Printable View
After speaking with several other Total Rewards customers it seems that a lot of people feel that it will be easier to make 7Stars this year because of the new bonuses and that will mean more 7Stars players and probably more tightening of comps and offers to offset the larger pool of 7Stars players.
But are the 8Stars players affected?
There is a "card" that is higher than 7 Stars. Does anyone know what it is?
It is Chairman, but it was created for just one person, and I believe that has been discontinued.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
It was a vanity card for a super whale.
BTW Alan, why do you think there will be a lot more Seven Stars? It still requires the same number of minimum base tier credits. The only "easier" part is being able to earn more bonus tiers if you play a 5,000+ tier session in one day.
Correct, Dan. The "Chairman" card was given to Terrance Watanabe who lost about $200 million at Caesars over a two year period and caused a scandal and later a fine for Caesars. I also heard that his card was referred to as the "Group of 1" card or the "Committee of 1" card.
Why more 7 stars? Because now you don't need as many days at any resort to max out your bonus points. A player with a big budget can now earn a 10,000 tier point bonus in one day but in 2013 to get 10,000 bonus points you'd have to be at the casino two days.
Now, playing 5,000 tier points in a day plus the 10,000 bonus points = 15,000 points in a day. That means you could be 7 Stars in just ten days.
In 2013, in order to max out the bonus points you had to play 2,500 points to get a 5,000 bonus = 7,500 points in a day. That meant in 2013 you could be 7 Stars in 20 days.
It's the fewer number of days that will make it more possible for more players to be 7Stars -- especially those who have to travel to a TR casino.
I have a great idea. Tell CET to name the categories of player after constellations -- the name of the constellation means you have the same number of stars as in the constellation. So we can have Little Dippers and Orions and all that. "When the moon, is in the seventh house...." Hey, maybe they could name the room with the grub "The Seventh House."
I gotta write this down and fax it to Loveman.
redietz... did you know that Harrahs used to name the rooms (suites) in the Rio after 7 Stars members? If you go there now, you will see some of rooms with plaques on the doors that say "The XXXX XXXXX Suite." They stopped doing it because there are so many 7 Stars now there aren't enough rooms if they continued the "naming" program.
Alan, I understand your position on the new way for high rollers to get to their seven stars level, but do you really think that this will bring in so many new high rollers that it will flood the market? I could see a few more, but I don't see large numbers -- may be wrong.
You don't really need to be a "high roller" to reach 7 Stars and now, since it takes fewer days in Vegas, it's even more affordable because players can make fewer trips.
But let's go over the math assuming you still can play 8/5 Bonus with $10 = 1 tier point and this is possible in Vegas at Rio and at Flamingo at the $1 and $2 machines and of course at higher denomination machines as well at those two casinos.
You need to play ten days and cycle through $50,000 to get the 5,000 tier points plus the 10,000 bonus tier points.
Playing the 8/5 Bonus game with a return of 99.17% gives you an expected loss of $415 per day, times ten days is a loss of $4,150.
If you can find 9/6 Jacks (and I think it still exists at Rio and Flamingo, but I didn't look for it) the "cost" is even lower:
Playing the 9/6 Jacks with a return of 99.54% gives you an expected loss of $230 per day, times ten days is a loss of $2,300.
The "clincher" is that it can be done in fewer days. We aren't all like Rob Singer who can drop-in to a casino any day he pleases. Most Americans get four weeks of vacation a year at the most so spending ten days in casinos is more realistic than spending 20 days.
You don't have to be rich to be 7 Stars, you just have to be smart about getting it... and then using it.
So far this year I spent three days in Vegas and I am including January first when I played at Caesars for about four hours, plus two days this past weekend. And I had two days at Rincon. Already I have 62,000 points towards 7Stars and I have a profit on the year. (Don't tell Rob about the profit AND 7 Stars.)
Your goal Alan should be to maintain having a profit for this and every year, and not to be concerned about the points or the status. If you play more you'll get the comps, that's how a smart player attacks this. Constantly trying to track where you are with TR or calculating how many trips or points or hours are needed to be a certain status is what CET wants and expects you to do and is what budding losers do. Just take what they give you for God's sake, and concentrate on staying ahead directly from the machines.Instead, for some reason you prefer to talk about how much a player "should lose" to get to status. As such, you are one of the CET corporation's biggest and best ambassadors.
Also interesting is your comment about getting to 7-Stars, and then "using it". Why would you even bring that up, when you know you are the biggest system "short-player" on your site? You appear to get all giddy over status and points and one can only imagine the anxiety as you race to your mail box day after day. But only those who maximize the 7-Stars travel opportunities are getting anything close to decent value from the TR program. And that's not you.
