Playing the "comp game" and how to lose it.

[Dan Druff]

To answer Rob -- I don't play enough at Caesars/Harrah's for it to matter. I get a couple of comped rooms a year, but only during slow times. I've lost money playing vp the last two years, but am still ahead lifetime. Since I've only played 40-50 hours a year, the room offers and such come close to balancing the losses the last two years, but I would not count them or meals as offsetting losses. I think that's silly. I certainly wouldn't count movie passes or junk won via Palms drawings as offsetting losses, for example. Back in my youth, I never counted meals won or free trips via drawings as "winnings." I "won" a cruise for two and a trip to a Chargers game, but I think it's rationalizing to count these things as "winnings."

You can only count comps as "winnings" if you use their value TO YOU.

Retail value does not matter if you were not going to otherwise pay for it.

So when you get a free cruise, you have to ask yourself, "Would I have paid for this cruise had I not gotten it as a comp?" And if the answer is YES, then you have to answer "How much?" The answer to "How much would you have paid" is exactly what you can claim it was worth.

Same thing goes for hotel rooms, meals, etc.

The only comps you can fully count as money is freeplay, and even there you need to subtract expected losses from it. So if you have $500 in freeplay but are playing a 99% return machine, your actual value is $495. Whether you win or lose is immaterial to counting comp value. I'm not saying winning isn't important (it's the MOST important), but when counting comps, you need to figure the value BEFORE you play the freeplay, not after.

The only exception to devaluing freeplay is if you were definitely going to play anyway. So if you're on a trip and were certain you were going to play at least as much as the value of your freeplay (even if you had no freeplay), and if the freeplay works on the machines you want, then you can count it at full value. Why? Because the freeplay takes the place of actual real money you would have inserted in the machine.

[Dan Druff]

There is actually some discussion among Seven Stars members that Caesar's should make the program more flexible, and allow freeplay in lieu of benefits not taken.

For example, many people don't like traveling (or are unable to do so), so the Seven Stars Annual Trip goes to waste. Others don't have a desire to go to the destinations where Caesar's properties are located. Again, it goes to waste. It's annoying to let this benefit go to waste, as you get $500 in food credits and up to $1200 worth of airfare. (The free hotel nights don't matter because you get them anyway.) Indeed, these are real costs to Caesar's. They have to pay almost full value to the airline, and the food, while much cheaper than $500 for them, still costs real money. This is different than giving free hotel rooms or seats at a concert, where it can be rationalized that they are simply filling unsold inventory at virtually zero real cost.

Some people have suggested that they let you take some form of freeplay, even if reduced, in lieu of the trip. So it could be something like "You get $500 food and up to $1200 in airfare, or you can take $800 in freeplay at your home casino."

Same goes for the annual meal. I haven't used mine yet because most of my visits to Vegas restaurants involve me, my girlfriend, and my young son. Even at an expensive place like Nobu, we can't spend $500 unless we order some really expensive wine. Last year I waited until December 31 when my parents were in town, and I brought them to the dinner, in order to spend all the money. However, this year I just haven't had the chance to do something like that. None of my friends or family ever seem to be in Vegas when I can go to one of these dinners. If I can't make this happen, I'll have to just do the Nobu thing and try to spend as much as possible.

Again, it has been suggested that they allow you to take some form of reduced freeplay in lieu of the $500 meal. Or turn the $500 meal into $250, and give some freeplay along with it.

I understand why they don't allow you to exchange anything for the annual cruise, because Norwegian is giving that to Caesar's for free as part of a partnership agreement. Basically Norwegian is willing to give up one balcony stateroom in exchange for getting a high stakes gambler on board. They only allow one of these because it allows Norwegian to "try out" a Seven Stars member, and only invite him back for free if he gambles. If he doesn't, then he only gets to come back free once per year as part of their marketing agreement with Caesar's (unless he grabs one of those certificates they hand out like candy, but then he only gets an inside cabin with blackout dates.)

