UKstages

why, yes, yes i do. what you call "the law of averages" isn't actually a thing. there is no statistical basis for it. every gaming decision in a casino is an independent event that does not rely on past performance. in fact, "the law of averages" is more commonly referred to as "the gambler's fallacy."

and most of the time, they are not. just walk through the high limit room in any land-based casino. you will find that most people do not smoke. if there are 100 players in there, 12 or 13 of them will be smoking., this is not news... a 2008 university of nevada study found that the percentage of smokers in nevada casinos mirrored the general population. the casinos warn of economic ruin and a drop in tax revenue if smoking were to be prohibited (restaurants made the same arguments before smoking was prohibited in them). but that argument has always been false and, as pointed out above, it's completely been debunked following the reopening of casinos during the pandemic. and the casino industry has never presented data demonstrating that gamblers who smoke play longer, bet more or lose more. if there were such data, the casino industry would have shared it years ago and ended this perennial debate. in america, less than 13% of the population smokes. and that percentage continues to drop. it was over 20% just a decade or so ago. the percentage of people who smoke varies by country, and there are certainly international travelers on NCL ships, but the percentage who smoke continues to drop worldwide. carve outs to state smoke-free laws for casinos have been made at the behest of Big Tobacco for decades, but the data on which they base their decisions has always been suspect. there has never been a peer reviewed independent study (not tied in some way to the tobacco industry) that has ever proved economic harm to casinos from a smoking prohibition. in land-based regulated gambling jurisdictions, most casino exceptions to smoke-free air acts specifically state that the exception is being made for "active players." in other words, what you describe... just standing around and smoking... isn't allowed. you must be playing,. but this rule is rarely enforced. as best as i can tell, there is bo such rule onboard NCL ships. the only time they enforce "no smoking" in the casino is when the ship is in port and the casino is closed.

you are correct that many "branded" hotels are owned and managed by other companies. but all of those companies have to adhere to strict brand standards that include everything from the number and types of restaurants and elite member lounges, to the hours of operation for those restaurants and lounges and the acceptable "make goods" the property must offer if they fail to provide promised services or accommodations... and yes, these standards typically specify the way in which upgrades must be processed. you are correct that the airlines are similar, in that they recognize status. but it's also very different. in the example you cite, there are many influencing factors that determine who gets compensation in an oversold situation. it depends on whether the "bump" is voluntary (in which case, they may indeed attempt to favor elite status passengers who wish to be compensated) or involuntary, in which case, super premium elite passengers would be the very last to be bumped. but there are still other factors at play. passengers with carry on bags only, for example, are highly preferred in oversold situations. passengers traveling nonstop to their destination are highly preferred and easier to rebook. gate agents will attempt to satisfy the wishes of elite status passengers when they can, but they will often - and have the right - to do whatever is easiest for them and allows them to get the flight out on time. you are correct that most hotels and airlines have special phone numbers for elite status customers. however, at peak times, with a heavy queue, these calls are often routed to "regular" agents. and these days, only super premium elite customers get an experienced agent who answers promptly. garden variety elite customers often have to wait.

i could easily and happily explain this to you, but i am pretty sure, based on both the way your phrased your question and the way you objected to the answers by some of the folks who responded to you, that you would summarily dismiss whatever i said.

. cake or cupcake, no problem. a candle? probably a non starter.

