I looked at the historical data on an affiliate account today and I have some real numbers to offer instead of all the theoretical junk we’ve been hearing.
This is a 56 month sample dating back to 2001 using actual stats from a Casino Rewards affiliate account.
Due to the 35% commission rate, no bundling, and all negatives wiped out the affiliate has received 38.0% of all player loss.
In the three top earning years, they received 37.8% and in the three lowest earning years they earned 39%. (I guess this backs up the fact that smaller affiliates are hit disproportionately by the new system.)
This affiliate account had no huge winners. In fact, over the 56 month sample there were never negative earnings wiped out in excess of $1800, although many months earnings were over $5000 and there was even one month in which over $9000 was paid.
Even with no BIG winners, this account still beats the 35% True Wager model over time. There is certainly enough activity on this account that any chance of the True Wager model defeating the earnings under the old model would most likely be outside of standard deviation.
But let’s consider for a moment it is possible. Then it is also not unrealistic to think that there would be an extra $5 royal flush or two. With 2 more royal flushes tacked on to one of those negatives, this affiliate’s effective commission rate would have been 44.8%!
Even under the actual numbers, getting a “true wager 35%” instead of the 38% that was ultimately paid under the old program would yield a large difference in earnings paid. The affiliate program would have saved about $8K in commissions and the affiliate’s earnings would have been shaved by about 8% during the 56 month period. :nervous: