@Anonymous wrote:
@Chris679 wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:As much as I love reaping rewards (and you can see from the cards I have and the cards I have on my wish list in my sig that I love reaping rewards quite a lot), I personally have made the choice not to churn. I know doing it once or twice is probably not going to raise any eyebrows, but I can't imagine Chase, for example, would be too happy with me if I made a repeat habit of it, and I find it likely I would probably be put on an internal blacklist if they suspected I was trying to exploit them. If Chase was nice enough to extend credit to me, I'm not going to burn that bridge by annoying them with sign up bonus abuse. I'm not one who poops where I sleep.
That's not to judge anyone else who does. It's just not my style.
As for annual fees, I try to include them in my assessment of rewards on a card, as mentioned by an earlier poster. The only card with an AF that I have my immediate sights set on is the Marriott Premier Rewards Visa because the free annual stay covers the price of the annual fee (and then some). Most cards that have annual fees I would not earn enough rewards on to justify getting them, hence why they are not on my radar.
So now they have a mysterious internal blacklist? Where are you guys coming up with this stuff? Some of you guys seem like you look at these companies as if they are a wounded puppy that needs care and nurturing. The reality is that they are a pack of wolves feasting on 40% of the population. Those of us here are just collecting some table scraps for ourselves. They tolerate us because it's in their best interest to do so.
Uh...Chase and Amex DO have an internal blacklist. It's barely even a secret, lol. Chase and Amex in particular have been known to continually reject applicants for lines of credit for past transgressions against them way, way after those baddies them have fallen off applicants' credit reports. In fact, there are many longstanding members of this forum who have testified to such.
In any case, I don't buy this "pack of wolves" argument that keeps getting thrown around here, or at least I don't buy its conclusion. In fact, assuming what you say about banks is true actually lends plausibility to the other side.... Let's take you at your own words that banks are greedy wolves. It would simply follow reason that they would close down more flagrant abusers of their sign up bonuses. Just because they make money from everyone else doesn't mean they won't shut down the people who have found a way to beat the system.
As an example, casinos make more money in a day than I'll make in my entire lifetime, all from people who are either unlucky or don't play the odds properly. The amount of money that casinos dole out in prizes, of course, pales in comparison to what they make from people who lose, but, nevertheless, there are people who find ways to consistently turn a profit (card-counters, for instance). And what happens to them? If they get caught, they get thrown out (or worse, banned). Of course, casinos would make money overall regardless of whether they banned the small minority of card counters or not. But casinos ultimately want to optimize profit, not just make profit. And they will kick anyone who is a money-loser to the curb faster than you can say Blackjack. It would almost be naive to really believe that money-hungry banks would do any differently.
This depends on the facility. Some like the one I am closely involved with welcome the counters. -- It only takes one mistake to turn the odds against yourself 
@Anonymous wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@Chris679 wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:As much as I love reaping rewards (and you can see from the cards I have and the cards I have on my wish list in my sig that I love reaping rewards quite a lot), I personally have made the choice not to churn. I know doing it once or twice is probably not going to raise any eyebrows, but I can't imagine Chase, for example, would be too happy with me if I made a repeat habit of it, and I find it likely I would probably be put on an internal blacklist if they suspected I was trying to exploit them. If Chase was nice enough to extend credit to me, I'm not going to burn that bridge by annoying them with sign up bonus abuse. I'm not one who poops where I sleep.
That's not to judge anyone else who does. It's just not my style.
As for annual fees, I try to include them in my assessment of rewards on a card, as mentioned by an earlier poster. The only card with an AF that I have my immediate sights set on is the Marriott Premier Rewards Visa because the free annual stay covers the price of the annual fee (and then some). Most cards that have annual fees I would not earn enough rewards on to justify getting them, hence why they are not on my radar.
So now they have a mysterious internal blacklist? Where are you guys coming up with this stuff? Some of you guys seem like you look at these companies as if they are a wounded puppy that needs care and nurturing. The reality is that they are a pack of wolves feasting on 40% of the population. Those of us here are just collecting some table scraps for ourselves. They tolerate us because it's in their best interest to do so.
Uh...Chase and Amex DO have an internal blacklist. It's barely even a secret, lol. Chase and Amex in particular have been known to continually reject applicants for lines of credit for past transgressions against them way, way after those baddies them have fallen off applicants' credit reports. In fact, there are many longstanding members of this forum who have testified to such.
In any case, I don't buy this "pack of wolves" argument that keeps getting thrown around here, or at least I don't buy its conclusion. In fact, assuming what you say about banks is true actually lends plausibility to the other side.... Let's take you at your own words that banks are greedy wolves. It would simply follow reason that they would close down more flagrant abusers of their sign up bonuses. Just because they make money from everyone else doesn't mean they won't shut down the people who have found a way to beat the system.
