Get exclusive CAP network offers from top brands

View CAP Offers

Reply To: Quotas – a rant that needs to be aired

[bsa_pro_ad_space id=2]
#801996
Anonymous
Inactive
Spearmaster;206848 wrote:
I see it the other way – this person is a player, and this is player fraud. The fact that he registered as an aff just gives him something tantamount to rakeback – this person shouldn’t be considered an aff. If this person is blocked as a player, then this person as an aff obviously can’t beat the system – see the point? The root of the problem is with this person’s playing account – not his aff account.

The player is not the affiliate. If you go back and read my example, I said the affiliate sends a player to do this in order to make commission from the play. The player and the affiliate are not the same person and the affiliate has done this on purpose to “scam” the affiliate program since there is no loss by the player here and the affiliate is making a commission from nothing. If the affiliate and the player did not know each other, I can see why it would be the player that should be shut down, but in the case that the affiliate sends the player to intentionally do this, this is affiliate fraud (in this case BOTH accounts get closed).
If that’s not fraud committed by the affiliate then I think someone should probably revoke my aff manager badge. I’m not suggesting that the player is doing nothing wrong, but in this case the affiliate also needs to be dealt with. I’m not sure how I can make this any clearer. Why would I want to work with an affiliate who is trying to scam us? Or KEEP working with them after they have done the above? Are you saying I should not close the affiliate account and let them keep doing this? I’m not seeing any other point to your arguments about why it’s the players fault here? I’m interpreting your posts as the player’s account should be closed but the affiliate’s account should be left open. Is that what you’re saying?

Spearmaster wrote:
Again – there is no difference between a player playing under his own aff account and a nobody which registered through his aff link – the net result is still the same for the casino. But as I said before, I don’t think anyone will argue with the term you implemented because it is perfectly reasonable.

The difference is the ~35% commission. If the player does not sign up through their own aff tag, they are not getting the 35% commission back from us which then gets recirculated through as well as the continuing retention bonuses, making the commission amount actually much more than 35%, especially if he cashes out. So he makes the commission AND cashes out. Then if he is claiming loyalty points and bonuses, say 20-25% regular bonuses, and 10% loyalty points, that means we are paying 35% commission, 30-35% bonuses (making the amount the player is getting on their money actually up around 70%), ~25% royalties, plus any admin costs.

This one is hard to explain to someone who doesn’t see the numbers on our end, so you’ll just have to trust me here. Maybe one of the other aff managers can explain an example that is easy to understand.

I guess if you still can’t see my point here we may have to agree to disagree.. I was just trying to point out why I was disagreeing with your comment (from the operators point of view) that it was only a sportsbetting issue and could not affect casino and poker as you said in one of your posts. Rather than just saying I disagree, my posts were demonstrating WHY I was disagreeing and showing examples of why I was disagreeing.. I hope the message has gotten across about why it can be an issue for casino and poker and is not just a sportsbetting issue for players to be playing under their own accounts.