Also, the "Signature Events" should again be able to be exchanged for some form of freeplay. None of them really appealed to me this year. I ended up going to the shopping one, and going to the overpriced Tommy Bahama. My girlfriend isn't really a high-end-designer-brand shopper, so she didn't want it. She used my last one to buy an expensive purse, but she doesn't need a second one.

Anyway, I think Caesar's would have a lot more happy customers if they provided more flexibility.

I was going to give up on the cruise for the second year in a row, due to the lack of airfare coverage by Caesar's. The cruises from California basically suck and aren't worth my time. I found a way to "double dip" by making my cruise from the same place as my annual trip -- New Orleans, so I'm doing it. One other nice thing about New Orleans is that they put $500 in RCs in your account instead of a $500 dining credit, so you can just bank the RCs and eat at one of the many interesting restaurants around the city.

[Dan Druff]

I do have to say that the Great Gift Wrapup is a genius marketing ploy by Caesar's.

That is a good example of flexibility.

They place it right around the holidays, where people can use their Great Gift Wrap Up points (separate from RCs) to do "free" holiday shopping.

This satisfies both players who like to see something tangible as a result of all their play (i.e. losses) during the year, as well as the ones who simply want maximum value. They allow you to use the points to either purchase gifts or more practical redemptions such as freeplay or gas cards.

Last year I squeezed maximum value out of it by buying a gas card, an iPad (which actually was priced very fairly to where I wasn't losing value), and then using the rest for freeplay. I gave the iPad to my girlfriend, which was then taken over by my son. I want to get another this year, so I hope they're offering it.

[Rob.Singer]

I appreciate the detailed input, from redietz to DD. My one comment would be that giving freeplay a value based on machine ER before even playing is as loose as it gets. Phantom bucks at its finest. Only actual cashout should be used.

[redietz]

I don't disagree with that.

[Dan Druff]

I appreciate the detailed input, from redietz to DD. My one comment would be that giving freeplay a value based on machine ER before even playing is as loose as it gets. Phantom bucks at its finest. Only actual cashout should be used.

On the surface, it would appear foolish to value freeplay based upon its original amount, rather than what you cashout.

But look at it this way:

Rob, let's say we were in a casino together, and we walked by a $5-per-credit video poker machine. And I say, "Rob, I love your posts on Alan's forum so much, they have provided me months of free entertainment. You know what? Here is $25 on me to play a hand on this machine. You don't have to give me any of your winnings. It's my gift to you!"

Then you play the hand and hit a Royal for $20,000.

How much money did I give you?

If I went around bragging, "I gave Rob Singer $20,000", I'm sure you would take exception to that. You would likely point out that I gave you $25 and you turned that into $20,000 on your own, and you'd be correct.

So the truth is that I gave you $25, and luck gave you $19,975.

Freeplay is the same way. If you want to convert it to actual value, it HAS to be done this way:

- If you weren't going to otherwise play, the freeplay value is the amount of freeplay times the expected return on the machine. So $100 freeplay on a 99% Video Poker machine has a $99 value.

- If you were going to play regardless of whether or not you had the freeplay, the value is the amount of the freeplay. This is because a $100 freeplay would actually be fully substituting for a $100 bill that you would have otherwise inserted.

Rob, if you had $100 in freeplay and hit a Royal, would you tell everyone that the casino gave you $20,000 in comps? Obviously not. So you can't count freeplay value from results. Results are based upon luck. Luck does not figure into expected value.

[Alan Mendelson]

I value free play this way:

- If you were going to play regardless of whether or not you had the freeplay, the value is the amount of the freeplay. This is because a $100 freeplay would actually be fully substituting for a $100 bill that you would have otherwise inserted.

I can't value free play on "expected return" or anything like it because I expect zero when I put money in a video poker machine.

The paytable does not represented expected return. The paytable represents what different hands pay if you hit them. Of course the APs will disagree with me.

[Rob.Singer]

I value free play this way:



I can't value free play on "expected return" or anything like it because I expect zero when I put money in a video poker machine.

The paytable does not represented expected return. The paytable represents what different hands pay if you hit them. Of course the APs will disagree with me.