This is where you get a FAIL Rob. You seem to think that 7 Stars players are not concerned with their profits. Well I'm no fool. I don't play for comps. In fact, it's the number one rule of everyone you hate: DON'T PLAY FOR COMPS. And that also means you don't play for points. When will you accept that even 7 Stars players don't play for points?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
What we want, however, is to get the fringe benefits that come with our play. It just so happens that those fringe benefits happen to have a title called "7 Stars." You might also think of them as "additional profits" because that's what they -- additional profits. Just like the Great Gift Wrap Up represents additional profits.
And in case the player has a loss, instead of "additional profits" these benefits represented revenue that offsets other losses.
You have a block against this thinking.
Regarding how I don't use all of the 7 Stars benefits? Well Rob, I am not addicted to Las Vegas or to using the 7 Stars benefits and I use the ones that suit me best. I will not take make an extra trip for an extra $500 dinner, and I will not take one of their trips to one of their out of town casinos when I have no need to make a trip to one of their out of town casinos.
Of course you see it differently -- you think if there is a casino trip dangling in front of you, you have to take it. Is that a sign of your addiction, Rob?
Oh and you never commented about your ratio of jackpot hands to the limited amount of play you claim. Any reason why you continue to not address this? Or will you ask me to put up fifty thousand dollars first and turn this into one of your challenges?
These challenges were intended to scare off the destitute folks, so this should get interesting...Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
What's intriguing Alan is watching you squirm around your total addiction to Total Rewards. On one hand you throw out an epiphany of denials and excuses on how you're nothing but a puppet to the TR program, then on the other you expose how you consistently get sweaty palms by starting up thread after thread about points and status and freebies etc. You'll of course never see that because you don't want to see that. But those of us who don't get a tingle down our legs by talking of a single slot club program among dozens and dozens of others that most normal players utilize to their overall advantage, do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You short-play the system Alan, that's all there is to it. You won't take advantage of trips to other parts of the country (during your 4 week vacations :)) because it's all you can hack driving to Rincon and Caesars anticipating FINALLY getting it over and being able to start your frenzied play at the machines again. Action Alan....it's all about ACTION for you.
Now you're wondering about my % of winning hands to my total # of hands-- do I have that right? I have no idea, just as I don't care about how many points I have anywhere or who my hosts are or what my mailers might be tomorrow. When will you ever learn that strong gamblers only care about the money, and smart shoppers only care about the quality of the food they buy? All those rewards....that's simply gravy and has nothing to do with profits or quality. And to many, as you know, they rope your type in to continue doing it just as they want you to.
Again, I can help you. All you need do is ask.
Nothing is new in what you wrote above: it's the same old tired rant. But I will respond to this:
Then you lied to me. About two years ago when I told you that the Great Gift Wrap Up was expanded to include non-Vegas casinos you told me you regretted that you didn't know because you had plenty of play at non-Vegas casinos that would have given you plenty of points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
And, if you preach not claiming these fringe benefits it is actually a sign of a weak player who doesn't have the good sense to take the money that is right in front of them.
Old Wise Jungle Saying: Never take the comps to which you're entitled. Always take more.
Always looking for a way out of the curse called "Total Rewards" that you've saddled yourself with. I did regret that they never used to count all those other Harrahs casinos where I put in some play, towards GGWU credit. I played within Harrahs system no further than just enuf to attain Diamond, so why wouldn't I regret that? In contrast to what you constantly advocate, I've never preached and harped on how to get to a certain status the fastest--and as if it alone were the end-all. You don't quit then anyway. My only goal was to win money and not play beyond entry level Diamond, and I always took complete advantage of EVERY flight offer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Again, there's zero wrong with taking what they offer you. There's everything wrong with not taking same....as well as with the weak reasons (excuses) why.
In the SE swamps and around the illegal alien-infested neighborhoods of S. Calif., there's word of a not-so-wise preacher that says: "Never take all the comps to which you're entitled, lest you would leave a cold seat at a video poker machine."Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Let me address this because it's the only thing you said that is worth replying to:
Yes, I take what they offer me through regular play... and so should everyone else. And no one should play for comps. I am pretty sure everyone is in agreement on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
But it makes no sense to take offers that make no economic sense or could cause you more harm than good and that is what you are overlooking. I passed up last year on three offers (that I know of) where I would have received a $500 food credit. Why would I want to make a trip to LV for $500 of free food?
I have passed up on every offer of a cruise. I get seasick. Why would I want to take a cruise and get sick?
I passed up on offers to go to casinos in the mid-West. And I passed up on offers to see professional sports teams play... and these were teams I didn't know existed. What for?
