--- In vpFREE+AEA-yahoogroups.com, "eecounter" <eecounter+AEA-...> wrote:
6) More and more casinos seem to be severely punishing players who
stop in without playing (to collect free play, pick up a comp,
whatever), instead of rewarding players for their overall volume of
play. i.e. the Harrah's "trip" concept is spreading.
Pretty much every casino in the US, save for a few local LV casinos,
now rate their players based on daily average.
get what you can while you can harrahs has unplayable games the trend of downgrading vp may reverse soon as casinos become more desperate
--- On Wed, 1/21/09, paladingamingllc <paladingamingllc@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: paladingamingllc <paladingamingllc@yahoo.com>
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Have casinos finally had enough?
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2009, 3:40 AM
--- In vpFREE+AEA-yahoogro ups.com, "eecounter" <eecounter+AEA- ...> wrote:
6) More and more casinos seem to be severely punishing players who
stop in without playing (to collect free play, pick up a comp,
whatever), instead of rewarding players for their overall volume of
play. i.e. the Harrah's "trip" concept is spreading.
Pretty much every casino in the US, save for a few local LV casinos,
now rate their players based on daily average.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
eecounter wrote:
> 6) More and more casinos seem to be severely punishing players
> who stop in without playing (to collect free play, pick up a
> comp, whatever), instead of rewarding players for their overall
> volume of play. i.e. the Harrah's "trip" concept is spreading.
paladingamingllc wrote:
Pretty much every casino in the US, save for a few local LV casinos,
now rate their players based on daily average.
When it comes to casino management, while I recognize that many
players find trip rating distasteful, I see it as one of the most
sensible practices found in an arena where lack of common sense
otherwise tends to rule the day.
The rationale behind "ADT" is to ensure that players are given
benefits pro rata to their value per day on the property. It means,
ideally, that a player who stops in 3 times for promotional benefits
for a given volume of play receives no more than a player who stops in
only once for the same play volume.
My perspective will obviously be skewed ... I tend to be one of the
more infrequent collectors. I figure that given a fixed pot of
promotional dollars, ADT will benefit me. But setting personal
interest aside, I find the system equitable and fair -- when
reasonably implemented. (That, of course, is a BIG caveat.)
- H.
...
paladingamingllc wrote:
> Pretty much every casino in the US, save for a few local LV
casinos,
> now rate their players based on daily average.
...
"Harry Porter" wrote:
When it comes to casino management, while I recognize that many
players find trip rating distasteful, I see it as one of the most
sensible practices found in an arena where lack of common sense
otherwise tends to rule the day.The rationale behind "ADT" is to ensure that players are given
benefits pro rata to their value per day on the property. It means,
ideally, that a player who stops in 3 times for promotional benefits
for a given volume of play receives no more than a player who stops
in
only once for the same play volume.
My perspective will obviously be skewed ... I tend to be one of the
more infrequent collectors. I figure that given a fixed pot of
promotional dollars, ADT will benefit me. But setting personal
interest aside, I find the system equitable and fair -- when
reasonably implemented. (That, of course, is a BIG caveat.)
the year in the East and 1/2 in LV. At the local LV casinos, I
figure I get approx. half the BBC per period I would if I was there
the entire year and can only cash it on half the dates. Thus my
benefit from BBC is approx. half of what it "should" be. Nevertheless
sometimes I am able to remind hosts of this and receive occasional
discretionary comps.
At Mohegan Sun ("MS"), my primary casino in the East, most benefits
are determined on daily average theo, with a day based solely on
play. Theo % varies from game to game. In order to maximize ADT many
players play on spouse's card one day, then both on the other
spouse's another day. [One friend has even proposed even larger
alternating groups.] If they are staying overnight they avoid short
play on the getaway day, unless they arrange with a host for the play
to be credited to the prior day. As I do not enjoy long sessions, I
find trying to game this system to be a negative. MS's policy is
designed to attract high rollers and is more attuned to a destination
casino than a locals', even though I would surmise that the majority
of its business is in the area. The result may be the creation of
pseudo high rollers rather than attracting legitimate ones.
Local LV casinos looking more to total play than ADT seems sensible,
as such perks as BBC may engender more trips per month with a
greater dollars volume, but benefits based on ADT are unlikely to
change $0.25 players to dollars players or dollars to five.
Perhaps as system where all perks and comps including high roller
lounge visits, theater tickets, tournament entries, rooms, etc. are
noted and "charged" to a players discretionary account is the most
fair, but could be burdensome for the casinos. In any event, I am not
enamored with having to tailor my play to maximize benefits, as this
interferes with the recreational aspect on VP, but I hate foregoing
legitimate benefits.
David
From my perspective, I am not a fan of ADT. I spend approximately 1/2
Hi Harry,
Your argument is one of the assumptions used by virtually everyone in the industry so no one questions it. I've been fighting it for years.
Divide the customers into 3 groups -- those who live within 1 hour's drive of the casino and therefore can go as many times as they like (locals)
- those who live within a 3-4 hour drive and therefore can come for an overnight between 1 and 5 times a month (day-trippers)
- destination visitors who come infrequently (visitors).
I can even make the case that visitors should not be rated on a daily average, see my last sentence.
With both locals and day-trippers let's take 2 customers. A plays once a month with $10,000 coin-in on a 2% theoretical hold machine. A is worth $200 / month.
