Overcomped

[Alan Mendelson]

Perhaps you're underplayed and not really overcomped? Either way are you getting the offers you want? That's the bottom line.

[Rob.Singer]

Dan, you make a silly claim with that "overcomped" thing so you're being challenged to support it. Either you have it in writing or you don't. And if you don't, your explanations alone have never been enough to convince anybody of anything other than you want more comps than you're entitled to so the casino just says no. Why you persist on trying to pull the wool over the eyes of a bunch of players with far more experience in the comp game than you, is baffling.

[Dan Druff]

Dan, you make a silly claim with that "overcomped" thing so you're being challenged to support it. Either you have it in writing or you don't. And if you don't, your explanations alone have never been enough to convince anybody of anything other than you want more comps than you're entitled to so the casino just says no. Why you persist on trying to pull the wool over the eyes of a bunch of players with far more experience in the comp game than you, is baffling.

Let me get this straight.

Rob Singer, the guy who makes outlandish and mathematics-defying claims about his results, the guy who won't provide us a shred of proof about these claims.....

.... is chiding ME for not providing proof in writing about something?

Now that's rich.

[redietz]

Dan's comps are in that storage locker in Arizona with Rob's tax returns and Bigfoot.

[Alan Mendelson]

Dan I think Rob's point is this: if you gambled more than the base minimum you would be entitled to more comps. However you have chosen only to play the base minimum to secure Seven Stars and the comp level it offers. There's nothing wrong with that and good for you for sticking with your plan. With that said, the rest of us have never heard the term "overcomped" before except as a euphemism to say no to a request for additional comps.

I don't think there is a list at Caesars called "overcomped players." I do think that hosts look at play levels to decide if additional comps can be offered.

You have very successfully engineered getting Seven Stars and the comps that come with it. Unfortunately your play probably doesn't warrant anything more. Frankly that just might mean YOU ARE AHEAD OF THE GAME since comps will never make up for expected losses.

So when you're told you're "overcomped" congratulate yourself that you didn't lose more nor did you play more than needed to get Seven Stars. But the reality is you are not overcomped but you are underplayed to get more comps.

[redietz]

I can't believe nobody has said this, so I may as well.

If there is a category of player deemed to be overcomped, you will never find the word "overcomped" in any CET literature because they don't want to publicly acknowledge anyone can do it or that there is a formula for doing it.

That seems so obvious to me that it's ridiculous. Why would CET state in any public literature that it can be done? Of course they won't!

Jesus, guys, use some common sense. Until 20 years ago, when it finally leaked, nobody knew people were getting rebates on losses. Casino management was able to keep a lid on that for decades. Do you really think 20% or more rebates on large-scale losses gets mentioned in any public literature? Is that the first thing your host brings up when he meets you, "Oh, by the way, the people betting a hundred times as much as you get 20% loss rebates annually?"

Of course not. And they're also not going to admit to the existence of a group of players who have gamed the system to the max while betting minimum amounts. Why would they?

[Alan Mendelson]

Ironically, there is a program at Rincon to reimburse table game players with a percentage of their losses. This is done because table players are not eligible for cash back or many other free play offers that slot and video poker players get.

I think I mentioned this percentage amount a while back but I don't remember what it is. Someone who is a table player at Rincon might know. By the way, there is a threshold minimum for table losses before the rebate kicks in.

[Dan Druff]

Dan I think Rob's point is this: if you gambled more than the base minimum you would be entitled to more comps. However you have chosen only to play the base minimum to secure Seven Stars and the comp level it offers. There's nothing wrong with that and good for you for sticking with your plan. With that said, the rest of us have never heard the term "overcomped" before except as a euphemism to say no to a request for additional comps.

I don't think there is a list at Caesars called "overcomped players." I do think that hosts look at play levels to decide if additional comps can be offered.

You have very successfully engineered getting Seven Stars and the comps that come with it. Unfortunately your play probably doesn't warrant anything more. Frankly that just might mean YOU ARE AHEAD OF THE GAME since comps will never make up for expected losses.

So when you're told you're "overcomped" congratulate yourself that you didn't lose more nor did you play more than needed to get Seven Stars. But the reality is you are not overcomped but you are underplayed to get more comps.

You realize that any "extra play" would earn MUCH less in the way in comps per dollar gambled, right?

I'm earning the peak of possible comps per dollar, and then utilizing almost all of them.

This is why I am listed as overcomped.

[Alan Mendelson]

This is why I am listed as overcomped.

We'd love to see that "list."

[Dan Druff]

We'd love to see that "list."

