Las Vegas Hilton comp guidelines & a rant on "theoretical"

[tedchee]

In a message dated 1/18/2003 4:15:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
vpFREE@yahoogroups.com writes:

  Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 17:18:58 -0000
  From: "Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net>" <harry.porter@verizon.net>

Subject: Re: Las Vegas Hilton - additional comments to Harry's post

Some comments on the two additional posts in this thread and then I'll
try to restrain myself and excuse myself from further speculation.
There seems to be a lot of conflicting info around and I don't want to
add to the confusion at this point unless I had harder info:

TedChee wrote:
>From a prior stay, I have a different set of notes which should be
>taken only as guidelines:
>
>$2K/day Casino Rate
>$4K/day Room Comp
>$10K/day RFL (C4)
>$16K/day RFB

Actually got these figures from an LVH employee but that was on 6/15/01 so it
may be dated & that's why I was careful to say "guidelines".

The real measure is our trip average theoretical losses.

I've always had a problem with this, since, theoretically, the player isn't
supposed to know how it's calculated. So how are we supposed to hit a moving
target? You don't.

If you want comps to cover your costs, you keep on playing & returning to
check to see if you played enough to cover your costs. Which means that you
probably leave excess unused comps when you check out. To get full comp
value, you might play to your past average level, quit & pay the difference.
However, this might lower your rating on the next trip.

At every place where they start talking about trip average and theoretical, I
make it a point to say it's not fair because they're talking about a number
which the player has no idea how it's calculated. Often this elicits a
response in $ or points which are rough estimates & I say that's good enough
as I don't want to "game" the system & induce a host to show me where the
family jewels are kept.

I wish we could get all casinos to go back to a simple point system where we
are given a table of point levels & benefits associated with each level. Even
if certain games required a lot more play to get a point, that should be
better than a system based on numbers that we can't see.

My theory of why casinos use such a system is because the system gets us to
"overplay" to cover our expenses. From a player's perspective, returning to
VIP's humiliating feedback loop of whether your play is high enough makes you
feel more like a beggar than a VIP. Also as players wise up to alternatives,
they choose places with simpler systems & avoid returning for long periods of
time. I'll speculate that the players who vote with their feet are the ones
who do play at the higher levels & show up more frequently.

As I value their opinion, I'll defer to whatever Harry & BJayGold may have to
say due to their experience in this area.

Normally, I play well enough to get everything covered &, in a few casinos,
play higher than needed in order to leave wiggle room for my host to
accommodate me on any special requests such as rooms for others.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Harry_Porter]

TedChee's most recent post intelligently surfaces some of the most
troubling aspects of the comp system. I'll follow with a few comments
of my own:

···

------

Having gone back and reviewed various LVH comp reports including
advice I've received in the past, there's little doubt that their
system has to be one of the most complex and vaguely understood to be
found. Of course, the saving grace is that they have one of the best
vp selections to be found in the strip vicinity, excellent facilities,
and bottom line are relatively generous on comps - whatever system is
applicable.

The motivation for the LVH system may be what TedChee hints: Designed
to intentionally induce players to push their play to meet perceived
comp requirements to a point that is greater than if they had strong
clear guidance. It may be that this is simply an indirect unintended
effect. Nonetheless, it seems difficult to believe that the LVH
desire that comps fairly compensate play requires what appears to be a
relatively arcane system.

I wouldn't go as far as TedChee's suggestion that a straight point
formula may be preferable. I think it's in the casino's interest as
well as the player that comps reflect the house theo edge from
specific plays. I don't want to belabor that statement since I expect
some will have difficulty accepting it. But ultimately my point in
the case of LVH is that the present situation is player attractive and
I wouldn't want to see them mess with it.

------

That much said, I hope no player will chase comps with play. Of
course, in saying that I know from my own play that there's a bit of a
balancing act involved.

Let's say that it's my intent to play 6 hours a day. The fact is that
in absence of other factors that might induce me to play more or less,
I'm likely to be quite satisfied playing only 4 hours or as much as 8.
So if I perceive that a moderate amount of additional play will give
me significantly improved benefits (full RFB vs. ltd., or better
future offers for example) then I may very well go for it. If I sense
that 6 won't get me more consideration than 4, I might opt for 4 if
there are other activites around that interest me (or I may give some
play elsewhere).

So, I'm suggesting that comp availability is going to be a factor in
my play -- however, not a "driving" one. And, of course, if for any
reason play becomes unpleasant - whether to due heavy adverse loss
experience that is uncomfortable or due to play environment or health
circumstances - then I'll kill my play and accept that a few more
expenses that visit will be out-of-pocket (although I'll be sure to
explain any shortfall in play vs. past habits to my host so that
they're in the position to extend whatever consideration they may choose.)

The bottom line is to principally play as if comps weren't a factor at
all, and to reduce one's absolute comp expectations so that if you're
disappointed with what you're ultimately offered you willingly cover
the outstanding expenses without the experience becoming bitter. (My
comp experience at Paris this trip was very disappointing relative to
what I expected and I regret that I let that fact dig at me far too
long. It was one of the most pleasant stays we've every had - all the
better when I finally let go the comp disappointment.)

Still, clear and consistent comp systems go far to keep everyone
comfortable when everything's said and done.

- Harry