Exactly....on all counts. That's why I always play free play thru once and cash out. I expect nothing and it is worth nothing going in, so anything that comes is an unexpected bonus. Nobody ever bought anything with phantom bucks, and valuing $1000 in free play as 990 bucks before playing--and not attaining it--is the #1 reason players will not stop when they said they would, and end up losing whatever they did win back.

AP's will disagree with and call anyone wrong if they do not agree with them.

[Alan Mendelson]

I always play free play thru once and cash out.

gosh... if I had done that the other night I would have shorted myself about $7,000. Which is why you should try having a "rising stop loss" with your wins, Rob.

[Dan Druff]

I value free play this way:



I can't value free play on "expected return" or anything like it because I expect zero when I put money in a video poker machine.

The paytable does not represented expected return. The paytable represents what different hands pay if you hit them. Of course the APs will disagree with me.

Alan this isn't an AP versus non-AP situation.

In my example above, if I gave someone $25 as a gift to play a hand of video poker, and they hit a $20k Royal, would you say I gave them $20k or $25?

If the answer is $25, then you were valuing the freeplay at $25, not $20,000 (the actual result). See what I mean?

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan this isn't an AP versus non-AP situation.

In my example above, if I gave someone $25 as a gift to play a hand of video poker, and they hit a $20k Royal, would you say I gave them $20k or $25?

If the answer is $25, then you were valuing the freeplay at $25, not $20,000 (the actual result). See what I mean?

There's a difference Dan. In your example you gave someone $25 of actual cash and cash is cash.

What we are talking about here is how do you value "free play." This is why I value free play only as a substitute for what I would have spent of my own money.

And to answer your question specifically: If I gave you a free play certificate for $25 and you hit a $20,000 all I could say is that I gave you a $25 free play certificate. If I gave you $25 cash and you hit a $20,000 royal I would hit you over the head and beat you to a bloody pulp until you gave me half.

[arcimede$]

I value free play this way:

I can't value free play on "expected return" or anything like it because I expect zero when I put money in a video poker machine.

The paytable does not represented expected return. The paytable represents what different hands pay if you hit them. Of course the APs will disagree with me.

If you really expected zero then you probably wouldn't play VP at all. What is different about freeplay and regular play where you'd expect zero from freeplay and something else from regular play? If you were honest with yourself you would admit that you expect "something" out of freeplay. It appears you are lying to yourself so you can disagree with APs.

[a2a3dseddie]

Now this is an interesting topic of discussion.

It seems to me what is being discussed here is the "theoretical value" of free play versus "actual value".

I'm sure when the casino is calculating freeplay they are using the theoretical value. That's probably how they over-inflate the value of what they are offering players when tax time rolls around. Not too unlike the comps they offer.

We should also define "actual value". To most if not all, that would refer to the actual amount of money the $100 free play generated. But what about the entertainment value of that $100 in freeplay? To "enjoy" the excitement of 20 hands of $1 VP you would need $100 in real cash or freeplay. If you were to spend $100 on 10 movies at $10 a piece, no one would question the "value" you got for the money. Since we're all hardened gamblers here, we discount the "enjoyment" factor of those 20 hands and just want to know what the final result is.

Here in Ontario we have a Pick 6 lottery (Lotto 6/49). They recently made some changes to the payouts. Now, 2 out of 6 numbers yields a freeplay. The tickets cost $3 each. The other day when I went to buy my 3 regular sets of numbers, I won a freeplay from the previous draw. Instead of paying $9 for my 3 tickets, I asked if I could pay $6 and use my freeplay for the last ticket. Nope. I was given a "quick-pick" and had to pay the full $9. $3 in actual cash is worth more to the Lottery Corporation than a $3 quick-pick.

We might try to rationalize our casino visits by saying $100 freeplay is worth $99 on a VP machine, but in reality it isn't. Try getting the casino to give you $99 in cash instead.

[redietz]

Very interesting post, a2. That was good.

I don't assign the theoretical value because it's not modal, in a sense. Look at it this way -- you get a free ticket to play MegaBucks. The ticket has a theoretical value. But that's not helpful because the reality is that you win zero or become rich. And you ain't becoming rich. So it's worth zero. You can assign a theoretical if you want, but from a pragmatic gambling perspective, that's a worthless calculation.

