Which Player Would a Casino Host Want More?

All players below are playing the exact same game of blackjack and have the exact same ability.

Player 1 - $400 a hand for 3 hours over a weekend
Player 2 - $200 a hand for 6 hours over a weekend
Player 3 - $100 a hand for 12 hours over a weekend
Player 4 - $50 a hand for 24 hours over a weekend
Player 5 - $25 a hand for 48 hours over a (long) weekend

From a pure earnings view, all five players give the casino the exact same theoretical loss. However, my question is:

Is one player more valuable to the casino in a casino host's eyes?

Let's take it one step further. Let's say you want to maximize your comps over a weekend in Vegas. Your bankroll is large enough to take any of the swings that can happen in the above five scenarios. Which of the above styles would get the most comps?

My guess is that player #3 would get the best comps. He is playing for a reasonable amount of time, he is not playing high enough to be a threat, but is high enough to be valuable.

Time is a player's enemy. Sooner or later, a player that doesn't quit will give it all back.

That said, player 1 is out of contention. Players 4 & 5 would get tired and probably beligerent, so even if they are more financially valuable, they are more annoying to the staff and other patrons, so they aren't getting the comps either.

So I'd narrow it down to a toss up between players 2 and 3.

How about player 2 1/2 ? $150 per hand for 8 hours?

Quote: gambler

All players below are playing the exact same game of blackjack and have the exact same ability.

Player 1 - $400 a hand for 3 hours over a weekend
Player 2 - $200 a hand for 6 hours over a weekend
Player 3 - $100 a hand for 12 hours over a weekend
Player 4 - $50 a hand for 24 hours over a weekend
Player 5 - $25 a hand for 48 hours over a (long) weekend

From a pure earnings view, all five players give the casino the exact same theoretical loss. However, my question is:

Is one player more valuable to the casino in a casino host's eyes?

Let's take it one step further. Let's say you want to maximize your comps over a weekend in Vegas. Your bankroll is large enough to take any of the swings that can happen in the above five scenarios. Which of the above styles would get the most comps?

If I were a casino, I would prefer Player 1. Reason being that since the theoretical loss is the same for all these players (and remember the casinos have the Law of Large Numbers on their side), the less time they spend in my casino the better. The less food I have to pay them, no hotel room to pay for, and Player 1 allows me to free up the most table space for other players.

Player 1 is the highest bettor and would be of most interest to the casino provided that his action didn't get suppressed by a computer program that only looks at 4 hour sessions. After that Player 2. Two blacks makes more of a statement than one black for twice as long.
Weekend/weekday? Casino looks at the money, not what day it is. They want your ACTION. They don't much care when it takes place, they are always open.

#2 period.

Either 2 or 3. Four hours of play a day is a benchmark casinos like to see, regardless of average bet. I was rebuffed a comp at Hugo's at the Four Queens because I was about half an hour short of four hours. Casino managers seem to like players who seem to truly like gambling. They like it when players bet emotionally, like chasing losses, and following progressions. Player 1 does not seem like someone who really likes gambling. On the other hand, if someone spends too much time at the tables they won't be spending as much money elsewhere in the casino. Non-gambling activity accounts for about half of profits here in Vegas. If forced to choose, I think player 3 would be treated the best.

Quote: Wizard

Four hours of play a day is a benchmark casinos like to see, regardless of average bet.

Does anyone know what the limits are at the Paiza club in the Venetian? You need a one million dollar credit line, to play here. There are 3 bedroom suites, Karaoke room, exercise rooms. Bottles of Louis XIII in the room ready to drink. Gambling everyday, clubbing everyday, massages everyday, 24 hour butler service, Shark Fin soup every morning along with the Chinese delicacy birds nest soup.

I mean a whale like this is not spending any of his own money when he's not gambling. Every possible activity is comped. Venetian normally has a $10,000 dollar limit on blackjack. Does this limit apply to Paiza club as well? Logically the casino would want a player to bet 1000 hands of blackjack at $10K per pop vs 100 hands of blackjack at $100K per hand. The latter player would have a lot of free hours to be sucking up the comps.

I would think that it would be hard to turn away a gambler who bets $10 million even if it is in relatively large chunks. People have told me that Kerry Packer (the Australian billionaire and famous gambler and womanizer) would actually bet three hands of $50K apiece in blackjack, but he would have a $10 million bankroll. Given normal variance, the probability were pretty high that he could walk away from the tables ahead a $1 million. He would then hang out at the pool and indulge the rest of the time. The casinos were actually taking a high risk with him, but his tipping was so lavish that the staff adored him.

Tom Breitling told a story about the Golden Nugget casino. They agreed to sell the casino to Landry's Restaurants for $315 million in January 2005. The price was fixed regardless of what happened to revenue. Typical for Nevada it took until September to close the deal because Landry's was new to gaming and it takes a long time to get through the licensing process. In the interim period Tom decided to lift the table limits for a long time friend. The player won a million dollars that night. The money he won or lost would just be passed on to the new owners. When the Landry's executives saw the daily sheets the next day they had a cow, and nearly stopped the entire deal. It is hard to believe that they would stop a $315 million deal over $1 million, especially since had the player lost they would be up a million. But corporate executives don't like to think in terms of risky high limit bets. From their point of view Tom had lost a $1 million of their money.

One problem i see here...

Is that an average bet with a spread of 1 to 8 or is that a flat bet?