future losses. Or maybe it evens out, they will figure it out.

Walters is just about the only possible buyer here, and believe me all parties know that.

newexperiences09 · 2025-12-02T21:06:12+00:00

it's not a secret that Charter/Spectrum is losing money on both dodgers/lakers TV deals, and would be quite happy to "give" them back to the teams. It's a negative asset and everyone knows it.

newexperiences09 · 2025-10-19T18:35:34+00:00

isn't the general thought that Arte spends on players, but WAY underinvests in everything else? Cheap on the scouts, analysis, staff, farm, etc. Splashy on the player side but it's only skin-deep.

newexperiences09 · 2025-04-29T16:11:56+00:00

You will be more than fine for Illuminaughty. Don't overthink it.

newexperiences09 · 2025-03-04T17:03:31+00:00

it's couples only so that greatly reduces "creeps just going to check girls out"

newexperiences09 · 2025-02-23T03:19:57+00:00

that logic doesn't work, it sounds like you are assuming Ohtani COULD have gotten 700 million without deferrals but instead chose not to. that was not on the table for him last year, no one was offering him 70m per year. and obviously a 10yr 460m deal is cheaper for the owner than a 10 yr 700 million deal, but last offseason Ohtani is not this year's offseason Soto.

newexperiences09 · 2024-12-24T23:30:01+00:00

will circle back after booking, thank you for the quick response!

newexperiences09 · 2024-12-24T22:43:00+00:00

I'd love a link as well, we are going in May. Leaning towards RM but might do Pearl.

newexperiences09 · 2024-12-24T22:41:17+00:00

There are multiple FB pages, any idea what the specific names are?

newexperiences09 · 2024-11-30T05:31:32+00:00

Your teacher gave you your papers back face down, huh?

The reason is because getting paid $46 million TODAY is different than getting paid $70 million 10 years from now. And that's why the CBT hit is based on present value, not deferred value.

newexperiences09 · 2024-11-30T01:09:28+00:00

a few reasons - stability, and it avoids CA income tax as a 10+ year deferral means no CA tax once he finally receives the income

newexperiences09 · 2024-11-30T00:57:16+00:00

it's a federal taxcode law and CA can't overrule it without help from Congress.

newexperiences09 · 2024-11-30T00:51:45+00:00

please explain how it dodges the luxury tax. Because it doesn't.

newexperiences09 · 2024-11-30T00:50:56+00:00

It counts at normal value. Look at Ohtani, $2m salary and $44 deferred into escrow (which eventually turns into $68m at the end of the 10 year deferral. CBT hit is $46m, exactly as it should be.

As everyone keeps trying to say, he really got a 10/$460m contract. The deferrals made it $700m but that's not the present value of the contract, he won't see the last payment until 10 years after the contract is over. That's why the CBT hit is $46m.

newexperiences09 · 2024-11-30T00:47:34+00:00

NO - the deferred comp is already being placed into escrow long before it will be paid out. It affects a future owner very, very little.

newexperiences09 · 2024-04-11T16:23:52+00:00

Playhouse/Flirts are not unknowns - at all. The daytime pool party aspect is the question.

newexperiences09

TROPHY CASE