B plays twice a month, $10,000 coin-in each time on the same machine. B is worth $400 / month. But the casino rates B exactly the same as A and gives the same offers.
Take a third customer, C. C plays once a month on the same machine but puts through $20,000 coin in and is worth $400 / month. Guess who gets the better offer, B or C?
You cannot devise a scenario where a customer's theo can be higher if using ADT over cumulative, the best that can happen is they are the same. In fact, you are now providing a disincentive for a customer to play either the day they arrive or leave since they won't have as much time to play and would lower their ADT.
B
At 08:27 AM 1/21/2009, you wrote:
eecounter wrote:
> > 6) More and more casinos seem to be severely punishing players
> > who stop in without playing (to collect free play, pick up a
> > comp, whatever), instead of rewarding players for their overall
> > volume of play. i.e. the Harrah's "trip" concept is spreading.paladingamingllc wrote:
> Pretty much every casino in the US, save for a few local LV casinos,
> now rate their players based on daily average.When it comes to casino management, while I recognize that many
players find trip rating distasteful, I see it as one of the most
sensible practices found in an arena where lack of common sense
otherwise tends to rule the day.The rationale behind "ADT" is to ensure that players are given
benefits pro rata to their value per day on the property. It means,
ideally, that a player who stops in 3 times for promotional benefits
for a given volume of play receives no more than a player who stops in
only once for the same play volume.My perspective will obviously be skewed ... I tend to be one of the
more infrequent collectors. I figure that given a fixed pot of
promotional dollars, ADT will benefit me. But setting personal
interest aside, I find the system equitable and fair -- when
reasonably implemented. (That, of course, is a BIG caveat.)- H.
------------------------------------
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
MS's policies do tend to distort one's play, I agree. The appearance of those "Check Your Status" terminals has eliminated the guesswork about qualification for Sagamore, for example, but it has also allowed me to avoid short-play days. Until I reach Sagamore, my wife & I play on my cards. Once I get to Sagamore, I play on my wife's card, and just build up her points. That allows me to avoid shopping in Yankee Candle & the Almanac store ; )
What I would prefer would be a trip-based, rather than a day-based system. E.G., if I go for a 2 night stay, which would encompass 3 "play-days", look at the entire trip, instead of a 3 day average. We have a 2 hour trip to MS, so if we arrive at 1PM on day 1, and leave relatively early on day 3 (11AM or so), my average day suffers. But if you look at it as 1 trip, consisting of ~48 hours, the average per 24 hour day is quite different.
________________________________
At Mohegan Sun ("MS"), my primary casino in the East, most benefits
are determined on daily average theo, with a day based solely on
play. Theo % varies from game to game. In order to maximize ADT many
players play on spouse's card one day, then both on the other
spouse's another day. [One friend has even proposed even larger
alternating groups.] If they are staying overnight they avoid short
play on the getaway day, unless they arrange with a host for the play
to be credited to the prior day. As I do not enjoy long sessions, I
find trying to game this system to be a negative. MS's policy is
designed to attract high rollers and is more attuned to a destination
casino than a locals', even though I would surmise that the majority
of its business is in the area. The result may be the creation of
pseudo high rollers rather than attracting legitimate ones.
Local LV casinos looking more to total play than ADT seems sensible,
as such perks as BBC may engender more trips per month with a
greater dollars volume, but benefits based on ADT are unlikely to
change $0.25 players to dollars players or dollars to five.
Perhaps as system where all perks and comps including high roller
lounge visits, theater tickets, tournament entries, rooms, etc. are
noted and "charged" to a players discretionary account is the most
fair, but could be burdensome for the casinos. In any event, I am not
enamored with having to tailor my play to maximize benefits, as this
interferes with the recreational aspect on VP, but I hate foregoing
legitimate benefits.
David
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The fact that the .25 and the $1 VP earns points at the same rate now
annoys me since it makes qualification for the clubs about 55% harder
to achieve. This change kept my wife from making sagamore (we were
not willing to up our play to meet their "new" standard. I have
played less there because of it. -Russ
MS's policies do tend to distort one's play, I agree. The
appearance of those "Check Your Status" terminals has eliminated the
guesswork about qualification for Sagamore, for example, but it has
also allowed me to avoid short-play days. Until I reach Sagamore, my
wife & I play on my cards. Once I get to Sagamore, I play on my
wife's card, and just build up her points. That allows me to avoid
shopping in Yankee Candle & the Almanac store ; )
What I would prefer would be a trip-based, rather than a day-based
system. E.G., if I go for a 2 night stay, which would encompass
3 "play-days", look at the entire trip, instead of a 3 day average.
We have a 2 hour trip to MS, so if we arrive at 1PM on day 1, and
leave relatively early on day 3 (11AM or so), my average day suffers.
But if you look at it as 1 trip, consisting of ~48 hours, the average
per 24 hour day is quite different.
