How did the Mafia lose control over Las Vegas and was it really a better tourist experience when they operated ?

Not to rehash this post too much, but I'll extend a little on my explanation there for why organized crime is no longer connected with casino ownership.

As I mentioned there, several potential explanations are at hand. The first is the generational one, in which the ex-bootlegger cohort of men born c. 1900 were dying out. With their children mostly going legit and organized crime focusing more on narcotics and other sources of income than gambling after the 1960s, mobsters no longer had any real connection to gambling. It was a common path for bootleggers to diversify into illegal horse betting rooms, bookmaking, slot machine routes, and illegal casinos in the 1920s/1930s, but it would be difficulty to imagine (taking a fictional example) Tony Montana transitioning from cocaine into bingo.

Second, the federal government ratcheted pressure on the mob, with several high-profile cases intersecting with Las Vegas. I call this the "leviathan explanation." That removed some players from the scene, but there still remains the question of why new players didn't fill the void.

That might be explained by the third hypothesis, which is that finance and operations shifted to be unfavorable to those with mob connections.

Imagine you are opening a Las Vegas casino in 1950. You need money to build it, players to fill it, and a way to collect gambling debts (a small but significant amount of play in those days was on credit). No mainstream bank or lender will give you money to build a casino, since they are so risky. But those who already know the business can assess the risk, and might fund you. Advantage: mob. And, before the development of database marketing, if you want to find the gamblers in any given city, you'll want to hire the bookies and those already in the gambling business, which is by definition an organized crime. Advantage: mob. Finally, gambling debts were not then legally collectable. So you could ask politely and hope for the best, or ask politely with a credible threat--real or implied--behind you. Advantage:mob.

After the 1960s, the success of casino resorts was proven, and mainstream investors became interested. At the same time, casino hotels became larger and more expensive to build. The Sands (1952), opened with 200 rooms at the cost of $4.5 million, while the International (1969) opened with 1,500 rooms at a cost of $50 million--far beyond what mobsters could afford.

In addition, changes to the law (collection of gambling debts being legalized) and technology (player databases and direct marketing) eliminated other mob advantages.

So, by the early 1980s, organized crime had few advantages and many disadvantages when it came to owning Las Vegas casino resorts.

The second half of your question, whether the customer experience was better, is that it depends on who you were.

Imagine our c. 1950-1965 casino as a machine designed above all to funnel gamblers to 3-4 craps tables. That's where the big action was, though blackjack was gaining in popularity. Slot machines were a diversion, not a revenue stream. In that environment, casino personnel would know even moderate players, and would extend them every courtesy.

But if you were black, you would not be allowed into the casino as a paying customer (at least until 1960) and you would have very few employment opportunites (all of them menial). Women, too, were not hired as dealers in Las Vegas, and were typically not managers. So there are certain issues when people rhapsodize about the "good old days" of Las Vegas. Because it was much smaller, it may have been friendlier for some, but certainly not for all.

From a material standpoint, the quantity and quality of amenities is now far, far greater than it ever was. If you are interested in food, here is a virtual exhibit of vintage Las Vegas menus. Should give you an idea of what fine dining looked like.

That's all for now--happy to answer any follow-ups.