Two Craps Players - Who is Treated Better?

Player A and Player B both play craps at the same casino in Las Vegas. Both players play for the same length of time, tip the same amount, etc. They do not play any other table games or play the slots.

Player A establishes a $10,000 line of credit at the casino. They obtain a marker for $1,000 whenever they play craps and flat bet $100 on the pass line with no odds.

Player B establishes a $50,000 line of credit at the casino. They obtain a marker for $5,000 whenever they play craps and flat bet $100 on the pass line with full odds (3x 4x, 5x).

My question is which player is treated better by the casino? From a purely theoretical perspective, both players are equally valuable to the casino and therefore should get the exact same comps, treatment, perks, etc. However, will Player B be treated better because of their larger line of credit and their larger buy in amount when they step up to the table? Player B will also have much larger bankroll swings which will get noticed more by the pit staff and the executives.

From my experience, most Las Vegas casinos do not rate the odds at all when rating craps players. But does it make a difference anyway?

I think B is treated better because the casino views them as a potentially bigger player.

In theory, as you say, there shouldn't be any difference. The lines of credit shouldn't make any difference, either--the only thing that should count is total action, not potential action. But in practice, anyone taking out a line of credit of that size, and signing markers of that size, will be noticed more than the "smaller" player, even though their bet sizes are essentially the same (the odds shouldn't matter).

This would be less true in some of the more "corporate" casinos like Harrah's or MGM properties. In those places, there is a pretty well-defined and consequently rigid comp formula, which is built solely on action, not whether someone has the potential to lose more money, is wearing a fright wig, etc. I think a smaller casino would be more inclined to view a player subjectively.

From my experience, initiatily player B would get taken care of better.....once the casino figured out his play he would slide back to the player A's range.

I think they will treat player B better. Player B has a better chance of stepping up to $200 at the pass line than does player A.

Yeah, and find me a $50,000 craps player who just plays the line without doing some action in the middle and on the place bets. It takes an incredible amount of discipline to simply play the pass line in craps.

But the $50K player will be treated better because he's likely to bet more.

I suspect it depends on the casino and their policies. Some may not care what his line is, but how much action he gives, and reward on action given. Others may care more about the credit line and try and induce more action from that credit line and gives rewards prior to the action.

The casino's expected win against these two players is the same, if they really stuck to those strategies. However, the casino recognizes that in the real world, player B will often (especially if ample booze and comps are applied) bring some of the odds action into the middle, or onto place bets, or other games. I assume that if the booze and comps don't work, they would reduce the comps to the level of player A.

While the casino's expected win is identical in both cases, would Player B's large swings also help their case? For example, the most Player A could lose in a single trip to the casino would be $10,000 while Player B could lose $50,000. If Player B has a larger positive swing then Player A, a casino host may wish to keep Player B around longer in hopes that they will lose it back.