Are you intimidated having a "host" at a casino?

There are advantages having a casino host. They can get you reservations for shows and restaurants and sporting events, and they can make sure you get a hotel room that fits your needs.

But I have also met players who feel intimidated about having a host, because they don't want to feel obligated to play a certain amount. Let's face it, they say, you have a host because your play or action justified having a host. That's a pretty good reason for not wanting to deal with a host.

So, how do you feel about having a host? And more importantly, do you feel obligated to have a certain amount of play or action at a casino to "keep the host satisfied?"

A lot of gaming experts say you should never "play for comps" but it you are playing at a certain level to "keep your host satisfied" you have reached the pinnacle of "playing for comps," haven't you?

And with some casino companies now issuing comps based on computerized tracking of your play, do you feel a host is not needed in the first place?

I started with a host @ Harrah's a few years back and she was a total waste of time. I guess I'm not a big enough player for her.

Playing for comps is never a smart choice. Getting the most out of your play is. So I will use a casino host for my benifit and my benifit only. I never feel obligated to give them the "expected amount of play". I play with the amount I want to play with and that's it. If that "cools down" my future offers, so be it. I've never had that problem until now and probably won't have that problem in the future. Because when the offers I get don't suite me, there are enough interesting destinations left to enjoy some time off. I just make a phone call and ask them what they have to offer. They will look at my record and that in my opinion they should show me appreciation for what I have given them in the past, not what I might give them in the future. If that's not good enough I can always take my business elsewhere..

Thanks Vegas_Lover, and your statement "Playing for comps is never a smart choice" is the absolute best advice. The rule should be NEVER play for comps.

Many casinos have "meters" on their slot and video poker machines that "count down" or "add up" your play towards your "player's score" or "comp dollars." This is done to make you play "one more hand" to reach a certain "reward level." It's as if a casino manager was standing over your shoulder and said "Joe, if you press that spin button just one more time for $2 you will bet another 50-cents of comp dollars in your account."

However, with that said, many "advantage players" do figure the value of their "comps" as part of their "total return" on the games they are playing. Is that hypocritical??

The value of comps should never be part of the total return. You spend money and the actual money you get back is your return. Free rooms, suites, meals or drinks don't mean anything because you do not have the full free choise how to spend that "money". Yes comps have a certain value but at the end of the day, comps don't buy you groceries, they don't "pay the rent" nore do they buy you a new tv. I read a Bob Dancer article a week a go where he got back about half of what he spent on a certain VP event. After that he said, but some great offers will be coming in my way pretty soon. That has nothing to do with return on investment. I live in Europe, free rooms, free play, free food and drinks don't mean a thing when I don't have the money left to travel to Vegas.....

Cash is cash & cash is king.

Just my 2 cents

Thank you for posting that Vegas_Lover. The "advantage players" are going to be very angry with you, because you just shot an arrow into their hearts with what you wrote.

One follow up question: how do you figure "cash back" or "free play" in the formula for advantage players? I can understand where "cash back" (real money) can be of more value than comped rooms, shows, meals. And does "free play" have any real value?

I just read an article by another gaming author who did some math and figured that sometimes "free play" can be worth more than a cash prize if the free play on a particular game has a higher "expected value" than the cash amount. But the question is this-- is "expected value" something you can take to the bank?

I don't see why the advantage players would be very angry with me. I'm just giving my opinion which obviously isn't their opinion. Everybody is entitled to do as they please. I think it's adding drama when you state I shot an arrow into their hearts. In my opinion I'm just having a sober look at things. When I walk into a casino with 10.000 and walk out with 4000 and get 1250 free play for my next visit, 5 nights comped and 350 food & beverage credit. The extras are nice, but when I get home and get a letter from the IRS telling me I owe them 7000 dollars. What am I going to tell them? Hey, I've got 4000 for you, some free play, a couple of comped night in Vegas and I'll offer you some free food, is that ok? We both know what the IRS response will be.....

I will take cash over free play ANY day of the week. Because with cash I decide where to spend it and on what I'll spend it. You can spend free play at one place and one place only. And you can only cash out what's left after you've gone through all the free play.