________________________________
At Mohegan Sun ("MS"), my primary casino in the East, most benefits
are determined on daily average theo, with a day based solely on
play. Theo % varies from game to game. In order to maximize ADT
many
players play on spouse's card one day, then both on the other
spouse's another day. [One friend has even proposed even larger
alternating groups.] If they are staying overnight they avoid
short
play on the getaway day, unless they arrange with a host for the
play
to be credited to the prior day. As I do not enjoy long sessions, I
find trying to game this system to be a negative. MS's policy is
designed to attract high rollers and is more attuned to a
destination
casino than a locals', even though I would surmise that the
majority
of its business is in the area. The result may be the creation of
pseudo high rollers rather than attracting legitimate ones.Local LV casinos looking more to total play than ADT seems
sensible,
as such perks as BBC may engender more trips per month with a
greater dollars volume, but benefits based on ADT are unlikely to
change $0.25 players to dollars players or dollars to five.Perhaps as system where all perks and comps including high roller
lounge visits, theater tickets, tournament entries, rooms, etc. are
noted and "charged" to a players discretionary account is the most
fair, but could be burdensome for the casinos. In any event, I am
not
enamored with having to tailor my play to maximize benefits, as
this
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Guru Perf <guruperf@...> wrote:
interferes with the recreational aspect on VP, but I hate foregoing
legitimate benefits.David
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re the comments by Bill, Harry and paladin:
I can understand casinos daily average when they are comping room, food, et al, but I think they screw themselves by having a daily average(theoretical or otherwise) for "locals". I visit the "X", which is closest to my home, at least 25 times per month (sports book, meals, meet friends, etc), but may not play more than 2 or 3 times, because of this daily average. If it didn't exist I'd play (perhaps for only short periods, but I'd play) at least half the visits and quite possibly more.
Hi Harry,
Your argument is one of the assumptions used by virtually everyone in
the industry so no one questions it. I've been fighting it for years.paladingamingllc wrote:
> Pretty much every casino in the US, save for a few local LV casinos,
> now rate their players based on daily average.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.10/1906 - Release Date: 1/21/2009 7:07 AM
Bill Coleman wrote:
Hi Harry,
Your argument is one of the assumptions used by virtually everyone
in the industry so no one questions it. I've been fighting it for
years.Divide the customers into 3 groups -- those who live within 1
hour's drive of the casino and therefore can go as many times as
they like (locals)
- those who live within a 3-4 hour drive and therefore can come for
an overnight between 1 and 5 times a month (day-trippers)
- destination visitors who come infrequently (visitors).I can even make the case that visitors should not be rated on a
daily average, see my last sentence.With both locals and day-trippers let's take 2 customers. A plays
once a month with $10,000 coin-in on a 2% theoretical hold machine.
A is worth $200 / month.
B plays twice a month, $10,000 coin-in each time on the same
machine.
B is worth $400 / month. But the casino rates B exactly the same as
A and gives the same offers.Take a third customer, C. C plays once a month on the same machine
but puts through $20,000 coin in and is worth $400 / month. Guess
who gets the better offer, B or C?You cannot devise a scenario where a customer's theo can be higher
if using ADT over cumulative, the best that can happen is they are
the same. In fact, you are now providing a disincentive for a
customer to play either the day they arrive or leave since they
won't have as much time to play and would lower their ADT.
Let me just work with these numbers.
Ideally, each customer's cost in benefits should run prorata to their
play. If a casino elects to return 40% of a player's worth, then a
customer worth $400/mo should see $160 in benefits. A $200/mo player
should see $80.
So, take customer A (mo value $200). Under this scenario, they're
monthly benefit should be $80, which is distributed within a single visit.
For Customer B (mo value $400), their monthly benefit should be $160,
but in this case it's distributed over two visits. That also works
out to $80/visit. So, yes, I find it reasonable that A & B should be
comparably rated and receive similar offers visit to visit.
And, of course it makes sense to me that C should receive twice the
benefit strength of the other two players, in giving $400/mo value in
a single trip (and, thus, a single $160/visit benefit).
------
No matter what the rating system, there are going to be imperfections.
With ADT, a key one is partial play on check out day. An ideal
system would provide some means of adjustment (such as not rating the
day if play were under a given threshold, or not adding a day into the
ADT divisor).
There is an aspect of your argument that suggests that a player who
puts through a higher volume of play should be rated higher, even if
ADT's are comparable. Various systems do incorporate a component of this.
Some systems provide a kicker annual bonus (cash, merchandise, etc.)
that recognizes annual play volume. Some qualify invitations to
special events on overall play volume rather than ADT. And, of
course, tiered systems provided recognition/reward for increased
aggregate play through the year.
- H.
Harry,
The biggest problem with ADT is underrewarding profitable players and providing a disincentive to play. It would be like the grocery store no longer giving you sale prices with your loyalty card because 1 day you only bought a pack of gum.
At 02:39 PM 1/21/2009, you wrote:
Bill Coleman wrote:
>
> Hi Harry,
> Your argument is one of the assumptions used by virtually everyone
> in the industry so no one questions it. I've been fighting it for
> years.
>
> Divide the customers into 3 groups -- those who live within 1
> hour's drive of the casino and therefore can go as many times as
> they like (locals)
> - those who live within a 3-4 hour drive and therefore can come for
> an overnight between 1 and 5 times a month (day-trippers)
> - destination visitors who come infrequently (visitors).
>
> I can even make the case that visitors should not be rated on a
> daily average, see my last sentence.
>
> With both locals and day-trippers let's take 2 customers. A plays
> once a month with $10,000 coin-in on a 2% theoretical hold machine.
> A is worth $200 / month.
> B plays twice a month, $10,000 coin-in each time on the same
> machine.
> B is worth $400 / month. But the casino rates B exactly the same as
> A and gives the same offers.
>
> Take a third customer, C. C plays once a month on the same machine
> but puts through $20,000 coin in and is worth $400 / month. Guess
> who gets the better offer, B or C?