As an example, casinos make more money in a day than I'll make in my entire lifetime, all from people who are either unlucky or don't play the odds properly. The amount of money that casinos dole out in prizes, of course, pales in comparison to what they make from people who lose, but, nevertheless, there are people who find ways to consistently turn a profit (card-counters, for instance). And what happens to them? If they get caught, they get thrown out (or worse, banned). Of course, casinos would make money overall regardless of whether they banned the small minority of card counters or not. But casinos ultimately want to optimize profit, not just make profit. And they will kick anyone who is a money-loser to the curb faster than you can say Blackjack. It would almost be naive to really believe that money-hungry banks would do any differently.
This depends on the facility. Some like the one I am closely involved with welcome the counters. -- It only takes one mistake to turn the odds against yourself
Where is that casino?! LOL. I need to work my magic over there.
@Anonymous wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@Chris679 wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:As much as I love reaping rewards (and you can see from the cards I have and the cards I have on my wish list in my sig that I love reaping rewards quite a lot), I personally have made the choice not to churn. I know doing it once or twice is probably not going to raise any eyebrows, but I can't imagine Chase, for example, would be too happy with me if I made a repeat habit of it, and I find it likely I would probably be put on an internal blacklist if they suspected I was trying to exploit them. If Chase was nice enough to extend credit to me, I'm not going to burn that bridge by annoying them with sign up bonus abuse. I'm not one who poops where I sleep.
That's not to judge anyone else who does. It's just not my style.
As for annual fees, I try to include them in my assessment of rewards on a card, as mentioned by an earlier poster. The only card with an AF that I have my immediate sights set on is the Marriott Premier Rewards Visa because the free annual stay covers the price of the annual fee (and then some). Most cards that have annual fees I would not earn enough rewards on to justify getting them, hence why they are not on my radar.
So now they have a mysterious internal blacklist? Where are you guys coming up with this stuff? Some of you guys seem like you look at these companies as if they are a wounded puppy that needs care and nurturing. The reality is that they are a pack of wolves feasting on 40% of the population. Those of us here are just collecting some table scraps for ourselves. They tolerate us because it's in their best interest to do so.
Uh...Chase and Amex DO have an internal blacklist. It's barely even a secret, lol. Chase and Amex in particular have been known to continually reject applicants for lines of credit for past transgressions against them way, way after those baddies them have fallen off applicants' credit reports. In fact, there are many longstanding members of this forum who have testified to such.
In any case, I don't buy this "pack of wolves" argument that keeps getting thrown around here, or at least I don't buy its conclusion. In fact, assuming what you say about banks is true actually lends plausibility to the other side.... Let's take you at your own words that banks are greedy wolves. It would simply follow reason that they would close down more flagrant abusers of their sign up bonuses. Just because they make money from everyone else doesn't mean they won't shut down the people who have found a way to beat the system.
As an example, casinos make more money in a day than I'll make in my entire lifetime, all from people who are either unlucky or don't play the odds properly. The amount of money that casinos dole out in prizes, of course, pales in comparison to what they make from people who lose, but, nevertheless, there are people who find ways to consistently turn a profit (card-counters, for instance). And what happens to them? If they get caught, they get thrown out (or worse, banned). Of course, casinos would make money overall regardless of whether they banned the small minority of card counters or not. But casinos ultimately want to optimize profit, not just make profit. And they will kick anyone who is a money-loser to the curb faster than you can say Blackjack. It would almost be naive to really believe that money-hungry banks would do any differently.
This depends on the facility. Some like the one I am closely involved with welcome the counters. -- It only takes one mistake to turn the odds against yourself
Where is that casino?! LOL. I need to work my magic over there.
Oklahoma.
@Chris679 wrote:
Look up synonyms for tolerate and you will find condone right there. They are the same thing.
There is absolutely no basis for your position on this. It's fine to morally be against it but you are continuing to state these actions that these companies could or maybe take with no facts to back it up. This can be misleading to people who are looking for information.
Oh...is that right?
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/chase-ultimate-rewards/1441749-have-you-been-blacklisted-chase.html
http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/finance/1072125/
http://saverocity.com/pfdigest/the-chase-aarp-credit-card-is-back-baby/
And there are about more 20 links, but I tire of belaboring a proven point.
The good thing about MY position is it's a lot easier to prove that something happened at least once than to prove it never happened at all.
@Anonymous wrote:Must be an Indian casino. Liking card counters is very rare
Bingo. Ante is charged on every hand. Odds are already way worse than usual.
@kdm31091 wrote:
Its also misleading to suggest that churning for bonuses can never possibly get you in trouble.
It can absolutely get you in trouble.
But it isn't wrong. 