respectfully, you don't agree because you don't buy into the supposition. and that's fine. you simply don't agree. i get that. but there is indeed a flaw in the logic because it is just a math problem. and we're talking about two distinct groups, one of which is a subset of the other. and you can't count the two groups twice. that holds true regardless of what the numbers are and whether you buy into the premise. the flaw in the logic is not that you don't agree with me. the flaw in the logic is the way the numbers are derived. as for whether NCL customers, or the cruising public at large, are more likely to be vaccinated, the answer is most definitely yes. cruise customers tend to be older and older americans are more highly vaxxed than the gen pop... the range is from over 80% in vermont, to mid 50s in a state like utah. there are influencing factors at play here, but it would violate CC rules to share them. international cruisers from developed nations have very high rates of vaccination because vaccination hasn't been politicized in other countries quite like it has in the USA. socioeconomic factors also come into play. cruisers tend to be people with more disposable income and those folks, the people with more money, , not surprisingly, tend to be more highly vaxxed. anybody who tells you that there are large numbers of unvaccinated travelers champing at the bit to cruise - and that a vaccine requirement has kept them from cruising - is blowing sunshine up their skirt. and that includes the cruise lines! can you think of a reason, other than rev gen, that would make cruise lines want to drop vaccine requirements? i certainly can.

in an "oversold" situation, when a hospitality company can't accommodate all booked customers, it is common for those with status (with airlines and hotels, for instance) to be "bumped" or "walked" as a very last resort... regardless of when the booking was made or the price the customer paid. it would be unusual, and a deviation from accepted norms in the hospitality industry, to ignore a customer's status when making a decision such as this. (and, yes, i know the ship is not oversold... but the net effect is the same... NCL apparently can't accommodate all who were booked.)

i started to post a reply to the fourteen different posts in here with misinformation and misunderstandings about gambling and comps and i've given up. at some point, it becomes obvious that some people like to poke bears. the thing is, when the bear pokes back, you might want to actually read what the bear says. you might learn something about honey and hibernation. i will say that the distinguished cruise critic member from raleigh is right on the money, so to speak, about the pseudo random number generator. but, like dr. pepper, the PRNG is so misunderstood. suffice it to say, that for the average bear (whether being poked or not), a PRNG is just as good as an RNG and makes no discernible difference in a particular game's outcome. a pseudo RNG is indeed random, or as close as you are going to get in casino gaming.

why not bermuda AND new england/canada? book a back-to-back cruise! there's a 9/1 departure on the joy out of new york to bermuda for five days, combinable with the first of the ten-day cruises on the joy to new england and canada, departing 9/6.

gosh, i don't think so. respectfully, there is a flaw in your logic. even if 20% is an accurate figure (and i don't personally think it is, since "NCL's average passenger age" likely skews older and more highly vaccinated than the public at large)... there is a big difference between those in the general population who are "NCL's average passenger age" and NCL customers who are "NCL's average passenger age." those of that age who have actually been NCL customers are more likely to be vaxxed, based on the demographics. (and if they've cruised in the past year, we know they're vaxxed.) those of that age who are in the general population and unvaxxed are unlikely cruisers or cruise resisters, based on the demographics... not because of any vaccine requirement, but because cruising doesn't appeal to them for some reason or other. that's the flaw in the logic. your hypothesis assumes that many unvaxxed passengers in that demographic would have liked to cruise and were be held back by that pesky vaccine requirement. i'm saying, no, most of them are just not interested in cruising. while it might seem like everybody in the unvaxxed population is a potential cruiser, in marketing terms, most are not. and if NCL were able to reach that subset of a subset and market to them and convince them to cruise, it's unlikely that it will add "10%" to overall revenues. it would likely be more likely to add a fraction of one per cent. still, that would be most welcome, but not a 10% increase in my estimation.

where are you getting the "minimum 20%" figure? does it arbitrarily come from a subset of the unvaxxed population? the percentage of those unvaxxed who have a propensity to cruise is likely very small. i had thought that was the main point of your earlier post. it certainly was of mine. your point about families was true for as long as children were prohibited from getting vaccines. that is no longer true. (the reason those children weren't vaccinated was not because of a choice their parents made, but because vaccines were not possible for children. those families were already part of the population of likely cruisers.) as for their vacation dollars going elsewhere, that might be true now, but it wasn't necessarily true before restrictions were lifted elsewhere. they couldn't go on a plane or dine in some restaurants or visit some attractions.

