I've read several threads in which the concept that "low rollers are overcomped" is made repeatedly. The argument is generally that smaller players tend to get fairly generous room offers relative to their play, and when combined with the other costs they generate (free drinks, overhead, opportunity costs of other patrons), low rollers are not particularly profitable for the casino. I've been thinking through that argument, and I noted a few objections that don't typically seem to come up: Comp Value: "Comp Value" of a room is not the same as the Actual Value of a room. Depending on occupancy, volume of tourists, and comparable market rates of other properties, the value of a room is a variable that fluctuates constantly. If a hotel has hundreds of unoccupied rooms for the night, it could be argued that a room is worth very little - perhaps just the cost of overhead and housekeeping. If a property is near 100% occupied on a busy weekend or holiday/event, the value could be much higher than the rack rate. Comp Value is typically an inflated number - essentially a profit center for the casino - in the sense that it evaporates potential comps at a higher rate than the market would typically bear in cash. Other Profit Centers: There is more value to a potential player than simply their gaming theo. Many properties feature several other profit centers, such as restaurants, shopping, and nightlife, that can in some cases exceed gaming revenue. Having a fairly small player on property still might be profitable, if those players are prone to spend their budgets elsewhere in the house. Consider the profit margins on a top dance club or restaurant. Even McDonalds turns a decent profit. Atmosphere: Part of what draws higher players to a property is the degree of benefits they get over the common man. Some may not admit this, but others are open about the fact that they enjoy being treated like a VIP. However, VIPs don't exist in a vacuum - they need a backdrop to compare themselves to. My point is that constructing a business model solely around high rollers is flawed - because in order to be a successful property, the house needs to fill itself with large numbers of people. Even if those people are not generating significant gaming revenue, the appearance of volume and busy-ness is critical to the image of the resort. While I agree that some of the offers to low rollers are not justified in terms of comp value and theo, I just want to raise discussion about an alternate way of looking at comps, in which it makes perfect sense. It also should be noted - comps are not drawn from a fixed institutional budget that exists as a percentage of gaming revenue. When low rollers are "overcomped", this does not result in mid or high players being "undercomped". This is a divisive way of thinking, that pits players against other players. You are not competing for comps - at least not the same comps. The reality is that the business model of a property needs to reflect all revenue streams and costs, and make decisions designed to maintain or increase the value of their asset, either in terms of profits or long term value. I would agree with many - that some short sighted executives tend to sacrifice the long term value of the property in exchange for short term profits and bonuses. But I do not believe that "overcomping" low rollers contributes to that - nor do I believe that a decision to decrease comps for larger players is necessarily driven by shortsightedness either. There is no obvious way to ensure that all levels of player are comped "appropriately" - because comps only exist as an incentive to player choices, and it is impossible to accurately gauge the preferences and tendencies of every individual player well enough to comp them in the most efficient manner. Everyone has choices, and the market should ultimately respond to changes in preferences, and bear out the best solutions - or at least ones that work. The only real limits to an effectively functioning market, even in comps, are the high barriers to entry for a casino, and the high degree of industry consolidation. But there are still enough choices to force casinos to adapt to what works.