Is there a minimum stay requirement on offers at Harrah's Rincon?

[aikon]

I'm not too familiar with the details, but my vague understanding is that the Vegas market for Caesars properties has a minimum stay requirement of 2 nights when using offers. (The player might only stay in the hotel for 1 night, but for the purposes of calculating ADT, the minimum denominator is 2). This new requirement started earlier this year.

Does anyone know if there is any similar restriction at Rincon?

thanks!!!

[Alan Mendelson]

Hi and thanks for joining. I've never received an offer from Rincon that required a hotel stay. But most offers have an optional hotel stay. I've never stayed there but use various offers.

[Dan Druff]

For those of you that don't know, ADT refers to "Average Daily Theoretical", which I described in another thread (though I just called it "theoretical".)

This refers to the daily theoretical loss the casino believes you will have on an average day, which directly affects your comps and offers. The higher the ADT, the better your comps and offers.

As I mentioned in another thread, your theoretical is computed by "trip", and a trip is generally defined by when you check in and check out of a hotel, or by the consecutive days you play while not staying there.

However, as aikon pointed out, Las Vegas Caesars properties are now setting a minimum of 2 days per trip when redeeming an offer involving a hotel stay.

So if you only stay 1 night and check out, they won't penalize you, but they will consider it a 2 day trip where you didn't gamble the second one, and this will cut your ADT in half for the trip, thus likely hurting your future offers.

[Dan Druff]

And in case you're wondering why they did this, it's because they got tired of people checking in, using the offer, and leaving the next day (because there's no incentive to stay).

Even if the person plays, they are still using up the resources of the offer, and then bolting when they don't have anything further to gain.

This gives a better metric of how much bang for their buck they are getting by extending offers to these people. The person who runs off after one day now only gets half credit for the play he did put in, and the person who doesn't play at all now has a minimum of TWO zero days counting against his prior play, rather than just one.

[Alan Mendelson]

So if you only stay 1 night and check out, they won't penalize you,

Actually, this is starting to get tricky, and they are starting to penalize players who don't stay at least two days -- they are cutting back on future offers. You don't have to actually play the second day but they want to see that you used a restaurant, or ordered room service, or went shopping.

On my trip in for July 4, I was booked on a three day offer. I played heavily the first day. I did not play the second and third days but went to restaurants, watched movies (they were free for 7 Stars) and I checked with my host and all was "okay."

However, my previous trip which was booked as a free play, two day offer, I became ill after the first day and went home. I told my host I was going home ill (this is when I caught that miserable cold that lingered for a couple of weeks) and I was told that since I hadn't cut short previous trips this would not hurt future offers. But that's when we got into the discussion about how they were serious about cutting offers for players who don't stay on property.

This may actually defeat the strategy of "checking out by phone" after you've left.

[Dan Druff]

Actually, this is starting to get tricky, and they are starting to penalize players who don't stay at least two days -- they are cutting back on future offers. You don't have to actually play the second day but they want to see that you used a restaurant, or ordered room service, or went shopping.

On my trip in for July 4, I was booked on a three day offer. I played heavily the first day. I did not play the second and third days but went to restaurants, watched movies (they were free for 7 Stars) and I checked with my host and all was "okay."

However, my previous trip which was booked as a free play, two day offer, I became ill after the first day and went home. I told my host I was going home ill (this is when I caught that miserable cold that lingered for a couple of weeks) and I was told that since I hadn't cut short previous trips this would not hurt future offers. But that's when we got into the discussion about how they were serious about cutting offers for players who don't stay on property.

This may actually defeat the strategy of "checking out by phone" after you've left.

I think your host is full of shit.

I can't see how "indicating you're on property by going to a restaurant" would have any effect on the current system in place to evaluate average daily theoretical (and generate offers based upon it).

I also can't see how they would prefer you staying and not playing over leaving early. When you stay and don't play, you're actually using up resources, while leaving early at least stops the "bleeding" on their part from that standpoint.

I believe the recent change has to do with making staying-not-playing equivalent to leaving early, where in 2013 and before, ending the trip early would stop the ADT calculations there, which they decided they didn't like.

Basically they are saying, "If you are showing up for a hotel offer, you are going to be judged on your play for a minimum of 2 days, no matter how long you physically stay here."

And that makes sense.

I think your host was somewhat jerking your chain. He probably told you that you were "okay" because you played heavily the first day, and that ended up still being a decent average theoretical over the 3 days. He was likely correct in that your early checkout didn't affect much (or anything) because it was a one-time thing.

However, I have a really hard time believing that they have introduced some new calculation into the equation to where it keeps track of "days left early" versus "days not left early but with no play".

Hosts will often tell you only half the story. Sometimes there's not a sinister reason behind it, but they just don't want to go into intricate detail that the typical gambler won't understand. Other times they purposely omit details in order to get you to do what they want.

A good example of this was when I first made Seven Stars in 2012. I was very ignorant to how everything worked, and just imagined that a Seven Stars card meant that the casino world was my oyster. My parents and sister were in town, so I decided to ask my host for 3 tickets for them to see Jersey Boys. I had played a whole lot that week so I was sure a host would cover it.

