This piece focuses on the booking logic. A separate reference review of Park Hyatt Siem Reap will follow.
Fine Hotels + Resorts works best when it is treated as a finite rebate, not a default booking channel.
We stayed at Park Hyatt Siem Reap in July 2025. Two nights were booked via FHR. One night was not. That split was deliberate.
This three-night stay is a clean example of why stopping early can be optimal.
The setup
At the time of booking, we held two Amex Platinum cards. That meant access to two annual FHR $200 rebates.
Rather than stretching FHR across the entire stay, we applied it only where the fixed rebate clearly cleared the room rate and stopped the moment it stopped doing so.
Booking the entire stay on points was available, but those bookings lacked FHR benefits and did not reliably map to the same room category, which would have materially changed the stay.
Stopping there was the optimization.
Why Siem Reap works for FHR
Siem Reap is not a market people usually associate with Fine Hotels + Resorts. That is precisely why it works.
Cash rates are modest
On-property spend is predictable and functional
Breakfast replaces real out-of-pocket cost rather than adding indulgence
That environment is ideal for a hotel program offering a fixed rebate.
What this example shows
This stay illustrates three things clearly:
Most of the FHR value is driven by card count, not nights stayed, because the rebate is fixed while room cost is variable
Optimal use can involve stopping mid-stay
Mixing tools is not a compromise; it can be key to optimizing the stay
It also highlights a secondary effect that isn’t always part of the discussion: points earned during a stay can quietly offset points used for a marginal night.
How to read the breakdown
The sections below break the stay down into:
Cash paid versus published cost
Where FHR credits replaced real spend
Why the third night moved to Hyatt points
Where the numbers stop working if you force the wrong tool
Nothing here depends on discretionary upgrades or promotional luck. Where something discretionary occurred, it is labelled as such.
Full Siem Reap breakdown
Property: Park Hyatt Siem Reap
Dates: 13–16 July 2025
Total stay: 3 nights
Structure:
2 nights booked via FHR
1 night booked via Hyatt points + cash
At the time, we held two Amex Platinum cards. Both annual FHR rebates were used in full.
Headline numbers
Regular total cost (rooms + on-property spend): $1,322.40
Actual cash paid: $363.67
(= $127.55 + $236.12)
Accommodation
Published room cost (3 nights): $626.28
Actual cash paid: $127.55
$110.03 cash portion of Hyatt points + cash night
$17.42 non-rebated portion of FHR bookings
FHR rebates applied: 2 × $200
Points redeemed: 2,000 Hyatt points
On-property spend (meals, breakfast, activities)
Published value: $696.12
(including breakfasts, restaurant meals, city tour, Angkor Wat tour)
Cash paid: $236.12
FHR dining credits applied: 2 × $100 property credits
Breakfast nuance is key here. Daily breakfast for two was included on the two FHR nights. Breakfast on the third morning formed part of on-property spend.
The hotel also comped our daughter’s breakfast across all three days. That was discretionary and not something I could have planned for.
Points cost, in reality
The Hyatt points + cash night required 2000 Hyatt points. Across the same three-night stay, approximately 2700 Hyatt points were earned through normal program accrual.
The result was that the points component of the third night had a negative net cost across the stay as a whole, effectively recycling Hyatt points rather than consuming them.
The FHR bookings also produced approximately 2000 Amex MR.
A practical note on room types and mixed bookings
One subtle point is worth calling out.
On paper, the Hyatt points + cash night priced lower than the FHR rate. This reflects a difference in room category, not a failure of the rebate math.
The points + cash booking mapped to a lower base room, with no status benefits and no expectation of upgrade. The FHR bookings were for a higher room category with stronger on-property treatment.
In practice, hotels will often keep guests in the same physical room across mixed bookings. That is not guaranteed and should never be assumed, but it is common enough to be a real-world consideration.
In this case, there was no mid-stay room move. The FHR nights anchored the stay. The points + cash night simply extended it.
This nuance does not change the conclusion. It explains how the stay actually played out.
The decision, in hindsight
This stay worked because each tool was used within its natural limits.
FHR was treated as a finite rebate, not the default booking route. Once the rebates were exhausted, a different approach made more sense. Points were then used where they were genuinely efficient. Nothing was stretched beyond its role.
Booking all three nights via FHR would have cost more.
Booking all three nights on points would have been worse as well.
The right outcome sat in between.
Good travel value doesn’t always come from maximising a single program. Sometimes it comes from knowing when to stop using a good one.