Hmmm you lost me… how can they pay out $10,000 and also have the player lose back $5,000 of it?
Here is how i see it:
On the 31st, Player A deposits $100, and wins $10k
Affiliate B has negative balance, which gets cleared out.
On the 1st of the following month, Player A loses the $10k he had been up. Affiliates gets say 45% of gross revenue, so he gets $4500 in earnings.
In the end, the casino makes only $100 from Player A, and pays Affiliate B $4500, so they are out $4400.
Dont get me wrong, I prefer no negatives….but I can sort of see why they wouldnt want to pay, in THIS scenario.
Am I alone here?
Originally posted by arkyt
Example: 45% planYou have a big winner that hits a jackpot of 10,000 – which puts you in the red. If that negative were carried over and the player lost 5000 the following month you would still be 5000 in the hole.
If the negative was not carried over you would make $2250 if the player lost back half the next month.
This is why some programs utilize negative carry overs. They dont want to payout 10,000 – then turn around and pay you 2250 the following month when the player loses 5000. The casino would then be losing as they see it – a total of 7250 (5000 to the player and 2250 to the affiliate.)
When you think about the scale of things – paying the affiliate a percentage is the best choice! Considering that scale – I would surmise that programs using carry overs are not that big, are having financial problems, or are just freaking greedy!
:cheers: :sheers: :cheers:
Drink up boyxz