The host said, "I'll look into what seats I can get you and will call you back."

I felt all proud of myself and was all ready to brag to my family how I could pretty much get anything (within reason) that I wanted from Caesar's now.

About 45 minutes later, I got the return phone call.

"So I found some very good seats for you in row E," she said. "Just say the word, and I'll take $768 in RCs from your account and have the tickets waiting for you."

My heart sank. I asked her why she was taking $768 from me, and noted that I could have done this myself without her help.

She said, "Oh, well you have a lot of RCs, so I need to use those first in order to be able to give you comps on my own."

I replied, "Yeah but then I'll be down to 0 RCs, and I won't be able to use them for the things I need in the future."

"Oh, don't worry," she assured me. "Once you've used them all, I'll make sure to take care of you. Sooooo... do you want me to get you those three tickets for the $768 in RCs?"

I declined.

I talked to a friend (another recent Seven Stars) and he told me that his host advised him the same. I told my buddy, "I'd hold off on this. Something sounds fishy about this advice. Let me look into it."

When I looked into it, I found that the host told us a half-truth, which is common for hosts to do.

Yes, it's true that they generally aren't supposed to comp you when you have remaining RCs (I know exceptions are made, but it's not common.)

However, what the host didn't tell us was that our play would be constantly evaluated and we would only be granted comps when we have "earned" them from our RECENT play, not our prior play. So I told my friend not to waste his RCs, and of course neither did I. That's why I still have like $2300 left.

And it's a good thing I didn't waste my RCs, as hosts are constantly telling me I'm "overcomped" and don't even as much as give me a room beyond what is required by the Seven Stars program.

Anyway Alan, my point is that your host was probably telling you what he thought would make you feel good. Rather than saying, "Yeah, those two days you watched in-room movies cut your theo by 67%, but you played so much on Day 1 that it won't affect your offers", he just said, "You're fine. As long as you stay on property, it's no big deal if you want to rest for a few days."

[Alan Mendelson]

I don't know how to respond, Dan. Clearly you're a guy trying to work the system and you've told us how you're overcomped so perhaps you're treated differently?

[Dan Druff]

I don't know how to respond, Dan. Clearly you're a guy trying to work the system and you've told us how you're overcomped so perhaps you're treated differently?

The story above was from 2012 before I worked anything. I had just made Seven Stars and had all appearances of being a heavy player (albeit one that showed up out of nowhere and was playing heavily).

I'm telling you that hosts lie to the customer both out of convenience ("He won't understand my explanation if I try to explain it") and to get them to behave the way that is most advantageous for them or the company.

[Alan Mendelson]

I had one host for eight years who even offered me his kidney when I was on dialysis. My current host doesn't lie about anything. I've also had hosts at NYNY, MGM and Bellagio that never gave me a problem. Perhaps it's because I never asked for much? I might be under-comped.

[Dan Druff]

I had one host for eight years who even offered me his kidney when I was on dialysis. My current host doesn't lie about anything. I've also had hosts at NYNY, MGM and Bellagio that never gave me a problem. Perhaps it's because I never asked for much? I might be under-comped.

You were very under-comped (from what I can tell from your stories), given that you were earning a million tier credits in a year and never even staying at Rincon!

Your host who offered the kidney was definitely atypical. Probably just a good human being rather than doing it for any job-related perks.

I don't think the host was lying to you in a malicious sense regarding your non-play on days 2 and 3, but rather was just simplifying it.

Besides, many hosts have no clue how the offers computer works, as they have no control over it, and I don't believe they are trained with that information.

[Alan Mendelson]

I don't think the host was lying to you in a malicious sense regarding your non-play on days 2 and 3, but rather was just simplifying it.

I think what you're missing here is that the casino/hotel also makes money from guests who go to restaurants, shop, visit the bar, gets room service, watches movies at $14.99 each (though they're free for 7 Stars) and buys sodas, and bottles of water, and candy bars.

Remember that half of the casino/hotel revenue now comes from non-gaming which is why they need you in the hotel room for those extra days even when you don't gamble.

Also keep in mind that the average Vegas visitor has a gambling budget of about $700 and a hotel guest can easily spend more than that on meals, shows, and a quick visit to the gift shop.

Besides, many hosts have no clue how the offers computer works, as they have no control over it, and I don't believe they are trained with that information.

Aww, come on now.

[Dan Druff]

I think what you're missing here is that the casino/hotel also makes money from guests who go to restaurants, shop, visit the bar, gets room service, watches movies at $14.99 each (though they're free for 7 Stars) and buys sodas, and bottles of water, and candy bars.

Remember that half of the casino/hotel revenue now comes from non-gaming which is why they need you in the hotel room for those extra days even when you don't gamble.

Also keep in mind that the average Vegas visitor has a gambling budget of about $700 and a hotel guest can easily spend more than that on meals, shows, and a quick visit to the gift shop.