>
> You cannot devise a scenario where a customer's theo can be higher
> if using ADT over cumulative, the best that can happen is they are
> the same. In fact, you are now providing a disincentive for a
> customer to play either the day they arrive or leave since they
> won't have as much time to play and would lower their ADT.Let me just work with these numbers.
Ideally, each customer's cost in benefits should run prorata to their
play. If a casino elects to return 40% of a player's worth, then a
customer worth $400/mo should see $160 in benefits. A $200/mo player
should see $80.So, take customer A (mo value $200). Under this scenario, they're
monthly benefit should be $80, which is distributed within a single visit.For Customer B (mo value $400), their monthly benefit should be $160,
but in this case it's distributed over two visits. That also works
out to $80/visit. So, yes, I find it reasonable that A & B should be
comparably rated and receive similar offers visit to visit.And, of course it makes sense to me that C should receive twice the
benefit strength of the other two players, in giving $400/mo value in
a single trip (and, thus, a single $160/visit benefit).------
No matter what the rating system, there are going to be imperfections.
With ADT, a key one is partial play on check out day. An ideal
system would provide some means of adjustment (such as not rating the
day if play were under a given threshold, or not adding a day into the
ADT divisor).There is an aspect of your argument that suggests that a player who
puts through a higher volume of play should be rated higher, even if
ADT's are comparable. Various systems do incorporate a component of this.Some systems provide a kicker annual bonus (cash, merchandise, etc.)
that recognizes annual play volume. Some qualify invitations to
special events on overall play volume rather than ADT. And, of
course, tiered systems provided recognition/reward for increased
aggregate play through the year.- H.
------------------------------------
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
I'm not sure that's a valid comparison -- casino offers are generally measured in "absolute" value, not a percentage of purchase. If casinos offered a percentage off of losses your comparison might be a little more valid. However, casinos make offers worth "x" dollars (free room, free food, free show tickets, free booze, etc.) to get you to come in. A guy whose average trip to the casino is to wager $100 shouldn't be given an offer worth $200 to make a trip to the casino. The fact that he makes 200 of those trips a year doesn't change the value of each trip.
It would be like a grocery store offering someone who only buys a pack of gum on each trip $50 to make a trip to the store.
Harry,The biggest problem with ADT is underrewarding profitable players and providing a disincentive to play. It would be like the grocery store no longer giving you sale prices with your loyalty card because 1 day you only bought a pack of gum.At 02:39 PM 1/21/2009, you wrote:>Bill Coleman wrote:> >> > Hi Harry,> > Your argument is one of the assumptions used by virtually everyone> > in the industry so no one questions it. I've been fighting it for> > years.> >> > Divide the customers into 3 groups -- those who live within 1> > hour's drive of the casino and therefore can go as many times as> > they like (locals)> > - those who live within a 3-4 hour drive and therefore can come for> > an overnight between 1 and 5 times a month (day-trippers)> > - destination visitors who come infrequently (visitors).> >> > I can even make the case that visitors should not be rated on a> > daily average, see my last sentence.> >> > With both locals and day-trippers let's take 2 customers. A plays> > once a month with $10,000 coin-in on a 2% theoretical hold machine.> > A is worth $200 / month.> > B plays twice a month, $10,000 coin-in each time on the same> > machine.> > B is worth $400 / month. But the casino rates B exactly the same as> > A and gives the same offers.> >> > Take a third customer, C. C plays once a month on the same machine> > but puts through $20,000 coin in and is worth $400 / month. Guess> > who gets the better offer, B or C?> >> > You cannot devise a scenario where a customer's theo can be higher> > if using ADT over cumulative, the best that can happen is they are> > the same. In fact, you are now providing a disincentive for a> > customer to play either the day they arrive or leave since they> > won't have as much time to play and would lower their ADT.>>>Let me just work with these numbers.>>Ideally, each customer's cost in benefits should run prorata to their>play. If a casino elects to return 40% of a player's worth, then a>customer worth $400/mo should see $160 in benefits. A $200/mo player>should see $80.>>So, take customer A (mo value $200). Under this scenario, they're>monthly benefit should be $80, which is distributed within a single visit.>>For Customer B (mo value $400), their monthly benefit should be $160,>but in this case it's distributed over two visits. That also works>out to $80/visit. So, yes, I find it reasonable that A & B should be>comparably rated and receive similar offers visit to visit.>>And, of course it makes sense to me that C should receive twice the>benefit strength of the other two players, in giving $400/mo value in>a single trip (and, thus, a single $160/visit benefit).>>------>>No matter what the rating system, there are going to be imperfections.> With ADT, a key one is partial play on check out day. An ideal>system would provide some means of adjustment (such as not rating the>day if play were under a given threshold, or not adding a day into the>ADT divisor).>>There is an aspect of your argument that suggests that a player who>puts through a higher volume of play should be rated higher, even if>ADT's are comparable. Various systems do incorporate a component of this.>>Some systems provide a kicker annual bonus (cash, merchandise, etc.)>that recognizes annual play volume. Some qualify invitations to>special events on overall play volume rather than ADT. And, of>course, tiered systems provided recognition/reward for increased>aggregate play through the year.>>- H.>>>>>------------------------------------>>vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm>>Yahoo! Groups Links>>>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.comFrom: vphobby2@cox.netDate: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:53:42 -0800Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Have casinos finally had enough?
