In a message dated 3/2/2003 4:47:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
vpFREE@yahoogroups.com writes:
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 12:34:25 EST
From: chiefvrwc2@aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: Should Rob Singer become a "moderated member" of vpFREE?In a message dated 3/2/2003 5:13:22 AM Eastern Standard Time,
TedChee@aol.com
writes:>Since "chief" is an RS suppporter, I would like to nominate him to
moderate
>RS posts.Ted, If YOU were on VPHeaven you would know that I am no supporter of Rob
Singer. He and I had a year long back and forth exchange that was downrightmean and ugly. I still do not think that his VP strategy is valid but I
have
no longer have any hostility towards him as a person and I think that the
attacks that are still made against him are unwarranted. Most of all, I
think
it is completely unfair to permit these attacks, or to permit unlimited
discussion of him or his theories without his participation in the
discussion.And I have no interest in moderating anything except what I personally
choose
to read. A moderated forum is both childish and undemocratic.
An exchange that lasts a year! And a moderated forum is childish and
undemocratic? Imagine this being imposed on 1700+ members who aren't a part
of & don't want to be a part of this exchange. This is a perfect example of
why we need moderation.
Sorry, East Coasters. The opening was there so I had to take the shot.
SLOT CLUB SYSTEMS
In the Mar issue of Casino Player, pp. 26 - 27, Jeffrey Compton states:
"More and more casinos, especially those catering to the local markets, are
moving toward some sort of cumulative system...."
As an out-of-towner, I'm not that familiar with the local casinos but aren't
Green Valley Ranch (Stations), Palms and the Coast casinos on a trip-average
system, at least for out-of-towners?
I hope that Compton is right about the trend since there's a lot of "comp
loss" on trip-average systems. On cumulative (banking) systems there is no
loss of comps earned so I like that system better. Casinos which are on
trip-average supposedly could do better because they could use discretionary
comps which didn't come off your account but that is disappearing as the
casinos erect barriers against comp hogs by limiting or eliminating a hosts'
ability to issue discretionary comps.
THEORETICALS
A related issue is theoreticals. This is the theoretical loss that is
assigned to each game played. Recently had a conversation with a host about
what kind of play is expected for a stay which included room & tournament
entry fee. I was looking for a coin-in number and she started to give me a
theoretical number when I stopped her & said it isn't fair because
theoretical is a number that players are not privy to. (However, you can
calculate it if you ask what your theoretical is after playing each machine
but that's a lot of trouble if you move around.)
OVERPLAYING TO GET FULLY COMPED
Since you don't know your theoretical & it may have little or no relation to
the points earned, to get fully comped you keep playing & checking back until
your host says you've played enough. Most likely this means that you've
overplayed to get fully comped & you will additional comp amounts that you
won't use because you didn't know about it and/or didn't have time to use it.
An alternative in order to get full value is to underplay, ask for what
amount can be comped, and pay the difference.
If your trip-average is high enough to be at the RFL (room-food-limited to
some restaurants) or RFB (room-food-beverage, normally includes all
restaurants) level, make sure at CHECK-IN that you are checked in at that
level and you won't be surprised about having to pay for charges that you
thought were comped up front.
To get back to my previous example of my conversation with the host, I said
that I knew that was the system she had to work under but asked her to give
feedback to her superiors about the problems players have with theoreticals
and also with the trip-average system.
POTENTIAL PROBLEM WITH TRIP-AVERAGE UNDER THE ONE-CARD SYSTEMS
As the large corporations bring each member of their casino online in the
one-card system, I mentioned a problem that will appear when play is merged.
Suppose you have a high trip-average at casino A & are at RFB level. At
casino B, you have only casual play where you pop in for maybe an hour or two
& really don't want any invitations from there.
When casino A & B are merged on the one-card system, the theory is that you
can play anywhere & all play is accumulated as if it were one casino. But
what happens to your history? Is your good trip-average screwed up by the
casual play at casino B?
I think the casinos with one-card systems have worked around this problem
about how to integrate historical play from different casinos. But this
should be a warning not to do any more casual play at the one-card casino
families as they come online.
If the cumulative system sounds better to you now, then say something to the
casinos you belong to.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]