The less vp you play, the less helpful the theoretical is. If I'm playing 40-80 hours a year, it's more useful to plug in real after-the-play figures.

[Alan Mendelson]

If you really expected zero then you probably wouldn't play VP at all. What is different about freeplay and regular play where you'd expect zero from freeplay and something else from regular play? If you were honest with yourself you would admit that you expect "something" out of freeplay. It appears you are lying to yourself so you can disagree with APs.

I have said many times that I expect nothing once my money is in the machine. To me it's money lost. It is money out of my control. It is money in the hands of the RNG. I "play" it as best I can but I live with no illusions that the RNG will cooperate with the cards I hold and draw or that the RNG respects proper strategy.

[arcimede$]

I have said many times that I expect nothing once my money is in the machine. To me it's money lost. It is money out of my control. It is money in the hands of the RNG. I "play" it as best I can but I live with no illusions that the RNG will cooperate with the cards I hold and draw or that the RNG respects proper strategy.

You are lying to yourself, Alan. If you really expected "nothing" from VP play then you wouldn't play. What you really mean is you realize that any session could be a bust. So, you can't expect to win. That is not the same as expecting you will always lose. In fact, you pointed this out when you mentioned the RNG. In other words, you don't expect to win or lose, you expect that sometimes you will win and other times you will lose. It all comes down to luck in any particular session.

Clearly, that is not the same as expecting you will always lose.

Finally, the results of one's freeplay are only the credits earned as the freeplay itself is played through. For example, $100 of freeplay only gets you 20 hands. After those 20 hands you are playing on your own money. With this definition in mind it becomes obvious that anyone will rarely lose their freeplay entirely. Hence, one should "expect" to win almost always. They might not win the value of the freeplay, or they might win more. But, they will rarely lose.

[Alan Mendelson]

No Arc. I expect to lose. If I win I got lucky.

There is a "famous author" who also talks about expectations about winning and often he writes about losing thousands because of his expectations. But if he -- and the others -- went into casinos expecting to lose (which is pretty much the reality of casino play) he and everyone else would lose much less.

If is this false expectation of winning that causes people to lose too much. I have seen it so many times: a player gets up from a machine saying "It had a payback of 99.54% but I just lost a thousand dollars." And I've seen this, too: a player gets up from a machine saying "it had a positive payback of 100.17% but why did I lose everything?"

By all means, Arc, if you have an expectation of winning, continue to do so. But don't tell me to expect to win. These are not government bonds that your money in the slot are buying.

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, you're missing the ridiculous point arci is trying so hard to bestow upon you. He cannot fathom anyone he either knows, knows of, or has heard about, being able to live with themselves after not getting anything back from whatever was put into any machine. Losing hurts him so much because it is not something he can afford, so you or anyone else losing or expecting they will lose, must be mocked. And that's because he always tries to force everone else to believe in and see things as he does, and if they don't then you get to watch him attempt to mitigate the irritability by tossing insults, lying, and name-calling. It's all he has that might make him feel just a little bit better after all is said and done.

Learn to speak arci. He always reaches out....esp. in these trying days

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob I think the danger of "expecting" to win whether it be the pay table, or the odds, is what leads people to keep betting beyond what would be their loss limit. Of course, APs don't believe in loss limits or win goals... hence they run the risk of losing more than what "non-APs" might lose.

When you think about it, the belief in "expected return" comes awfully close to the belief that "I am due to win" and we know that the "I am due to win" belief is false. So shouldn't the "expected return" belief ripe with danger?

If you really believe in a random game how can anything be "expected." It can be "hoped for," but not "expected." Unless of course the mathematical definition of "expected" differs from common language... and common sense.

[arcimede$]

Alan, you are still lying to yourself. In this case you are trying to trick yourself. By claiming that you expect to lose you hope to reduce the likelihood that you will have a big loss. However, like all of us you have had winning and losing sessions. Hence, you know as an absolute fact that you won't always lose. Quit with the silly nonsense. You're only fooling yourself.

I love the new comment by speedo, complete and total projection.