Casino Rewards True Wager is awful for affiliates. Here’s why!

I raised this question in this thread http://www.casinoaffiliateprograms.com/bb/which-casinos-work-best-for-you.11321.html?

After running your numbers it really does seem as if there is a bit of a catch when you sign up to the true wager model. It always makes me slightly suspicious when programs come up with new models that are supposed to generate a lot more than the established deals. [delete: I will see if I can sign up for the rev share if they don´t force you to take… ]

Ok, forget that. I just checked and they only offer new sign ups the true wager model or a 50$ CPA (<- very tempting:unhappy: ). There must be a way though to negotiate to be included in the rev share model.

Do you think there is a possibility of negotiating with them to get on the rev share plan?

After all there shouldn´t be an economic case for them to not allow me to willingly buy into the “less” profitable plan?

That´s a very reasonable approach to go about this whole thing.

We can all agree though that the $ 50 CPA is not very tempting in the long run :wink-wink

I never earned so much

however on the other hand I could be loosing on the long run who knows

I have to agree with Xgambler. There is a lot more behind wager share, I personally think affiliates are eventually going to see that they are getting short-handed eventually but it will be to late, although some affiliates will make more on wagershare. You have to think about it in the long run, I don’t have many players but the ones I do have are of fantastic quality, and I can tell you I had one player who lost $500 but I got a nice heafty comission of $8.00, of course you could have a player that deposits $50 and ends up wagering 40k, but do the math it’s more likely the high-roller player will lose his $500 versus stretching out some poor guys 50 bucks The bottom line is your players are going to lose everything eventually in the long run anyways. I don’t see why affiliates are so scared of have a negative month it is all a part of the game, you have to realize casinos would not exist if they did not have winners, and they would also not exist if they did not eventually get the players money, so why short change yourself? Do you really think an affiliate program is going to change from a well known earnings model if there wasn’t something in it for them? I doubt it. Overall I think wagershare is a fine earnings model, it works but it’s for people that can’t stomach any negative variance although it’s much better than CPA deals. I mean why else would they not allow both earning models to be used? They allow affiliates to keep all of there old players on rev. share but they don’t allow anyone to add new players to it. All of the big programs going to wagershare should allow both models to be used, if it is supposedly a less profitible model why are they pushing so hard to get rid of it? They should be happy affiliates are opting for a pay-cut, think about it. Over the last year everyone is trying to trim the affiliates comission check this is just another way it’s just thought out much better. I also see that this wagershare could be a problem for bonus hustlers, affiliates will still get paid on those players even though they put the casino in hole. It will suffer the same as a CPA deal, rev. share is the only way an affiliate gets paid when the casino gets paid and everyone stays happy. Rev. Share is the only true partnership program because everyone wins together and everyone loses together. So please FA and Casino Rewards please let us have at least the option to be on Rev. Share.

You nailed it knowhentohold. I said essentially the same thing when they first came out with it. Being in other business I knew when they were pushing it so hard it sent up red flags for me. No business is going to do anything long term that would dip into their bottom line. Believe me when I say any changes made for whatever reason is to put more money in their pockets first. For all the others promoting casino rewards, there is a simple solution. Ask Ryan to allow all deposits and balances to be displayed in the stats and then you take the guess work out of the equation. You will know exactly what you made under your current wagershare program. You will also know what you would have made under the old rev share program. Then just compare the two. Those who think they are doing better simply don’t have enough information to make such a conclusion. You may think you did better simply because your bottom line is more revenue for that month, but unless you know exactly what was deposited lost and won, how many players old and new, ect…and compare that to exactly what you would have made under the rev share model there is absolutely no way to come to any concrete conclusion. If Ryans sentiments towards affiliates making more money under wagershare were geniune, then I see no problem with displaying such info but most likely the decision for such info to be displayed is probably not up to Ryan and is out of his control. I don’t know any numbers, but I would be willing to bet that most people roll their deposit over on the adverage of about 10 -20 times give or take. That being said, if you had 10 players a month all who lost $500, thats a total of $5k lost and under the rev share you would make about $1500. Now just ask yourself how much would have to be wagered to earn $1500 under the wagershare and then what is the likelyhood of that wagering amount to be hit. Going by the above numbers and each player rolling the deposit lets go on the high end and say 20 times that would be $100K wagered and I think your earnings would be about $500-$600. I think if anyone had some genuine numbers on the ADVERAGE how many times a player rolls their deposit you would know exactly what would be better. All I know is it’s a bitch to have a player deposit and lose $500 only to earn $6 in commissions. I also am aware of the flip side of the player that deposits $50 and rolls that over 50 times, but anyone who gambles like me has an idea of the likelyhood of that happening and I think such instances will be far and few between. Especially when you have your nose open, your lucky if you roll your deposit over 3 times. The casinos have an inate 6th sense of when you have your nose open and I when I do the casino manages to gobble up my money like it was candy which would mean not a very big roll over for my deposit. All in all I just don’t buy his pitch that

“This model is more expensive for us to run … it’s not a cost savings measure … (c’mon guys, back me up here), the Wager Model will earn more money annually for about 98% of affiliates. this model was brought forward with full 35% profit share so we can pay affiliates more than the next guy”

Right–Im with the other affiliate here who said if they wanted to pay us more just bump our commission. Sorry Ryan, I really like you and Renee and you have some of the best support in the industry, but some of us didn’t just fall off the turnup truck. That being said I have to commend the fact that they still give you the option to be under the rev share. Affiliates really can’t bitch too much at all as long as they have the option to be under the rev share. For those who think the wager share is a bust, just change back. I am pretty sure they won’t hold you hostage under a commission program you don’t want to be part of but I could be wrong.

Bonusgeek I totally agree with what you said and you even brought a couple of interesting points I haven’t though of. They just pushed the wagershare to hard for it not to be adding to there very own bottom line, I think they should have just added the wagershare earnings model to list of models you would like to be paid under. It doesn’t make sense to me why they had to completley remove the rev. share model when they still allow CPA???? If you can’t put everything together I don’t know how much easier I could give it to you. They still allow CPA but they just HAD to totally dissallow rev. share completley now why on earth would they do such a thing like that ehh??? Maybe because they spend less on the affiliate this way?? Just some food for thought everyone. I also have to agree that all skill games take is another point the affiliate will get a smaller cut on wagershare. All of the player mistakes that keep these games around in brick and mortar casinos are being just givin to the casino, while the affiliates get his comission based soley on the plan that all players will play PERFECT, yea right give me a break what gambler honestly plays by the book 100% of the time? If all players read books and played the best odds there wouldn’t be any need for an affiliate or a casino for that matter because there would not be any money left over. Skill games like 3 card and blackjack all rely almost entirely on player mistakes and with wagershare this effectively cut your earnings probably in half (just a quick estimate) because you are not getting paid for the player mistakes. When you have players that are wagering 100k in a session and they play terrible basic strategy these mistakes will add up VERY fast but the affiliate will not reap any of these benefits at all. Casino Rewards and FA if you want to push your silly wagershare that is fine but you should allow everyone to earn on the old model as well. When I signed up to casino rewards I signed up for the 35% rev. share for life, not to be transfered over to some earnings model that I did not wish to have, and no simply keeping the players that are old on rev share is not good enough, I signed up thinking I would always be on rev. share. Not whatever they feel like putting me on whenever it works out best for them, both affiliate and casino should work together to make everyone happy, simply keep the rev. share model open as an alternative earnings model and I will be happy.