As a 7 Stars I had a $500 anniversay dinner credit which I used when I was in LV for New Year's on the New Year's Eve offer. It made sense to do that.
They gave me an annual gift worth about $200 and it came in the mail -- I took it and didn't even have to go to a casino.
I get six three-night free room coupons with no restrictions which I take and give to friends -- of course I take those.
I had a $500 shopping credit in the Forum shops that I combined with another offer for free play. It made sense to do that.
I've taken advantage of various free play offers -- because I was going anyway and it made sense to also take their $1,000.
It made sense to take the weekend at Caesars for New Year's Eve and to be six feet away from Katy Perry... because I never would have been that close at any concert in LA.
I've also used their free hotel rooms and $400 hotel credits when I had to go into LV to meet with a client.
All of those made economic sense. But Rob, to advocate taking offers that do not make economic sense -- because you want to max out the offers that you get -- is absolutely stupid if not the sign of an addicted gambler. Surprise Rob... I can say NO to their offers. Can you? It appears not. You even go to casinos to play for a half hour. Wow, nothing better to do than drive to a casino for a half hour of play??
We are truly on uncharted waters here. Alan is advocating passing on offers that do not make economic sense, all while in the context of doing something (negative expectation gambling) that does not make economic sense. I understand this is logically possible and therefore not an oxymoron, but I wanted folks to appreciate the irony. Meanwhile, Rob seems to be advocating (I'm not sure) the same thing, but somehow they are at odds.
I need a scorecard. I am confused.
Alan is recreational & Rob is professional.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Economic sense? How exactly is taking free flights and cruises not economic sense? And stop blabbing about food and/or free play that you turn down in LV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Now comes your lack of reading comprehension punishment again. The casinos I go to are within a few minutes of where I am or I don't go. Like this morning's. I didn't play as many day as I had planned on for this quarter when my wife returned days early from NC. So I did one $1 thru $25 ARTT session at a casino that balked at my taking a picture of the jackpot, with a $10k bankroll. I left the name of the casino out because of that.
I admit that I am a bit confused as to what Alan gets out of the Seven Stars program. I am not trying to jump on Rob's bandwagon (as I think he's mostly trolling Alan), but it seems that Alan doesn't have use for most of the best benefits.
He gets seasick so he has no use for the cruise (which is one of the best benefits of the program if you enjoy cruising and don't need to take more than 1 other person with you).
'
He doesn't really enjoy traveling much, so he doesn't fly to the other CET properties on the annual trip (another big benefit lost).
He doesn't seem to stay many nights at CET properties, so the Seven Stars benefit of free rooms anytime is mostly wasted. To be honest, that's where I find the greatest value as a Seven Stars, especially during the long WSOP in the summer.
So, yes, Alan does get a good deal of freeplay and GGWU points, and I know he makes good use of those, but are those really any different from other casino loyalty programs? And yes, I know they have those once-a-year shopping events and Alan typically makes use of those. And yes, I know Alan does use his $500 meal at some point every year.
But I was always under the impression that the main difference in the Seven Stars program (compared to other casinos) is the guaranteed benefits such as the trip, the cruise, and the unlimited 4-night stays at any property.
If you choose not to use most of those benefits, is the Seven Stars program really worth it?
I have actually built vacations around my Seven Stars trip. In 2012, I took a my trip to Atlantic City, but then took an east coast road trip through New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, eventually flying back from Boston (this is allowed). Then, in 2013, I combined my Seven Stars trip to New Orleans with the Seven Stars cruise from there, and even got $500 in RCs for the whole thing (in lieu of the meal credit, which is how New Orleans does it). Not sure what I will do in 2014, but I definitely won't waste it. I think I will do the Alaska cruise this year, too.
If I were playing for "comps" and were playing just to make 7 Stars, the 7 Stars program would be a waste. You are correct, Dan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
But I don't play for comps and I don't play for the 7 Stars ranking. It's just a benefit I get that comes with my play... and again, not because I play for it.
And frankly, there is just no reason for me to get on a plane and travel someone only for a $500 meal credit and a free hotel room. I have other things to do with my time then just go to casinos.
I've thought about the cruises... but I get seasick as soon as I step on a ship in port. I experienced that many times over the years doing stories about cruising. Ironically, I sail small boats and learned to sail when living in Miami. Yes, I still dream about the "points of sail." (Google that, Rob.)
Wait, so you sail small boats with no problem, yet get seasick on huge cruise ships?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Yes. But I get seasick below deck on big cruise ships, not on deck. The same with sail boats. Above deck I'm fine... below deck is a "no."Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I also can't sit in the front bulkhead seats of Southwest planes looking backwards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Nope....don't buy it. People who get sea sick always find that the higher up one goes, the more sway and therefore, the more it effects their equilibrium. How about coming clean on this excuse?
