Affiliates = PIMPS - Page 2

John Ho · #11 10-09-2005, 06:06 AM

This really makes no business sense. Put yourself in PartyPokers' shoes and ask yourself whether you want to give rakeback to players who may not even know rakeback exists. The whole point is to make it hard to get rakeback.

It is similar to getting rebates on something at Best Buy. They know a certain % of people will not take advantage of the offer. But if they just gave it to everyone then it would be a simple matter of raising the price to keep the profits the same as before.

Why make it easier to get rakeback? We want it to be somewhat difficult to do so rakes stay lower and other players subsidize our rakeback. But hey that's just my opinion....anyone who disagrees isn't selfish like I am.

Unabridged · #12 10-09-2005, 06:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This really makes no business sense. Put yourself in PartyPokers' shoes and ask yourself whether you want to give rakeback to players who may not even know rakeback exists. The whole point is to make it hard to get rakeback.

It is similar to getting rebates on something at Best Buy. They know a certain % of people will not take advantage of the offer. But if they just gave it to everyone then it would be a simple matter of raising the price to keep the profits the same as before.

Why make it easier to get rakeback? We want it to be somewhat difficult to do so rakes stay lower and other players subsidize our rakeback. But hey that's just my opinion....anyone who disagrees isn't selfish like I am.

[/ QUOTE ]

if they set the right minimum criteria (MGR, hands played per month) they could be giving it a group of players whom most(>90% for example) already know about and actively persue rakeback. as long as that 10%'s MGR*rb% is less than the amount made by all the affiliates, they are coming out ahead.
Plus they could probably get rid of most of their bonuses and still keep all those players
Also you have to remember, all those fish that are unaware with high MGR are probably still signed up under some affiliate. and party is already paying that affiliate.

Nick-Zack · #13 10-09-2005, 08:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]

why couldn't the sites just set a minimum MGR to get rakeback? that way the occasional players don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every good idea in this world has already been taken - go to www.pokerchamps.com if you like this one.

rt1 · #14 10-09-2005, 11:52 AM

these ideas are all good, but they dont work. you need to have an affiliate. remember, party is a publically traded company... if certainly players are DIRECTLY getting rakeback (paying less fees and losing less money) this could very well turn into a huge rigged/favored debate.

sure, casinos love to give comps... but direct cash comps... no way.

Sniper · #15 10-09-2005, 12:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The reason i care that this dude makes money off me for doing nothing is that its money that could otherwise go back to ME.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rakeback was created by the affilate business... if you like rakeback you should be kissing your affiliates feet for him giving you the opportunity!

Its worth noting that the largest affiliates are non-rakeback affiliates!

Unabridged · #16 10-09-2005, 01:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]

sure, casinos love to give comps... but direct cash comps... no way.

[/ QUOTE ]

why not for online casinos? its not like they can give us free hotel rooms or buffetts.
and really whats the difference between a guarenteed monthly bonus and rakeback if they give the same amount of money for the same amount of play

#17 10-09-2005, 04:04 PM

Along your same analogy, if my affiliate is a pimp, then at this time with all the goings on at Party and the skins, it would be in his best interest in convincing me to move to greener pastures where he and I could both continue to make money. I have heard from my affiliate, and he is in the process of setting up something with Party. I am sure he is in a MUCH better position to negotiate with Party than I am. I will be happy to take the results of his negotiation.

On a similar note, my affiliate sent everyone a 3% raise from Empire if we decide to stay. I thought that was an extremely good move whether it came from the affiliate himself, or directly from Empire.

toxtox · #18 10-09-2005, 04:43 PM

Party/skins were not even in my reasoning though...i was talking about the sites who ALREADY offer rakeback and do the transfers themselves.

(not everything about rakeback/affiliates has to be about Party does it..)

#19 10-09-2005, 04:51 PM

Very true. I assumed that the thread was equating all affiliates to pimps. While they may be pimps, I am just stating that they do perform a worthwhile function, at least to me.

toxtox · #20 10-09-2005, 04:57 PM

Yes they are all pimps, and some are worthwhile to have. Its just that others are not necessary. Those r the pimps I wanna do away with.

Some affiliates also just plain act sleazy! I don't like them in general, I wanna be a free-ass whore I guess, but alas we need the pimps for some of the sites.