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® goes where you go. On a PC, on the Web, on your phone.
http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/versatility.aspx#mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_WL_HM_versatility_121208
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The number of trips is irrelevant to the value (profitability) of the customer. Over a given period of time the profitability of that customer is
Theoretical win - comps accepted.
Offers should be (and this is a simplification but if it was easy they would do it right) based on returning a portion of the win in the hope of attracting more win from that customer.
Then if done right there is no such thing as coupon abuse (a VERY unpopular position of mine but I can validate it mathematically) and customers are evaluated based on solid business metrics.
Those metrics do NOT include buy-in, time on machine, trip average, daily average or other time-honored industry assumptions.
You are right my analogy was overly simplistic but I was trying to show how absurd most gaming / marketing execs policies are. Not only absurd but counter-productive.
At 05:09 PM 1/21/2009, you wrote:
I'm not sure that's a valid comparison -- casino offers are generally measured in "absolute" value, not a percentage of purchase. If casinos offered a percentage off of losses your comparison might be a little more valid. However, casinos make offers worth "x" dollars (free room, free food, free show tickets, free booze, etc.) to get you to come in. A guy whose average trip to the casino is to wager $100 shouldn't be given an offer worth $200 to make a trip to the casino. The fact that he makes 200 of those trips a year doesn't change the value of each trip.
It would be like a grocery store offering someone who only buys a pack of gum on each trip $50 to make a trip to the store.
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.comFrom: vphobby2@cox.netDate: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:53:42 -0800Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Have casinos finally had enough?
Harry,The biggest problem with ADT is underrewarding profitable players and providing a disincentive to play. It would be like the grocery store no longer giving you sale prices with your loyalty card because 1 day you only bought a pack of gum.At 02:39 PM 1/21/2009, you wrote:>Bill Coleman wrote:> >> > Hi Harry,> > Your argument is one of the assumptions used by virtually everyone> > in the industry so no one questions it. I've been fighting it for> > years.> >> > Divide the customers into 3 groups -- those who live within 1> > hour's drive of the casino and therefore can go as many times
> they like (locals)> > - those who live
within a 3-4 hour drive and therefore can come
> an overnight between 1 and 5 times a
month (day-trippers)> > - destination visitors who come infrequently (visitors).> >> > I can even make the case that visitors should not be rated on a> > daily average, see my last sentence.> >> > With both locals and day-trippers let's take 2 customers. A plays> > once a month with $10,000 coin-in on a 2% theoretical hold machine.> > A is worth $200 / month.> > B plays twice a month, $10,000 coin-in each time on the same> > machine.> > B is worth $400 / month. But the casino rates B exactly the same as> > A and gives the same offers.> >> > Take a third customer, C. C plays once a month on the same machine> > but puts through $20,000 coin in and is worth $400 / month. Guess> > who gets the better offer, B or C?> >> > You cannot devise a scenario where a customer's theo can be
> if using ADT over cumulative, the best
that can happen is they are> > the same. In fact, you are now providing a disincentive for
> customer to play either the day they arrive
or leave since they> > won't have as much time to play and would lower their ADT.>>>Let me just work with these numbers.>>Ideally, each customer's cost in benefits should run prorata to their>play. If a casino elects to return 40% of a player's worth, then a>customer worth $400/mo should see $160 in benefits. A $200/mo
should see $80.>>So, take customer A (mo
value $200). Under this scenario, they're>monthly benefit should be $80, which is distributed within a single visit.>>For Customer B (mo value $400), their monthly benefit should be $160,>but in this case it's distributed over two visits. That also works>out to $80/visit. So, yes, I find it reasonable that A & B should
comparably rated and receive similar offers
visit to visit.>>And, of course it makes sense to me that C should receive twice the>benefit strength of the other two players, in giving $400/mo value in>a single trip (and, thus, a single $160/visit benefit).>>------>>No matter what the rating system, there are going to be imperfections.> With ADT, a key one is partial play on check out day. An ideal>system would provide some means of adjustment (such as not rating the>day if play were under a given threshold, or not adding a day into the>ADT divisor).>>There is an aspect of your argument that suggests that a player who>puts through a higher volume of play should be rated higher, even if>ADT's are comparable. Various systems do incorporate a component of this.>>Some systems provide a kicker annual bonus (cash, merchandise, etc.)>that recognizes annual play volume. Some qualify invitations to>special events on overall play volume rather than ADT. And, of>course, tiered systems provided recognition/reward for increased>aggregate play through the year.>>- H.>>>>>------------------------------------>>vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm>>Yahoo! Groups Links>>>
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® goes where you go. On a PC, on the Web, on your phone.
http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/versatility.aspx#mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_WL_HM_versatility_121208[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
My offers tend to relatively accurately reflect my gambling tendencies. I live relatively close to a Harrah's property. I play there far more often than anywhere else, but my trips there are day trips -- frequent but fairly insignificant levels of play in the grand scheme of things: 3-4 hours of craps on a $10 table. My offers from that property tend to reflect that -- here's a little cash, the occasional enticement of a free room, but nothing to write home about. I go to Vegas about once or twice a year. I'm there for a long weekend generally with my wife. We gamble much heavier, drink, eat, and generally spend money. My offers from the Harrah's properties in Vegas are much more robust: shopping sprees, nice rooms everywhere, food/beverage, gift cards, show tickets, etc.
I'll guarantee I push more dollars through the local casino in a given year than I do in Vegas. It's just not worth very much to get me to come into the local casino, because I don't spend much when I am there.
Any time period you select to measure is arbitrary anyway. ADT is no less arbitrary than AYT. Perhaps a trip isn't perfect in measuring "value", but it's a lot less arbitrary than any other time period.
The number of trips is irrelevant to the value (profitability) of the customer. Over a given period of time the profitability of that customer isTheoretical win - comps accepted.Offers should be (and this is a simplification but if it was easy they would do it right) based on returning a portion of the win in the hope of attracting more win from that customer.Then if done right there is no such thing as coupon abuse (a VERY unpopular position of mine but I can validate it mathematically) and customers are evaluated based on solid business metrics.Those metrics do NOT include buy-in, time on machine, trip average, daily average or other time-honored industry assumptions.You are right my analogy was overly simplistic but I was trying to show how absurd most gaming / marketing execs policies are. Not only absurd but counter-productive.At 05:09 PM 1/21/2009, you wrote:>I'm not sure that's a valid comparison -- casino >offers are generally measured in "absolute" >value, not a percentage of purchase. If casinos >offered a percentage off of losses your >comparison might be a little more >valid. However, casinos make offers worth "x" >dollars (free room, free food, free show >tickets, free booze, etc.) to get you to come >in. A guy whose average trip to the casino is >to wager $100 shouldn't be given an offer worth >$200 to make a trip to the casino. The fact >that he makes 200 of those trips a year doesn't change the value of each trip.>>It would be like a grocery store offering >someone who only buys a pack of gum on each trip >$50 to make a trip to the store.>>>>To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.comFrom: >vphobby2@cox.netDate: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:53:42 >-0800Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Have casinos finally had enough?>>>>Harry,The biggest problem with ADT is >underrewarding profitable players and providing >a disincentive to play. It would be like the >grocery store no longer giving you sale prices >with your loyalty card because 1 day you only >bought a pack of gum.At 02:39 PM 1/21/2009, you >wrote:>Bill Coleman wrote:> >> > Hi Harry,> > >Your argument is one of the assumptions used by >virtually everyone> > in the industry so no one >questions it. I've been fighting it for> > >years.> >> > Divide the customers into 3 groups >-- those who live within 1> > hour's drive of >the casino and therefore can go as many times >as> > they like (locals)> > - those who live >within a 3-4 hour drive and therefore can come >for> > an overnight between 1 and 5 times a >month (day-trippers)> > - destination visitors >who come infrequently (visitors).> >> > I can >even make the case that visitors should not be >rated on a> > daily average, see my last >sentence.> >> > With both locals and >day-trippers let's take 2 customers. A plays> > >once a month with $10,000 coin-in on a 2% >theoretical hold machine.> > A is worth $200 / >month.> > B plays twice a month, $10,000 coin-in >each time on the same> > machine.> > B is worth >$400 / month. But the casino rates B exactly the >same as> > A and gives the same offers.> >> > >Take a third customer, C. C plays once a month >on the same machine> > but puts through $20,000 >coin in and is worth $400 / month. Guess> > who >gets the better offer, B or C?> >> > You cannot >devise a scenario where a customer's theo can be >higher> > if using ADT over cumulative, the best >that can happen is they are> > the same. In >fact, you are now providing a disincentive for >a> > customer to play either the day they arrive >or leave since they> > won't have as much time >to play and would lower their ADT.>>>Let me just >work with these numbers.>>Ideally, each >customer's cost in benefits should run prorata >to their>play. If a casino elects to return 40% >of a player's worth, then a>customer worth >$400/mo should see $160 in benefits. A $200/mo >player>should see $80.>>So, take customer A (mo >value $200). Under this scenario, >they're>monthly benefit should be $80, which is >distributed within a single visit.>>For Customer >B (mo value $400), their monthly benefit should >be $160,>but in this case it's distributed over >two visits. That also works>out to $80/visit. >So, yes, I find it reasonable that A & B should >be>comparably rated and receive similar offers >visit to visit.>>And, of course it makes sense >to me that C should receive twice the>benefit >strength of the other two players, in giving >$400/mo value in>a single trip (and, thus, a >single $160/visit benefit).>>------>>No matter >what the rating system, there are going to be >imperfections.> With ADT, a key one is partial >play on check out day. An ideal>system would >provide some means of adjustment (such as not >rating the>day if play were under a given >threshold, or not adding a day into the>ADT >divisor).>>There is an aspect of your argument >that suggests that a player who>puts through a >higher volume of play should be rated higher, >even if>ADT's are comparable. Various systems do >incorporate a component of this.>>Some systems >provide a kicker annual bonus (cash, >merchandise, etc.)>that recognizes annual play >volume. Some qualify invitations to>special >events on overall play volume rather than ADT. >And, of>course, tiered systems provided >recognition/reward for increased>aggregate play >through the year.>>- >H.>>>>>------------------------------------>>vpFREE >Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm>>Yahoo! Groups Links>>>>>>>>>__________________________________________________________>Hotmail® goes where you go. On a PC, on the Web, on your phone.>http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/versatility.aspx#mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_WL_HM_versatility_121208 >>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]>>>------------------------------------>>vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm>>Yahoo! Groups Links>>>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.comFrom: vphobby2@cox.netDate: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:34:34 -0800Subject: RE: [vpFREE] Re: Have casinos finally had enough?