no, if you think you can recognize a streak as it is happening, you don't agree with me at all. one can only make a determination of a "streak" or a "hot machine" after one has played. human beings make those qualitative judgments; the games behave exactly the same way every time. there is no such thing as a hot machine or a hot table until after you've left that machine or that table. in most cases, the house doesn't know you exist (except for player tracking systems for rewarding players and for the issuance of comps and offers). the house is not concerned with you. the house is concerned with all players over time. that's where the house has the edge. over time, they will take in more than they pay out. that's just math. whether you win 10K or lose 3K in the short term makes no difference, as the house considers all play in aggregate. and they always win, over time. but players also will win... sometimes. nobody would play in the casino if they always lost. the awarding of comps is based on your play and not your loss. there is no mathematical equation that says the value of the comps has to be justified by your wins or neutralized by your loss. (well, there is, but like everything else, it's a percentage of your play that they're willing to return to you over time and doesn't take into account incidental wins and losses.) no smart gambler plays for comps. and if you want "a means by which you will lose less than the comps are worth," then you aren't gambling. but, again, that's why people play video poker. with video poker, it's skill and mathematical probabilities working alongside luck that determines your results and your payback. well, as a new yorker, i take great exception to that statement, as you might expect. my question to you is... was it, by any chance, a cruise that departed from new york? on cruises that depart from new york, there are - not surprisingly - a lot more, well, new yorkers... more so than on a cruise that departs from san diego or seattle. therefore, anyone you encounter on the ship - whether they be a sinner or a saint - is far more likely to come from new york. if you were traveling from san diego and you encountered snooty people on that cruise, you'd be more likely to walk away saying that those people from san diego have an attitude. here again, like with gambling, it's just math. many "advantage players" consistently beat the house. these would typically be video poker and black jack players. in both games, there are elements of skill and luck. you won't find an advantage black jack player on a cruise ship, as the rules are generally not favorable. if you're unfamiliar with the term "advantage player," look it up. (but ignore references to advantage slot players, as this is largely a fantasy, in my opinion. slot players might think they have an advantage on certain machines at certain times, but there is still no skill involved and the results are entirely random.) "ignore the math?" casinos are all about math. as i said before, casinos are built by those who understand math, for those who don't... or for those who choose to ignore the math for entertainment purposes. that's the part you seem unwilling to accept. there are people who enjoy risking their money on games of chance as entertainment... the same way others get a thrill from jumping into a canyon tethered by a bungee cord or by riding a roller coaster. the difference here is that you are unlikely to get free bungee jumps and roller coaster rides, but many here get free and discounted cruises, OBC and comped emails in specialty restaurants, just by doing what they were going to do anyway.

i floated this very concept in a rather contentious thread here on this topic a few months ago and was harshly rebuked. i still think it's correct. requiring vaccinations didn't eat into the pool of potential cruising customers because those most likely to cruise are already vaccinated. and every cruise line has the stats and the demographics on their customer base. but, in general, for all cruise lines, with the possible exception of carnival, those with a propensity to cruise are most likely already vaccinated. any cruise line removing vaccination requirements has to look closely at what revenue they might get from unvaxxed (and unlikely cruisers) versus how much they will alienate their core customers, and how much revenue they might lose from them... some of whom will no doubt be upset that the policy has been rescinded. this is counterintuitive. if you buy into the argument that @RichYak and I are making (and you didn't a couple of months ago when i first made it), there is no large number of unvaxxed customers with FCC... because the demographics indicate that those most likely to cruise (before the onset of the pandemic) are also the most likely to have been vaxxed once vaccines became available. similarly, there is not a large number of "unvaccinated cruisers who have been itching to cruise." that is a contradiction in terms. there are a few, to be sure. does it constitute a "competitive advantage," as you believe? i certainly don't think so. the number is likely relatively small. and advertsing "no vaccine required" is unlikely to convince those without a propensity to cruise to come onboard. also, if guests are still "itching" at the time of embarkation, that could be a symptom of illness and they should probably not be cruising at all. just sayin'.