Alan is correct. If you keep your eyes on things around you that are moving relative to you (like the horizon or another boat) you will tend not to get seasick, but when your body is moving and you are focused on something fixed in relation to you ( like when reading a book) your mind misinterprets and you tend to get motion sick.
Southwest is awful and I don't ever fly them anymore, so I wouldn't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
But okay. Personally I don't find that cruise ships have much motion, but I believe you. I know some people do get seasick on them.
Exactly right. I also get "seasick" in small earthquakes because there is a rolling motion sometimes lasting only a second or two but that is enough to also trick the mind into thinking you are moving.Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
But back to the main point of the discussion: if you feel obligated to take all of the offers and the trips and to even show up for small free-play offers, then indeed Total Rewards has you trapped. For about six months I did not go to Vegas because my offers in Vegas had been cut from $2500 per visit to as low as $500 per visit. When i complained the offers were modestly increased to $750, but I went back when the offers were upped to the $1,000 level. But even at $1,000 for gift cards or free play I need another "reason" to make the trip to Vegas. I went for New Year's and that was a great trip... and I went last weekend. Sorry I couldn't hook up with regnis but the Furniture show was on and I did get to take a couple of my clients in the furniture business out to dinner... and there was also a $1,000 offer that I used at the same time along with comps to pay for the dinners.
This is what and how I personally learned about sea sickness-- and how to overcome it. Maybe it will help, Alan.
After college I joined the Gov't where I worked my 1st 10 years. I'd never been on the ocean in a boat or a ship before. Part of our training was making sure that if we were prone to getting seasick, it must be eliminated. So the first thing they did was put us on the deck of a submarine. I got violently sick and remained that way until they put us on land. I spent more than half the time lying down in a lower deck lounge, but where I was didn't matter. You may know the feeling.
I was sent to a class for two days, then back onto the sub. My condition was cured, and I actually welcomed the rough seas as "fun" (I was young). In that class we were taught that unless you actually do have a fairly rare physical defect with your inner ear equilibrium - which I did not - then the condition is very easy to overcome for good--but only if you wanted to do it. In essence, we were taught how most all seasickness is a simple mind trick, where the person, because of knowing in advance that getting seasick is associated with motion, only needs to momentarily shut his eyes, calm down, and tell himself with firm belief that it is nothing more than your mind doing this to you. It is not a physical defect. Millions of people overcome it in a manner like this. And it's confirmed. Just look at all the unhealthy old farts who do cruises. To many of them, a cruise is a luxury. (I dislike them mainly because of the filth the third world service workers come from and live in on the bottom deck of the ships). So after an initial bout with getting sick, they either tell themselves that they will no longer get sick (like they see thousands of their co-cruisers enjoy every time out) or they remain behind.
You may not care about going on a cruise, but unless you have a confirmed physical defect, you can overcome it like I and millions of others have. BTW, I was also prone to that sitting backwards on an airplane issue you have, and it cures that too. It cures all motion sickness.
Some seasickness is also caused my motion within your stomach, especially if you have a lot of liquid in there.
So it's not just in your head in that case.
Personally I don't get seasick unless the motion is really severe. I only threw up once from being on a boat, and it was a tiny boat in Ireland on super-rough seas. In hindsight, it was actually dangerous and I shouldn't have taken the boat, despite them assuring me that it was safe (they just wanted our money). I was only 19 then, though.
You also get more prone to motion sickness in general with age -- and this starts EARLY. There is little you can do to overcome it.
When I was 12 years old, I was able to ride ANY ride at an amusement park, no matter how crazy, and I did not get sick. I rode that "Spin Out" ride 6 consecutive times (the spinning room where it spins so fast that you stick to the wall), and did not get the slightest bit sick.
Five years later, at age 17, I could no longer do spinning rides without getting sick.
Five years later, at age 22, I could no longer do any rides with any kind of spinning motion.
By my late 20s, I was even more sensitive to jerking/ twisting motions on roller coasters.
So basically, as it stands today in my early 40s, I can easily do rollercoasters with up-down motions (like big drops), and I can still handle ones with big curves and loops (though I can't ride them repeatedly), and I cannot do any kind of spinning ride.
30 years ago, there was not a single ride in the park that could sicken me.
When it comes to amusement parks I have what I call the "Space Mountain Limit" which means anything with more twists and turns that Space Mountain at Disneyland or Disneyworld is too much for me to attempt. I love Peter Pan's Great Adventure and the Matterhorn is cool. I also used to like the moving sidewalk that Caesars had from the Strip to the front door. Anyone else remember that?