In a message dated 1/19/2003 2:19:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
vpFREE@yahoogroups.com writes:
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 04:39:23 -0000
From: "Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net>" <harry.porter@verizon.net>Subject: Re: Las Vegas Hilton comp guidelines &a rant on "theoretical"
Oops. Thanks for your observations, Harry. I posted these 2 subjects together
when I shouldn't have.
To clarify, my rant was against the "theoretical" system & not against LVH
where I had a pleasant stay. The fact that LVH uses the "theoretical" system
just gave me a jumping off point to get started on the rant.
I've tried to do my bit to lobby against the "theoretical" system at every
casino that uses it.
However, the reality is that the casinos probably have done more for me under
the "theoretical" system than what I would have expected otherwise. It's
probably because there is more leeway under the "theoretical" system due to
the higher margins from unclaimed comps.
When I say "more", I mean in terms of room upgrades, dining, limo, shows &
other on-property services which would be high cost to the consumer but
relatively low cost for the casino. Of course, many on this board assign a
low or zero value to these services as they are local or these are services
which they normally don't use or want.
This could lead to another discussion about the inflated costs in the
gambling cities where comps are prevalent versus the real costs in cities
where comps are not. One example is the $2500 rack rate for a room which
would have a maximum rack rate of $400 in any other major city.
End of rant. Bottom line is I was treated well at LVH & did not want to leave
the impression that I was not happy with them. It's just that I take every
opportunity to lobby for a more open system.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]