Surprise, surprise... marketing partnership between Starwood & Caesars mostly USELESS

[Dan Druff]

In case you hadn't heard, Caesars and Starwood entered into a partnership in December, 2013.

Details can be found here: http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sho...credits-points

It's very complicated, and I guarantee you'll never find a CET employee who can explain it to you. My thread above is probably the best explanation that exists on the web (or anywhere).

Well, the one thing I couldn't figure out was how I could redeem my RCs for Starwood stays. That was the most valuable aspect to this partnership, or so I thought, as I have over $2200 in RCs, and this would be a great way to spend them.

So I checked out a hotel I'm interested in visiting in a few months, which has a current rack rate of $169.

The Total Rewards website wants to charge me $250 in RCs for that room -- a markup of almost 50%!

Not even close to worth it.

Sigh.

So apparently the only use in this partnership is to earn points by staying at both properties, though CET stays won't do much for people like me who get comp rooms there.

All I'll be getting out of this program is basically 1% back in RCs for every Starwood property I choose to stay. Woohoo.

[Alan Mendelson]

So I checked out a hotel I'm interested in visiting in a few months, which has a current rack rate of $169.

The Total Rewards website wants to charge me $250 in RCs for that room -- a markup of almost 50%!

Not even close to worth it.

You say not worth it. But is it better to use real dollars out of your pocket?

[Dan Druff]

Yes, much better.

If I want real dollars in my pocket from RCs, I can get freeplay at 1.25:1 and run it through.

[Alan Mendelson]

Yes, much better.

If I want real dollars in my pocket from RCs, I can get freeplay at 1.25:1 and run it through.

And what if you don't win?

I think the best thing to do is always use reward credits before cash.

[redietz]

Okay, we have two separate issues here. Alan, who must have been keenly aware that CET was the Titanic, makes the case that stashed comps can turn into no comps pretty quickly. Yet he also has suggested that he thinks Total Rewards will somehow survive CET's dismemberment(s). So, which is it? Because if you have any faith in the survival of the TR comp system, a person should take the best available odds. If free play is 5 to 4 and retail is 2 to 1 (at best), you really need to take the free play. Taking wildly inferior odds is an irrational use of resources. I mean, really, the return on free play, with a goddawful run, will be no worse than the retail deficit.

But hold on, maybe I misunderstood you. Why exactly do you want to use reward credits before cash if you think the TR system is stable?

Someone just pointed out to me that Alan's stance on this would be the same as a host or CET management, which is also consistent with his "double-booking hurts your rating" mythology. I guess Alan just sees things from a CET management perspective, although "CET management" may be my new favorite oxymoron.

[Alan Mendelson]

My position is simple: ALWAYS use comps before using cash. If you have reward credits use them first no matter the exchange rate. Cash is cash but TR credits can only be used with a TR program. RCs won't pay for your rent, or your medical bills or for your kid's college.

This has nothing to do with the survivability of CET or its TOTAL REWARDS program. It's all about getting things without paying cash.

[Dan Druff]

My position is simple: ALWAYS use comps before using cash. If you have reward credits use them first no matter the exchange rate. Cash is cash but TR credits can only be used with a TR program. RCs won't pay for your rent, or your medical bills or for your kid's college.

This has nothing to do with the survivability of CET or its TOTAL REWARDS program. It's all about getting things without paying cash.

So will you sell me your $500 TR card for $100 in cash?

[Alan Mendelson]

No I won't sell a $500 TR card for $100 because when I go to a Caesars property it is worth $500. Your question is ridiculous.

The question is why would you spend one dollar of cash out of your pocket instead of $5 of "reward credits" which outside of the Caesars system have no value?

You tell us that you are sitting on $1900 of Caesars "rewards" and you still pay with real cash? Why sit with RCs that could become worthless if Caesars goes bankrupt or if you die or you fail to make a bet over 12 months or you simply dont use them or they just change the rules?

[Dan Druff]

Then you've just answered your question.

I won't waste $250 in RCs for $168 saved just like you won't waste $500 in RCs for $100 in cash.

In both cases, the real value of the RCs exceeds the cash that could be acquired/saved in their place

Now if I could get a $220 room for $250 in RCs, then I would do it.

[Dan Druff]

Also, if I die at age 42, the least of my worries will be $2200 in wasted RCs.

[Alan Mendelson]

Dan you still don't get it. Outside of Caesars reward credits are worthless. Always use them first.

[Dan Druff]

Dan you still don't get it. Outside of Caesars reward credits are worthless. Always use them first.

Alan, you are contradicting yourself.

You are refusing to sell your $500 gift card (equivalent to $500 in RCs, other than a few small advantages of the card) for $100 cash, yet chiding me for spending real cash instead of spending RCs at poor value.

Obviously you don't live by the rule of "RCs first before cash, regardless of the exchange rate", or you would gladly take my $100 cash for your $500 Caesar's card.

I believe the correct (most prudent) rule is "Use RCs at reasonable value before ever using cash."

Note I say "reasonable value", meaning it doesn't have to be 1:1, but at least fairly close (no worse than 1.3:1).

As I said, I could easily cash in my RCs at 1.25:1, and then run the freeplay in some low limit machine (to reduce variance), and most likely come away with at least 95% of what I put in.

