> If the casino loses, why on earth would they comp him anything beyond the first couple of times he turns up?

Because there are inefficiencies in how the casinos comp players just as there are inefficiencies in the games themselves?

Example from another industry:

In the 1990s, I flew cross country many times and racked up 5000 air miles round trip each time. Every 15 round trips, I'd cash in my air miles for a free international flight. The airlines loved me as walking ATM and were rewarding a big spender like me. Makes sense?

But guess what: All of my flight were the absolute cheapest economy class flights I could get. I had the luxury of booking my flights well in advance, and I'd tolerate bad connections to get the lowest price. A business class passenger would have paid 10 times what I paid, yet he and I would both get the same 5000 air miles.

The airlines certainly knew how much I had paid. Why were they rewarding me the same amount as the far more profitable business class passenger? As far as know, it is an inefficiency in the system (which seems to have been corrected by the airline industry in recent years).

It's poker. You aren't playing against the house. You're playing against other players. And the house always gets a cut from the overall proceeds (so the higher the stakes, the higher the cut).

Most career gamblers are making money in poker. In big money games, you play against other players and the house takes a rake. If players have stacks in the millions (which they do), the rake is pretty damn big. Not to mention, players will win a million in poker, then go play Baccarat or something. Gamblers don't gamble just to make money...

I remember a quote from somewhere: "If you are winning it's not gambling". If you beat the rake and have an edge over the other players it's just a mind game of dealing with variance.

unless it's poker?