Ask your host if "overcomped" is a real term in the casino industry.

I don't see why you don't understand this.

Let's say a Seven Stars who earned their status playing the minimum in early 2015 has spent 400 comp days in CET hotel rooms since (this is possible), and hasn't wagered another penny.

Do you think he would be overcomped? Would he have used far more benefits than he earned?

Come on, Alan, stop being stubborn.

You may not want to be overcomped yourself, and you may not want to play like an AP, but at least admit that overcomping is a real thing, and that I am likely in that status.

This is getting tiresome.

[Dan Druff]

Let's make it simple for the Alans and Robs of the forum, who somehow don't understand the concept of becoming overcomped.

Take a fictitious national chain high-end steakhouse. We'll call it "Jon's Steaks".

Jon's Steaks has a promotion that you can earn free soup and salad every day for the current year and the next year, as long as you dine there 50 days in the year and spend at least $75 on food. per visit Once you've earned the soup and salad, you are allowed (but not encouraged) to come in, eat your soup and salad, order nothing else, and walk out with no bill.

Also, Jon's sends you offers and promotions for other free things, if they identify you as a regular customer.

Noticing an opportunity here, I dine at Jon's 50 times in the first two months of 2015, spending barely over $75 each time.

Then I start coming there every single day after that, redeeming my free soup and salad over and over. I do not spend another penny at Jon's throughout 2015 and 2016, but simply keep redeeming my free soup and salad every day.

Eventually, the profit Jon's made from me during my first 50 visits will disappear, due to my repeated free redemptions. Jon's notices this and stops sending me their other promotions, but continue honoring the free soup and salad thing, even knowing that I am costing them money overall.

This would mean I am overcomped at Jon's Steakhouse. This would also mean that I used the promotion at Jon's to my favor, and ended up coming out ahead -- I got much more out of them than I paid for.

During that same time period, Alan also ate at Jon's. He also ate there 50 times and earned the free soup and salad. However, Alan only redeems the free soup and salad when he's there to eat other things he pays for.

Alan is the type customer they prefer, as this was the spirit of the promotion in the first place. As a result, Alan receives mailers from them offering free appetizers, 50% off meals, etc.

When I tell Alan that I am "overcomped" at Jon's, he laughs at me and tells me that I'm actually undercomped, because I am only entitled to the free soup and salad, while he still gets those other offers.

I respond to Alan reminding him that I'm eating for free every time, while he keeps spending money and thereby allowing them to make further profits off of him, but he still insists that he's getting the better value here.

Ignoring the fact that I would get sick of soup and salad every day (since this is just a hypothetical example), this is pretty much exactly the difference in our two approaches, and it's mind-boggling how Alan fails to understand what overcomped means.

[james40]

Ask your host if "overcomped" is a real term in the casino industry.

I don't see why you don't understand this.

Let's say a Seven Stars who earned their status playing the minimum in early 2015 has spent 400 comp days in CET hotel rooms since (this is possible), and hasn't wagered another penny.

Do you think he would be overcomped? Would he have used far more benefits than he earned?

Come on, Alan, stop being stubborn.

You may not want to be overcomped yourself, and you may not want to play like an AP, but at least admit that overcomping is a real thing, and that I am likely in that status.

This is getting tiresome.

The problem is, you are calling it "earned" when it's a reward for losing money. Nothing more, nothing less. You may have lost the minimum while gaining 7 Stars, but at the end of the day you lost to get these comps.

Comps are a reward for losing. You just haven't lost enough lately to have "earned" further comps. Step up your losses and I guarantee the comps will come rolling in. Read the Watanabe article again.

As far as what a host is telling you, he or she works for the casino and has a stake in keeping you losing money to the casino. If it makes you feel better about losing, I'd tell you you were overcomped in every conversation.

[redietz]

People are very weird about what Dan's saying.

It's easy enough to determine if what you lose pursuing a particular status is more than made up for by the comps used. If it's possible to earn and use more comps than one loses in cash, then why won't anyone believe a person actually pulls it off?

[Alan Mendelson]

If Dan wants to call himself overcomped it's okay with me. I'm sorry I won't see him at the New Year's Eve party and event. I'll be there with the other non overcomped players.

[james40]

People are very weird about what Dan's saying.

It's easy enough to determine if what you lose pursuing a particular status is more than made up for by the comps used. If it's possible to earn and use more comps than one loses in cash, then why won't anyone believe a person actually pulls it off?

Because gamblers lie. Most of the claims on this board prove that.

[redietz]

Because gamblers lie. Most of the claims on this board prove that.