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ Hotmail®…more than just e-mail.
http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_hm_justgotbetter_howitworks_012009
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I don't know why all casinos don't do it the easy way. Both Casino Rama and the Niagara falls Ontario casinos give you bounce back cash as a straight percentage of your coin in on your last trip.
If you go 5 days you get 5 checks in the mail, no limits that I have found. The best thing for the casino is that you don't encourage a player to leave after they hit their tier level for their monthly mailing, the more you play the more you get back.
Regards
A.P.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bill Coleman wrote:
The biggest problem with ADT is underrewarding profitable players
and providing a disincentive to play. It would be like the grocery
store no longer giving you sale prices with your loyalty card
because 1 day you only bought a pack of gum.
No. It would be like not giving you $10 in free groceries every time
you walk in the door, because half the time you come in just to buy a
candy bar, seriously diluting your average purchase per visit.
Sale prices are strictly a pro rata benefit ... they're in direct
relation to your purchase volume.
- H.
Harry Porter wrote:
No. It would be like not giving you $10 in free groceries every
time you walk in the door ...
Ok, in retrospect, not the best analogy. (And it would have been best
had I not jumped the gun and read the balance of the thread ... David
already had suggested something similar.)
My point comes down to that you want offer value to be pro rata to the
average expected trip play (based on history). Some players will come
in and, in effect, buy just a pack of gum when they collect that
bonus. That's fine, so long as on average what they receive in total
benefits puts them on par with what others receive (in other words,
over time benefits are pro rate to play volume.)
I maintain that ADT is effective in this (although obviously not
perfect).
Other systems accomplish something similar -- some give you a fixed $
of coupons each month for achieving a given threshold of play. In
this case, play per visit isn't a factor, just total monthly play.
There's still a direct relationship between total play and total
potential redemption.
I'm not saying that ADT is any more effect than the above. However,
for a property that largely relies upon "visitor" traffic (vs. local),
it's more equitable. Visitors typically don't have the opportunity to
redeem multiple bonuses each month.
ADT maximizes the incentive to put in a strong trip with each visit,
and makes it possible to offer greater incentives per visit. For some
properties, I find this the most viable scheme.
All that said, I'd guess this is one we'll simply agree to disagree on.
- H.
Albert Pearson wrote:
I don't know why all casinos don't do it the easy way. Both Casino
Rama and the Niagara falls Ontario casinos give you bounce back
cash as a straight percentage of your coin in on your last trip.
If you go 5 days you get 5 checks in the mail, no limits that I
have found. The best thing for the casino is that you don't
encourage a player to leave after they hit their tier level for
their monthly mailing, the more you play the more you get back.
When I discuss this topic, I'm not talking about just bounceback.
Most specifically, I'm talking about incentives to get you to come
back <say> every weekend through special promotions that lead one to
believe you're leaving something on the table if you don't stop in.
The most effective of these supplemental benefits tier the benefits
pro rata to rating (whether that benefit be cash, gift, or inclusion
in a special drawing, tournament, event, etc.). This takes a little
more finesse and where I've assumed we're drawing distinctions in the
evaluation of a player's offer strength. Certainly this is the case
with Harrah's ADT.
- H.
Perhaps you misunderstood. I urge NEVER use any kind of average on locals and day trippers. There are MUCH better ways.
At 06:15 PM 1/21/2009, you wrote:
My offers tend to relatively accurately reflect my gambling tendencies. I live relatively close to a Harrah's property. I play there far more often than anywhere else, but my trips there are day trips -- frequent but fairly insignificant levels of play in the grand scheme of things: 3-4 hours of craps on a $10 table. My offers from that property tend to reflect that -- here's a little cash, the occasional enticement of a free room, but nothing to write home about. I go to Vegas about once or twice a year. I'm there for a long weekend generally with my wife. We gamble much heavier, drink, eat, and generally spend money. My offers from the Harrah's properties in Vegas are much more robust: shopping sprees, nice rooms everywhere, food/beverage, gift cards, show tickets, etc.
I'll guarantee I push more dollars through the local casino in a given year than I do in Vegas. It's just not worth very much to get me to come into the local casino, because I don't spend much when I am there.
Any time period you select to measure is arbitrary anyway. ADT is no less arbitrary than AYT. Perhaps a trip isn't perfect in measuring "value", but it's a lot less arbitrary than any other time period.
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.comFrom: vphobby2@cox.netDate: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:34:34 -0800Subject: RE: [vpFREE] Re: Have casinos finally had enough?