wow. just wow. i've read all the replies from the past few days and i'm gobsmacked. @DrSeahas done a great job of addressing most of the haven class warfare issues that i feel strongly about, so i don't have to tackle those. i couldn't have done it better, except i would have asked, a number of times,, "i'm sorry, will this be a 45 minute session or did you want to go the full hour?" i would like to address a few things: with regard to haven pricing... yes, a lot of people are in there for "free," including me. but i also share the prevailing thought that few people pay rack rate, except maybe during spring break, easter, christmas and new years and other periods of peak demand. (although i was comped in the haven during spring break this year, so there goes that theory.) apart from the perennial sales, there are a lot of upgrades, as people have mentioned. the thing to remember is that a stateroom - anywhere on the ship - is perishable inventory, just like an airplane seat or a theatre ticket. once the ship sails, that potential revenue is gone forever. so it is in NCL's best interest to offer comped cabins and upgrades and deep discounts, unless and until they believe it has cheapened the perceived value of the product. with regard to casino payback percentages... depends. i recently posted about this in another CAS thread here. the prevailing thought is that cruise ship casinos are unregulated, so they can pay anything they want. that is not entirely true. there are indeed some regulations, the chief one being that the games, machines and equipment have to be operated to the standards of legitimate and regulated gaming jurisdictions like las vegas. so the notion of "that's how they get you, they let you win and then they pull back and take all your money" is preposterous. random means random. odds are odds. and one of the principles of legitimate gaming jurisdictions is that the player has the same chance of getting a particular winning combination on each spin. that doesn't mean that all results are equally likely... they are not. you have a greater chance of getting a low paying winning combination than a jackpot, for instance. as for payback... somebody posited upthread that payback was 40%. it is far higher. for example, las vegas has a minimum payback of 75% and atlantic city has a minimum payback of, if memory serves, 83% or 85%. penny machines tend to return close to the minimum. as you increase denomination, payback generally increases. a dollar machine might pay back 90% or 92% and a hundred dollar machine might pay back 98% or 99%. that doesn't mean you won't lose 100% of your money over the short term... it just means that over millions of spins, the machine will pay back very close to the percentage specified by the manufacturer and requested by the casino. nobody would play in a casino that offered a 40% return. few people would play in a casino that offered 75% return. we don't know what the payback is on any given ship... and bear in mind that the percentage of payback is an average that includes penny play as well as dollar and $25 and $100 denominations. the inclusion of higher denominations - and also video poker - will always inflate overall payback percentages. video poker is a game of skill and luck and if you play certain games with the correct strategy, they will return 99.54% or greater over time. in any case, your ability to get an offer for a comped or discounted room, is not based on how much you lose. i've had big winning cruises, even though i do lose most of the time. as noted up thread, it's about how much coin-through you have, how much money you risk. the actual loss is usually far lower. there's a complicated formula, ADT (average daily theoretical loss), that takes into account which games you play, how long you play them, the sixe of your bet and what the game's typical "hold" is. it's just math. and casinos were built by people who understand math for people who don't (or who choose to ignore math for entertainment.) there are no trends to follow, there are no winning systems. there is only math. that's why card counters in blackjack can succeed and why video poker players have an advantage and, sometimes, an edge. as for "hot" games and "winning streaks," we make those determinations as human beings after having played. in legitimate random games, there is no way to predict a streak or a trend in advance.

i have departed new york after 10 PM several times. (of course, in each case, the scheduled sail away time was 4 PM.)

