PSA: The upcoming Party decision
 

I have been told by several sources that Party will be releasing its official stance on rakeback tomorrow. I encourage affiliates to post the most current information they have heard regarding rakeback/player rewards.

__________________________________________________ __________

What I've heard:

It is my understanding that Party will take an anti-rakeback stance, but will create some sort of alternative which will be comparable. I've also heard that Party will be freezing affiliate accounts that are currently signing up new rakeback players.

__________________________________________________ __________

The reasons why Party would do this are currently being discussed in threads here and in the Zoo. If other affiliates have information to support or contradict this, I encourage it to be posted here. I do not claim to know what Party's official stance is, and won't know until tomorrow, but this is the most current information I have at this point.

There is a big difference between sharing information and promoting one's own offer. The latter will not be tolerated.

Cup

Re: PSA: The upcoming Party decision
 

Thats 'about' what i have heard. Some sort of internal rewards system.. Affiliates get a little something out of it, players feel like they are still getting rakeback..

Guess we'll all know tomorrow

Re: PSA: The upcoming Party decision
 

so does this mean i should abandon my original "wait and see while affiliates makes fools of themselves in rumor wars" stance and scramble to get hooked up? will some affiliates be grandfathered in?

Re: PSA: The upcoming Party decision
 

Somehow it seems that Party is trying to separate money returned to players from the efforts of the affiliate system. If this were a labor union dispute, people would be up in arms about unfair labor practices and claiming sites were attempting to disband any potential unions or player associations.

Do you really think the sites will reduce effective rake as fast now as they were when affiliates were constantly pushing for more and more and more money back to players?

Party started by offering 20% rake back not all that long ago! I would bet most all of us were getting more than that from one of the skins, and they had to share with Party. It seemed that supply and demand laws were working.

Party should be able to pay most of the "skin" share to the players if they wanted to, but I don't hear rake amounts in the 40% to 60% coming back to players, but I bet if a group of players worked together they could get in excess of the 25% to 35% figures.

It all comes back to the speed money is coming off the table in online cardrooms. The hourly rake/table is much higher than B&M cardrooms. Marketing expenses should be absorbed for the already acquired player and passed back to the player, IMO.

Aren't the new play money players and the micro limit players, who costs the site a lot of marketing money expected to payback the acquisition cost? Don't they cost the sites for the prizes and expenses like marketing and support and bandwidth and freerolls and caps, before they are reasonably entitled to a discount on the rake?

Re: PSA: The upcoming Party decision
 

Affiliates should only get a bonus when a player signs up. Giving them a significant (over 3%) percentage of their rake for the duration of that account is ridiculous and I'm surprised this policy hasn't been completely changed before this. Rakeback balanced this out a little but not enough.

I'm confident Party will come up with a system that will both give high volume players a significant refund and keep the fish playing longer than if the old system was still in place.

Re: PSA: The upcoming Party decision
 

When you have a system that only pays for "signups" that is what you get. People sign up over and over and over again. The only equitable method of compensation referrals is based on the amount they play.

Why do you think that sites have realized over and over that CPA or cost per acquisition programs lead to nothing but fraud signups looking for the latest bonus or free chipsets?

Re: PSA: The upcoming Party decision
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've also heard that Party will be freezing affiliate accounts that are currently signing up new rakeback players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should I then be alaramed if my affiliate asked me for a new e-mail address and possible usernames because party is indeed going to be able to start rakeback. He just e-mailed me again a couple of seconds ago on a different issue and alluded to party signups starting tomorrow.

Re: PSA: The upcoming Party decision
 

If your affiliate is using the alternative that is openly endorsed by Party(which is what it sounds like), then I don't think you should be alarmed.

Re: PSA: The upcoming Party decision
 

[ QUOTE ]
Aren't the new play money players and the micro limit players, who costs the site a lot of marketing money expected to payback the acquisition cost? Don't they cost the sites for the prizes and expenses like marketing and support and bandwidth and freerolls and caps, before they are reasonably entitled to a discount on the rake?

[/ QUOTE ]
People are entitled to whatever their leverage can provide them.

Party will not say "you owe me" and idly allow the competition to steal a valuable customer.

Party will not say "you are deserving" and pay someone more than is necessary to keep them.

Everyone has to find the best deals they can. Whether Party will pay what it takes to keep a particular player is up to them. But are assure you that entitlement is not going to figure prominently in their decision-making process. They will guess how much it will cost to keep you and then they will decide if they want to pay that much.

Re: PSA: The upcoming Party decision
 

[ QUOTE ]
When you have a system that only pays for "signups" that is what you get. People sign up over and over and over again.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misunderstood what he was saying. He was saying that the affiliate gets a one-time signup fee, not the player. This would, in fact eliminate the poaching of players between the affiliates, and the duplicate accounts would no longer be a problem.