The number of trips is irrelevant to the value (profitability) of the customer. Over a given period of time the profitability of that customer isTheoretical win - comps accepted.Offers should be (and this is a simplification but if it was easy they would do it right) based on returning a portion of the win in the hope of attracting more win from that customer.Then if done right there is no such thing as coupon abuse (a VERY unpopular position of mine but I can validate it mathematically) and customers are evaluated based on solid business metrics.Those metrics do NOT include buy-in, time on machine, trip average, daily average or other time-honored industry assumptions.You are right my analogy was overly simplistic but I was trying to show how absurd most gaming / marketing execs policies are. Not only absurd but counter-productive.At 05:09 PM 1/21/2009, you wrote:>I'm not sure that's a valid comparison -- casino >offers are generally measured in "absolute" >value, not a percentage of purchase. If casinos >offered a percentage off of losses your >comparison might be a little more >valid. However, casinos make offers worth "x" >dollars (free room, free food, free show >tickets, free booze, etc.) to get you to come >in. A guy whose average trip to the casino is >to wager $100 shouldn't be given an offer worth >$200 to make a trip to the casino. The fact >that he makes 200 of those trips a year doesn't change the value of each trip.>>It would be like a grocery store offering >someone who only buys a pack of gum on each trip >$50 to make a trip to the store.>>>>To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.comFrom: >vphobby2@cox.netDate : Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:53:42 >-0800Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Have casinos finally had enough?>>>>Harry,The biggest problem with ADT is >underrewarding profitable players and providing >a disincentive to play. It would be like the >grocery store no longer giving you sale prices >with your loyalty card because 1 day you only >bought a pack of gum.At 02:39 PM 1/21/2009, you >wrote:>Bill Coleman wrote:> >> > Hi Harry,> > >Your argument is one of the assumptions used by >virtually everyone> > in the industry so no one >questions it. I've been fighting it for> > >years.> >> > Divide the customers into 3 groups >-- those who live within 1> > hour's drive of >the casino and therefore can go as many times >as> > they like (locals)> > - those who live >within a 3-4 hour drive and therefore can come >for> > an overnight between 1 and 5 times a >month (day-trippers)> > - destination visitors >who come infrequently (visitors).> >> > I can >even make the case that visitors should not be >rated on a> > daily average, see my last >sentence.> >> > With both locals and >day-trippers let's take 2 customers. A
> >once a month with $10,000 coin-in on a
2% >theoretical hold machine.> > A is worth $200 / >month.> > B plays twice a month, $10,000 coin-in >each time on the same> > machine.> > B is worth >$400 / month. But the casino rates B exactly the >same as> > A and gives the same offers.> >> > >Take a third customer, C. C plays once a month >on the same machine> > but puts through $20,000 >coin in and is worth $400 / month. Guess> > who >gets the better offer, B or C?> >> > You cannot >devise a scenario where a customer's theo can be >higher> > if using ADT over cumulative, the best >that can happen is they are> > the same. In >fact, you are now providing a disincentive for >a> > customer to play either the day they arrive >or leave since
> won't have as much time >to play and
would lower their ADT.>>>Let me just >work with these numbers.>>Ideally, each >customer's cost in benefits should run prorata >to their>play. If a casino elects to return 40% >of a player's worth, then a>customer worth >$400/mo should see $160 in benefits. A $200/mo >player>should see $80.>>So, take customer A (mo >value $200). Under this scenario, >they're>monthly benefit should be $80, which is >distributed within a single visit.>>For Customer >B (mo value $400), their monthly benefit should >be $160,>but in this case it's distributed over >two visits. That also works>out to $80/visit. >So, yes, I find it reasonable that A & B should >be>comparably rated and receive similar offers >visit to visit.>>And, of course it makes sense >to me that C should receive twice
benefit >strength of the other two players,
in giving >$400/mo value in>a single trip (and, thus, a >single $160/visit benefit).>>------>>No matter >what the rating system, there are going to be >imperfections.> With ADT, a key one is partial >play on check out day. An ideal>system would >provide some means of adjustment (such as not >rating the>day if play were under a given >threshold, or not adding a day into
ADT >divisor).>>There is an aspect of your
argument >that suggests that a player who>puts through a >higher volume of play should be rated higher, >even if>ADT's are comparable. Various systems do >incorporate a component of this.>>Some systems >provide a kicker annual bonus (cash, >merchandise, etc.)>that recognizes annual play >volume. Some qualify invitations
special >events on overall play volume rather
than ADT. >And, of>course, tiered systems provided >recognition/reward for
aggregate play >through the
year.>>- >H.>>>>>-------------------------------- ---->>vpFREE >Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm>>Yahoo! Groups
__________________________________________________________>Hotmail®
goes where you go. On a PC, on the Web, on your phone.>http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/versatility.aspx#mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_WL_HM_versatility_121208 >>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]>>>------------------------------------>>vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm>>Yahoo! Groups Links>>>
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail® more than just e-mail.
http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_hm_justgotbetter_howitworks_012009[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:
eecounter wrote:
> > 6) More and more casinos seem to be severely punishing players
> > who stop in without playing (to collect free play, pick up a
> > comp, whatever), instead of rewarding players for their overall
> > volume of play. i.e. the Harrah's "trip" concept is spreading.paladingamingllc wrote:
> Pretty much every casino in the US, save for a few local LV
casinos,
> now rate their players based on daily average.
When it comes to casino management, while I recognize that many
players find trip rating distasteful, I see it as one of the most
sensible practices found in an arena where lack of common sense
otherwise tends to rule the day.The rationale behind "ADT" is to ensure that players are given
benefits pro rata to their value per day on the property. It means,
ideally, that a player who stops in 3 times for promotional benefits
for a given volume of play receives no more than a player who stops
in
only once for the same play volume.
I need some help here, Harry. If somebody plays three times and
somebody else plays once, should the triple player get three times
the perks?
I am sure you are probably correct, but I need more info!
I don't know why all casinos don't do it the easy way. Both Casino
Rama and the Niagara falls Ontario casinos give you bounce back cash as
a straight percentage of your coin in on your last trip.
If you go 5 days you get 5 checks in the mail, no limits that I have
found. The best thing for the casino is that you don't encourage a
player to leave after they hit their tier level for their monthly
mailing, the more you play the more you get back.
Regards
A.P.
That would be too logical!
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Albert Pearson <ehpee@...> wrote: