Jean Scott's latest blog is an interesting one.
A trip is planned to a casino with good perks specified.
Suddenly, you discover that the good VP you expected to play is downgraded.
What do you do?
Each of us has unique needs and desires when we play. Some of you love slot tournaments, others enjoy being a guest during big events like NASCAR or Kentucky Derby weekend. At the very least, there is always a little "something" that can make you prefer one casino over another, even with identical VP choices.
Pursuing this issue, the next question to ask is this: How much are you willing to sacrifice in terms of expected return in order to get those things you like?
I can give you a personal example. For me, I am not a big fan of the VP offerings at any Harrahs property in Las Vegas.
But I am a big fan of shopping.
So, though I will take a "hit" on almost all VP games, it makes sense to me to give a Harrahs property some play if I get a nice gift card or shopping spree in return. It's not a large percentage of my play for the year, and I might actually win (though my chances should be less). But I'm willing to give them my action.
My approach is to do a ballpark estimate of what the cost of my budgeted play is vs. what I get back.
The math wizards out there might howl a bit. Shouldn't I be maximizing my win? But there's a not-so-subtle logic to my reasoning. As long as my comps aren't taxed, and as long as they are of value to the point that I would actually purchase what I am given, then I can sometimes be better off than if I had earned a per cent more on a game.
That's just the way I look at it. As I said, we are all unique, and I respect your approach even if it differs.