Yes, because I'm a skilled player, I consider only theoretical wins/losses, not actual results. To me, as it should be to all gamblers, if you stuff $10,000 into a slot machine, you've immediately lost $1,000, regardless of what the slot ticket says when you cash out. If you slap down a hundy on the roulette wheel, you've lost a bit over $5 before the wheel stops spinning.

 

I generally don't articulate this concept much any more, as it confuses people. You seem to understand; the OP seems not to. So allow me to amend my statement: "Your expected losses from your play must have been approximately five times the comps you received, or in this case, enough to pay for twenty-five room nights." Again, in the long run, actual results approach theo, so expert gamblers don't make a distinctiin between the two. Bob Dancer, the Wizard, or Anthony will tell you that winning doesn't mean you made a good bet, nor does losing mean you made a bad bet. EV is all that matters.

 

This is yet another example of something I often experience: when I use the short version of an explanation, it confuses people. I should have tried to explain theo and EV to the poster, as my point was that you don't get comps, especially from Strip casinos, unless you're expected to lose far more than the comped amount. Gamblers say "woo hoo, I got a comp" to justify playing against a crushing house edge. They also point to their short-term results: "Hey, I won! I'm a smart gambler!!!" No one can play any game in the Paris casino without eventually losing. Comps and short-term positive results don't change that.

 

But I must ask: given that you do comprehend this concept, why are you being a jerkass? Is it just in your nature?