|
|
#1
10-13-2005, 04:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Affiliates do not really need Party\'s individual tracker.
Granted it is better to have the individual stats, but this is only in reference to the worst case scenario of if the trackers were turned off.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but affiliates can still verify a player's rakeback with a screenshot and zip of their PT and HH files, no? I am only referring to high volume players where it is worth the affiliate's time. Each month take a screenshot of your PT stats for that month, and also include the zip of the HH files. If you try and edit HH files with your name, it would have to be on such a large scale that it would be very easy for the affiliate to pull up some HH's from Party and verify you played the hands. Also, you could give them a printout of your Party stats for the month, showing how much you earned, etc. Yeah, there are ways to try and scam the affiliate, but it would be useless, as they can cut you off at any time, leaving you to have to make up a bogus account at that point. Am I way off? 
|
|
#3
10-13-2005, 04:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Affiliates do not really need Party\'s individual tracker.
What about aliases at different skins? Example:
I pay $1000 in rake from party. I pay $3000 in rake from empire. I take a screen shot that says $4000 in rake paid to get my 'x'% of $4000. An extreme example given the $ sizes but you get the idea of how this method can be used to screw the affiliates.
|
|
#4
10-13-2005, 04:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Affiliates do not really need Party\'s individual tracker.
[ QUOTE ]
What about aliases at different skins? Example: I pay $1000 in rake from party. I pay $3000 in rake from empire. I take a screen shot that says $4000 in rake paid to get my 'x'% of $4000. An extreme example given the $ sizes but you get the idea of how this method can be used to screw the affiliates. [/ QUOTE ] My example includes you sending the HH files in a zip. You would not have the correct hands to send if you did that. And it would be very quick and easy to see if you altered the names. Besides, what are you doing on Empire these days anyway? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Anyone else have a reason it wouldn't work?
|
|
#5
10-13-2005, 04:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Affiliates do not really need Party\'s individual tracker.
This was my solution i posted in another thread:
Why can't all the affiliates join forces in a massive data mining effort? They could then know the number of raked hands of each player. If anything, the result would be an under-estimate (due to missed hands), but I don't think most people would complain. Considering databases are easily available for 15/30 and above, I don't see why this isnt a solution to lost trackers.
|
|
#6
10-13-2005, 04:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Affiliates do not really need Party\'s individual tracker.
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone else have a reason it wouldn't work? [/ QUOTE ] Of course it would work. Problem is that it would take a lot of time for the affiliate to do it and they would start to think about if it was worth their time (alternatively lower rakeback % to pay for the time it would consume).
|
|
#7
10-13-2005, 04:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Affiliates do not really need Party\'s individual tracker.
[ QUOTE ]
This was my solution i posted in another thread: Why can't all the affiliates join forces in a massive data mining effort? They could then know the number of raked hands of each player. If anything, the result would be an under-estimate (due to missed hands), but I don't think most people would complain. Considering databases are easily available for 15/30 and above, I don't see why this isnt a solution to lost trackers. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, but at the lower limits, say down to 200NL, it would be almost impossible to datamine that much information. Even if you could guarantee to grab every hand, PokerTracker would never be able to handle the volume, even in Postgres mode. It would be a complete nightmare. Your suggestion might work for the highest stakes, but there are plenty of high volume players from $200NL and up that this would not work.
|
|
#8
10-13-2005, 04:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Affiliates do not really need Party\'s individual tracker.
[ QUOTE ]
Of course it would work. Problem is that it would take a lot of time for the affiliate to do it and they would start to think about if it was worth their time (alternatively lower rakeback % to pay for the time it would consume). [/ QUOTE ] I am only talking about high volume, well established, long term clients. Why would the affiliate need to check every player every single time? I am not talking about doing this on a large scale, I am talking about the ability for an affiliate to be able to still pay their top high volume clients. If you are a high volume player getting 25% from your reputable affiliate, why would you try and screw him out of extra rake? The affiliate doesn't need to check every month, just if there is an anomaly, such as a much higher rake for the month.
|
|
#9
10-13-2005, 05:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nope
I data mine hand histories and look for fish who likely have no rakeback deal. I search and replace their name with mine in the HH. I import an extra 10K hands/mo. into PT that looked like I played them.
They could get around this, but it would quickly become a battle of scammers v. affiliates, and not worth the trouble for what are often 1-man operations.
|
|
#10
10-13-2005, 05:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Nope
And what happens when I randomly select a HH# and request it from Party and find you are lying?
Again, this isn't for a large volume of players, it's more for those you already have a well established relationship with. Doesn't matter, I just read in another thread they have done this in the past, so forget it.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