That wasn't my point. My point was that if one concedes that a person could garner more in comp value than they lost, then why -- if one concedes that -- is it so difficult to believe a particular person actually did so?

I'm ahead 5K lifetime playing vp -- a modest sum, to be sure, but I'm actually, truly ahead. My playing that vp at various places around town has probably garnered me between $400 and $500 a year in various and sundry comps, including free rooms. That's not much, but over 20 years, it adds up to 8K or 10K in comp value. I don't count that comp value towards my definition of "winning," but it's not farfetched to do so.

I know I'm not lying, so why would I automatically assume someone else is?

[Alan Mendelson]

Redietz are you on a list of "overcomped players"? Have you ever asked for a comp and been denied because you were told you were overcomped?

No one is saying that there aren't players who have a profit. No one is saying you can't get comps worth more than your losses. What some of us are saying is the explanation that a player has been denied comps is because of a lack of play and "overcomped" is a euphemism for not having the play to get comps.

Who besides Dan has ever heard the word "overcomped" used?

[jbjb]

Comps are supposed to be based on action, not wins or losses.

[Dan Druff]

The problem is, you are calling it "earned" when it's a reward for losing money. Nothing more, nothing less. You may have lost the minimum while gaining 7 Stars, but at the end of the day you lost to get these comps.

Comps are a reward for losing. You just haven't lost enough lately to have "earned" further comps. Step up your losses and I guarantee the comps will come rolling in. Read the Watanabe article again.

As far as what a host is telling you, he or she works for the casino and has a stake in keeping you losing money to the casino. If it makes you feel better about losing, I'd tell you you were overcomped in every conversation.

I know all about the Watanabe situation.

You are correct that I will see some comps again if I start losing again, but not for the reason you think.

This is because of the "on-off" trick you can use at casinos. If you are overcomped, but then wait 18 or so months and start playing again, it will "forget" your overcomped status from the past, and essentially start you with a clean slate. Then you milk the comps super hard again, then stop playinig/staying for 18 months repeat again and again.

I have a friend who does this and it WORKS.

I don't do it because I want/need all the Seven Stars benefits, and don't want to go through an 18-month lapse without redeeming anything.

Regarding what you were saying about the host, you are misunderstanding. The hosts are actually telling me NOT to come. They are telling me that they can't give me anything at all, and in fact quote a really high rate (the standard going rate for anyone off the street) for any rooms I want. When I ask them if there's anything they can do for me, they always say some form of, "Sorry, I can't. You're way overcomped." One even showed me on the computer how much overcomped I was, when I was there in person.

Rarely do these hosts volunteer that I can stay there free anyway with my guaranteed 4 nights Seven Stars benefit. They're hoping I hear the high rate they quote me and just go away, not realizing I'm entitled to stay free. Even when I do bring that up, sometimes they will claim they can only book 2 or 3 nights, and give me some nonsense like, "That's all the system is letting me do, you are very overcomped." They are also typically rude and snippy with me, and you can tell they just want me to get off the phone and go away.

In reality, they just don't want me there.

If this is some sort of reverse psychology act, then they all deserve Oscars for Best Peformance by a Casino Host.

I also have talked to former hosts (ones who no longer work in the industry, but have recently), and all have verified to me that being "overcomped" is a real thing, and that hosts avoid these customers like the plague.

Besides, I can approximately quantify the value of the comps I redeem (the wholesale cost, not retail), and that number dwarfs my expected loss getting to Seven Stars. So it all makes sense.

I don't understand why you, Alan, and Rob are doubting this is real.

Why is is so hard to grasp that, if the casino spends more in comping me (and I mean actual cost, not retail cost) than my expected losses, I'm not a profitable customer for them?

It seems that some people are just bending over backward to convince themselves that it's impossible to advantage-play the comp system. Instead, they're convinced that the casino just wants me to keep coming back over and over for 2 years, never playing, and utilizing guaranteed comps every time.

Right. I'm falling right into their trap.

[Dan Druff]

Redietz are you on a list of "overcomped players"? Have you ever asked for a comp and been denied because you were told you were overcomped?

No one is saying that there aren't players who have a profit. No one is saying you can't get comps worth more than your losses. What some of us are saying is the explanation that a player has been denied comps is because of a lack of play and "overcomped" is a euphemism for not having the play to get comps.

Who besides Dan has ever heard the word "overcomped" used?

Alan, call your host and ask if the term "overcomped" is used. Don't mention my name, but just ask them if there's such a thing for a player to be overcomped, and what that means.

Ask if it's a real term used in the industry.

Report back.