[Alan Mendelson]

You are refusing to sell your $500 gift card (equivalent to $500 in RCs, other than a few small advantages of the card) for $100 cash, yet chiding me for spending real cash instead of spending RCs at poor value.

Of course I am refusing to sell a $500 gift card for $100 cash. Why? Because I will use that $500 gift card which cost me nothing out of pocket -- it was a comp given to me for my regular play (win or lose, by the way). I know that I can go to any of the Caesars resorts and use that $500 card to buy $500 worth of dining or shows or even gift shop items. Why would I trade $500 of those benefits for your offer of $100 cash?

On the other hand, your position seems to be it is better to save Reward Credits while you open your wallet to spend real cash and you do this because you think the exchange rate on the "reward credits" is poor.

Dan let me be blunt: cash in your pocket will always be worth more than reward credits. Spending cash from your pocket instead of reward credits is literally throwing good money after bad.

Dan you are making a big mistake if you spend any cash out of pocket if you have more than $2,200 of reward credits.

I can now go to a Caesars property with zero out of pocket cash using TR gift cards to cover all expenses while using RCs for free play and using free play offers.

Using cash to replace RCs is foolish. And it is not the same as using RCs to replace cash.

I only hope that someday you're not on this forum complaining about worthless reward credits in your account or how the exchange rate changed for the worse. You are walking on thin ice spending US dollars before Caesars reward credits. Good luck with that strategy.

[regnis]

I'm not sure who is right and who is wrong, but I pose this question to Alan. In Caesars Atlantic City, they have a nice place in the lobby for coffee, pastries, and sandwiches. It is overpriced but pretty good. But if you pay with reward credits, it is 2 for 1. So in essence, coffee is $8.00 instead of $4.00, etc.

So when I eat there, I pay cash so as not to use up credits 2 for 1. However, I use up all of my reward credits or at least know that I will use them up in the next month or 2. I don't play enough anymore to accumulate reward credits. So if I use them up at 2 for 1, it will cost me more cash later. If I pay cash at that café, I can at least get full value when I use my credits and the total cash outlay will be less.

But again, I don't have $2,200 credits in the bank.

[Alan Mendelson]

Regnis it seems to me you are paying the correct cash price for the coffee but Total Rewards players are getting a discount if they're getting two coffees for the price of one.

[regnis]

Sorry-I think I was unclear. They use up $8.00 worth of credits for the $4.00 worth of coffee. In other words, at that café, the credits are worth only 50% of their cash value.

[FABismonte]

Sometimes paying in cash makes sense if the alternative is using total rewards for free play at a better rate.

Last month I went to New Orleans on a Seven Stars Retreat with the wife. We had 50,000 total rewards credits posted to our account when we checked in. We wanted to eat at Drago's at the nearby Hilton for its outstanding char-grilled oysters but I saw that in order to dine there comped, I needed to first get a voucher slip which required 2-1 ratio of total rewards. So if I wanted $100 of food at Drago's I needed to trade in 20,000 in total rewards points. This made no sense given that as Seven Stars I could trade 12,500 total reward points for $100 free play. So I paid in cash at Drago's. and later cashed in my points for free play.

[Alan Mendelson]

Sorry-I think I was unclear. They use up $8.00 worth of credits for the $4.00 worth of coffee. In other words, at that café, the credits are worth only 50% of their cash value.

Thanks for clarifying. So would you rather pay with cash or reward credits?
I would choose the credits even though I am at the 7 Stars ratio for converting to free play.
Why would I pay with credits? Because I cant use credits outside of the CET world... and it's a big world out there.

[Alan Mendelson]

Sometimes paying in cash makes sense if the alternative is using total rewards for free play at a better rate.

Last month I went to New Orleans on a Seven Stars Retreat with the wife. We had 50,000 total rewards credits posted to our account when we checked in. We wanted to eat at Drago's at the nearby Hilton for its outstanding char-grilled oysters but I saw that in order to dine there comped, I needed to first get a voucher slip which required 2-1 ratio of total rewards. So if I wanted $100 of food at Drago's I needed to trade in 20,000 in total rewards points. This made no sense given that as Seven Stars I could trade 12,500 total reward points for $100 free play. So I paid in cash at Drago's. and later cashed in my points for free play.

If you had enough RCs why didn't you use credits for both dinner and free play? What compelled you to use cash when RCs were available?

[FABismonte]

If you had enough RCs why didn't you use credits for both dinner and free play? What compelled you to use cash when RCs were available?

Hi Alan:

I guess math compelled me. Or more precisely arithmetic. Our meal at Drago's (which by the way had OUTSTANDING grilled oysters) cost us $100.00. So I had two choices: (1) use 20,000 in total rewards credits to get a Drago's voucher worth $100 or (2) pay $100 cash to Drago's but convert 12,500 in reward credits for $100 worth of free play in the New Orleans Casino which had 9/6 Jacks or Better and hope to get $100 after running through the VP machine and cashing out. Choosing option two saved me 7,500 reward credits. So the second option had a 62.5% total rewards credit advantage which swamped even an unlucky 5% loss on any free play churn.

The ratio of RCs conversion to obtain goods and services you want dictates whether using cash makes sense even when you have RCs to use.