This is true, but doesn't apply to most people coming to Caesars on offers.

The people receiving offers ARE the gamblers, and the casino makes much more from their gaming than from the other sources of revenue.

Also, the computer calculating comps/offers has always been exclusively gaming-based. In fact, it's so narrowly focused on gaming that play on sites like WSOP.com is ignored, even though you are strongly encouraged to play on the site through tons of marketing while on-property.

For example, if I stay at Caesars and play on WSOP.com the whole 3 days, yet do not spend a plug nickel in any of the machines or at the tables, it will still be considered a zero-gaming visit. This is despite the fact that I may have raked a 4-figure sum for the company.

Bottom line is that gaming has always been narrowly focused and never cared much about what you do or don't spent in the hotel. They only care about how much you play in the casino and the number of comps you're using while doing so.

[Alan Mendelson]

Dan I think we've sidestepped the issue here.

There is no question that they want players who get free play offers to have play that supports the free play offers. But they also want you to stay in the hotel for the required number of days so that you will also spend money in the hotel and at restaurants, stores, etc.

Even if you use reward credits to pay for your meals, those are reward credits that cannot be converted into free play.

[Dan Druff]

Then perhaps we are debating two different things.

You seem to be insisting that "they" (??) want you to stay in the hotel and spend money there, and that this is the better option for Caesars than the player simply going home.

I don't dispute that this is the better option for Caesars, but at the same time, I don't believe the gaming offer system is taking that into account. That system is very narrowly focused and simply tries to compute offers based upon what it thinks will be your future play. I doubt they completely reprogrammed that system to calculate future play AND future restaurant expenditures.

When you check out early, there isn't a human being who punishes you. A computer does, and that punishment comes from changing your average daily theoretical by throwing in extra "zero" days.

So if you stayed one day on the old system and had a theoretical of $1200 lost, your ADT would be $1200.

Now on the new system, if you stay one day and had a theoretical of $1200 lost, your ADT would be $600, since it would divide by two days "stayed" even if you were only there one.

And I think that's all that matters. The computer doesn't say to itself, "Oh, well he also used RCs at Old Homestead, so I'm gonna up his ADT to $900 instead." The computer will ignore that.

So back to what your host told you, if they were seeing a recent ADT of $1000 with you, and you came to Caesars and racked up a $3000 on Day 1 and zero on Days 2 and 3, your ADT would still be $1000. So this wouldn't affect your offers.

But rather than explaining all of this to you, the host just says, "Oh it's cool that you didn't play those two days. As long as you stayed on property!"

When in reality, it IS cool that you stayed those two days and didn't play, but not for the reason that host told you.

That's my point.

[Alan Mendelson]

I understand your point. But when you leave early it gives you a black mark because you didn't fulfill your end of the deal. Yes you preserved your ADT but you bolted. That will hurt you under the new system. Better to have some meals than kill your future offers.

[Dan Druff]

I understand your point. But when you leave early it gives you a black mark because you didn't fulfill your end of the deal. Yes you preserved your ADT but you bolted. That will hurt you under the new system. Better to have some meals than kill your future offers.

You keep saying a "black mark".

My question is WHAT black mark?

You seem to be insisting that the system will differentiate between staying 2 days but only playing on Day 1 and staying just 1 day and checking out before Day 2 starts.

I assert that there is no difference, and that your host is wrong.

I am asserting this because the offer-generation system has NEVER worked this way, and has absolutely never taken into account non-gaming sources of revenue.

That system has always performed calculations based upon coin-in/play, trip length, and freeplay/offers redeemed.

It would be a major departure from the current programming to have incorporated what you are claiming, and the reasoning is fairly flimsy. Yes, CET makes a bit more money if you stay on property and eat their food, but you also take up a hotel room -- perhaps a prime one that is in high demand and would otherwise sell.

I really believe this change was based upon their offers being based upon multi-day stays ("We'll give you $500 freeplay based upon a stay that we expect will be 2 days of gaming"), and when people were staying just one day and checking out, they didn't want these people to avoid the hit against their ADT, since the offer was based upon 2 days. And that's what this is about.

[Alan Mendelson]

You keep saying a "black mark".

My question is WHAT black mark?

You seem to be insisting that the system will differentiate between staying 2 days but only playing on Day 1 and staying just 1 day and checking out before Day 2 starts.

I assert that there is no difference, and that your host is wrong.

That's exactly it. They now want you to stay a minimum of two nights when you take their offers. And if you don't (says my host and other managers I spoke with) they will downgrade your offers. This change started about two months ago.

You are correct that when you check out your ADT (average daily theoretical) will not suffer as it will if you spend a second day there and don't play. But the new policy is for players to be there a minimum of two days (nights). And I am sure they still want your ADT to remain high. I think it's just another way for CET to cut back on offers and comps for players.

They've been cutting back on comps and offers for the last year or so -- this is just another way to do it. Of course they are hoping that when you stay the second night that you will play more -- and that's why they have the requirement for second night.

I know you don't like talking to hosts, but maybe you should talk to a host about this.