respectfully, this is a straw man argument. does anybody enjoy crowds and what they perceive to be substandard service or food that may be of lesser quality? those things, while part of the cruise ship experience for most people, are not the reasons most people cruise. also, more to the point... the fact is that there are cruise lines and "ship within a ship" products - such as the haven - that address these specific issues. it's no different than staying in land-based resort... you can book a more affordable B&B style accommodation four blocks from the beach or you can book a luxury five star hotel and stay in a suite with a balcony overlooking the ocean. even within the same hotel, you can book an "ordinary" room or a suite with private lounge access. you can fly in coach class or you can fly in business class with a reclining seat, better food and enjoy a pre-departure beverage and a hot towel. if somebody can cruise by purchasing a product that they believe provides a greater degree of comfort and more appealing amenities, that is their choice. and it's a valid choice... for them. other than understandable backlash from the legitimate reports of "steerage" comments, i simply don't understand the class warfare on this issue. if anything, from reading thousands of posts on cruise critic, it seems like these comments and accusations most often come the other way! the people outside the haven are making value judgments about the haven and the people who choose the haven based largely on not ever having been in the haven... or based on the fact that they don't think it is necessary or affordable for them, personally. i've been in sales and customer service in some capacity or another for most of my adult life. and one of the most important things we teach sales reps is not to sell out of their own pocket. in other words, just because you don't see value in the product or service... or because you can't personally justify the cost for yourself... that doesn't mean that others won't find value in the product and be willing to purchase it. and spend money on amenities and features you find repulsive, distasteful or of little value. i play mostly video poker, with some slot machines here and there, no table games. i've written other posts in other threads about what it takes to get a comped cabin through the NCL's casino at sea program or a discounted fare. there are a lot of misunderstandings about this... it reminds me a lot of the haven discussion here. those that don't gamble insist that somebody must be losing THOUSANDS of dollars in order to get a "free" cruise, but that's not the way it works. yes, but he'd be doing exactly the same thing in cagney's, at the go-karts, in american diner or while playing "deal or no deal." entitled jerks are entitled jerks everywhere they go. it's about the person, not the haven.

you're confusing me with somebody else, perhaps. neither greta garbo nor i ever said "i want to be alone." "being alone" has never been my rationale for booking the haven. also, i leave the haven frequently. a great deal of time is spent outside of the haven, with 3,000 of my closest friends. i walk among you (just like that other fellow). please note: on many large ships, a certain number of haven rooms aren't even located in "the haven" proper. if by "being alone," you mean being in a private area and having a private restaurant and a private pool and a private bar far from the madding crowd, sure, that's part of it. but i view that as a higher level of service, not as "being alone." (if NCL wanted to, with planning and renovations, the entire ship could be a haven... but the market and cruising public would not support that.) and i'm here to tell you... the haven itself can get pretty damn crowded! even in the current covid era, the ship can be at 65%, but the haven is almost always at 100%. the reason i book the haven is for a higher level of service and hospitality and - almost always - better food. in the interest of full disclosure, i should mention that i also get a casino comp. (but even if i were paying full freight, i'd still book the haven.) it ameliorates everything people sometimes hate about cruises, by applying a higher staff-to-guest service ratio and having generally higher service standards... everything from pillows to mattresses to room service to wait staff. honest answer!

@mocruisefan is absolutely correct. folks here in this thread are getting their knickers in a twist over the word "none," not recognizing that there are a number of reservations held back exclusively for use by concierges (or management employees above the concierges). when a guest goes to a restaurant and tries to make a booking, and they say nothing is available, that doesn't mean that there aren't still a few reservations held back for use by concierges. as you get closer to the event or the meal time, those reservations are opened up for booking by the general population. if an event or restaurant is fully booked and no reservations are available, the concierge can't get one, either. but the concierge can indeed pull strings and make daily calls and remind staff that if something opens up (cancellations), he has a guest that would like to have that reservation. and, typically, the concierge will be able to snag that reservation at that sold out event or restaurant. not always, but typically. it's just like a broadway show... there are usually "house seats" held back from sale at every performance. these are prime seats in the center of the orchestra about six or seven rows from the stage. when they get a call that the president is in town and would like to see the show (or such and such a celebrity would like to see the show), whomp! there it is... prime tickets to a sold out show suddenly become available. and if there is no need for them, they put them up for sale a few hours before the show to those waiting in the "cancellation" line. but once those tickets are gone, they can't magically make additional tickets appear, even if somebody special shows up. it's undeniably true: concierges can not get guaranteed reservations when there are none available. they may be able to get reservations that you can't get yourself... but it generally comes from a pool of reservations held back specifically for that purpose.

