Cosmopolitan "unaccommodating"

I'm interested if anyone knows anything that supports the February LVA newsletter comment regarding Cosmopolitan:

"Its good schedules notwithstanding, reports are that the Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas is distinctly “unaccommodating” to players who appear to have a clue."

If I play strictly full pay VP, will they give me no love?

Probably. This is the norm at most casinos. People who play ONLY full-pay games get penalized in some ways -- either they get no mailers, or they have to put through lots more coin-in to earn a point, or whatever.

The only way to know is to play and see what happens, or put your ear to the ground and see what happens. It doesn't hurt to play an hour of REALLY SLOW slots so that you aren't just 100% VP.

There are plenty of casinos that offer lots of love even to players that play full pay. Station casinos isn't one of them....

Even Jean Scott plays slots occasionally so that she isn't seen as an "exclusive full-pay VP" player.

Very true (she just mentioned this when she visited Harrah's Laughlin). They key is knowing how much and at which casinos. I play the Jacks at Cosmo and then slow played a slot for an hour as well (the $20 it cost me I hope is recouped in offers).

Has anyone seen any Cosmo offers yet?

does playing slow really make a difference? I'm kinda old and not willing to use up time in that way. But I'm asking for legitimate info: thanks and Good luck!

where are the good schedules they are 5-10=25 dollars

Playing slow helps at SOME casino's that look at time played as well as points. For instance they might see 4 hours of VP and 1 hour of Slots for a total of $10,000 coin-in at $2.50 a hand. So they could value this as a 20% slot player OR they could see $9500 VP and $500 Slots and value as 5% slot player.

The only way to know which is to play the exact same action both ways. Even then it isn't cut and dry as actual win/loss may play into the equation. This is why the boards are so helpful in finding out stuff like this.