Does anyone understand "redeposit" bonus logic?

[otctrader]

I'm hardly an expert at poker site management, so maybe someone in the loop can chime in and explain why 90% of the bonuses we see are tied to redeposits instead of just instituting a playthrough requirement (and possibly creating incentives to maintain a balance)?

It's common sense, but redeposit requirements cause players to pull out funds for the sole purpose of redepositing for the next bonus, driving up transaction costs for the poker site and probably lowering their cash in circulation in aggregate when you factor in the periods between bonuses.

I'm specifically interested in this as it relates to the major sites, and not some fringe site running a ponzi scheme in dire need of cash infusion.

Discuss.

[Frequitude]

I have always wondered this myself. If they awarded your playthrough suggestion to only those above a certain balance ($100-$200), I can't see what the "difference" would be...other than no transaction fees for the site.

[UncleDuke]

I agree with you that it doesn't make much sense. This may be because as a group, 2+2ers are much less likely to lose the deposit than the average player. Perhaps the sites feel that losing players often stop playing rather than redepositing if they bust out unless they're given an incentive to return. So, while it makes little sense in the case of a decent player, it may be that they're really trying to lure fishy types back to play some more. Once they've deposited, a lot of these folks might play until they bust again, so tying the bonus to a deposit could generate extra play for the site when these folks keep playing beyond the bonus requirement.

[o0mr_bill0o]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you that it doesn't make much sense. This may be because as a group, 2+2ers are much less likely to lose the deposit than the average player. Perhaps the sites feel that losing players often stop playing rather than redepositing if they bust out unless they're given an incentive to return. So, while it makes little sense in the case of a decent player, it may be that they're really trying to lure fishy types back to play some more. Once they've deposited, a lot of these folks might play until they bust again, so tying to the bonus to a deposit could generate extra play for the site when these folks keep playing beyond the bonus requirement.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think that's exactly the logic. a fish who busted out a month ago says "damn! a hundred free bucks and all i have to do is deposit again! what a deal." remember that the sites need to really cater to the fish before the long-term winners, there's a lot less of us.

[FlFishOn]

To run these numbers you'd need to know what portion of the re-deposit crowd are losers. If it's 2/3 or so then the site is going to make out. If it's 1/3 or less then they likely lose.

[LBJ]

Can't believe you guys hadn't thought of this.

If there were no redeposit bonus, and just a playthrough then I could create 50 accounts without any bank account and keep getting bonuses while transfering my funds to one main account and cash out there.

It keeps people from taking advantage of the bonus and gets more money in their site for people to gamboool with.

[MexKrax]

In short, deposit bonuses are good for poker sites because the average player doesn't quit playing until they are broke. Therefore, they don't have money to withdraw and redeposit and they'll keep playing once the playthrough requirement has been met. Don't belive me, just open 4 random party 1/2 tables you'll see at least 4 guys there with less than 20 bucks and odds are within an hour they'll all be broke.