i have also been an haven guest and i've never run into this entitlement thing that's being discussed here. never. i think the percentage of... trying to think of a word here that will be acceptable to profanity filters... let's just say that the percentage of less than happy folks who express their displeasure at everything or make unrealistic demands is exactly the same as it is elsewhere on the ship. there will always be people who complain or express disappointment or disdain, whether it is warranted or not. i've seen plenty of entitled people at cagney's, at the bars on the pool deck, at the theatre, in the elevators, in the stores, at the spa, in the MDRs. i couldn't tell you whether they were haven guests or not. but i'm sure many weren't. i personally think the opposite is true... while the haven may seem rather large, it is actually a pretty small community compared to the rest of the ship. and you do see the same people over and over again: at meals, at the pool, on the sun deck and just walking around. so there is actually a strong incentive at play for haven guests NOT to misbehave... because everybody will learn about it and finger point and talk about you. and there would be no escape (especially if you were sailing on the escape). i think haven guess are - by and large - so thrilled to be there that it would be hard for them to put on their cranky pants and grumble.

big fan of moderno. salad bar rocks! not a fan of cagney's, for the reasons others have mentioned... food and service issues. that was on the bliss. on a recent cruise on the gem, i found the exact opposite to be true... moderno was less than stellar... food and service were off, whereas cagney's knocked it out of the park. it's very much ship and staff-dependent. you pays your money; you takes your chances.

like many others, i don't know the definitive answer to your question, but since i gather from other posts that you're committed to traveling in the haven... remember that on embarkation day, the american diner is typically free for lunch to all haven guests. and i know their milkshakes are included on that day. (in fact, their milkshakes bring all the haven boys to the yard.) my suggestion would be to go to the american diner on embarkation day - henceforth known as "milkshake day" - and be friendly with the staff and develop a relationship. they will be able to tell you whether milkshakes are included in your package and, if they're not included, they may be able to bend the rules if you come back for more on other days.

you can, however, in my experience it takes several cycles to get the residual coffee taste out of the machine... as many as four or five cycles till the water runs (relatively) "clean."

there is an important cultural distinction about making "friends" at that other place that has, perhaps, been overlooked here. many - not all, but many - customer facing employees on cruise ships are filipino, and they are primarily in their 20s and 30s. this is especially true of room stewards, restaurant servers and butlers. i have worked extensively in the philippines and i often receive "friend" requests from the folks i come in contact with on a job site, even after a single short meeting of 20 minutes or so. culturally, they think nothing of this, particularly among that demographic... those in their 20s and 30s. to them, the place with the face is for casual contacts... they often have a thousand or more friends. they collect "friends," much like somebody else might collect pokémon cards or postage stamps. to them, this practice is equivalent to exchanging a business card. no expectation of a close relationship or any sort of bonding is implied or should be inferred. so, it's a cultural thing, in my opinion... and there also may be an age-related thing going on here, as many cruisers tend to be considerably older. frankly, many in heir 20s and 30s don't even use the face place... they have moved on to other sites and apps. most cruisers and most cruise ship employees have a very different view of what being a "friend" means. (i always refuse these requests and connect with them on the site with "link" in its name instead.)

my best guess would be old world craftsmanship, the likes of which you no longer get in america because anyone who could have possibly been capable of such a thing died decades ago, without apprentices to follow in their footsteps.

no... generally for the same reason yours was confiscated: fire and electrical hazard. tea and coffee are widely available throughout the ship and also via room service, if you must have it first thing in the morning.