You can deposit $20 and spend hours wagering and generate a nice comission.
Or you can deposit $1000 and make one bet and generate next to nothing.
Or you can deposit $1000 and win $5000 and play it all back. The play on both amounts is counted.
This type of system rewards you for players who spend time playing.
Win or lose is irrelevant, and deposits are irrelevant and just confuse the issue.
It’s like apples and oranges….
….I know we are used to gauge things by looking at deposits, but they are just totally irrelevant here.
I disagree on this,
This may be correct for cases that are not common/average.
In such cases that are not often, a player will deposit X amount of money and manage to play with it for many hours of wins and loses.
Let’s get real,
How many cases like this will an affiliate get in a given time? What are the odds? This is casino gambling for crying out loud, the average player will most likely deposit a few hunderd dollars per month and lose them faster than the time it takes to eat lunch.
Therefor, in most cases the Wager Share model is not that good as it is claimed to be.
YES, it’s great in theory and if you have a few whales.. You might even earn more.
BUT,
All the complaints and dissatisfaction we all see here can’t be ignored.. One must be blind to think those who complain fail to understand the new model and that’s why they complain.
If all the players an affiliate sends are small players who lose their money fast.. {and in a casino they will most likely lose it fast} and assuming the total deposits were $1000 and the total wager was $5000
on wager share, it will be caculated arround {$5000X0.9% = $45 } (i don’t recall the exact formula, don’t get me by this)
on rev share the affiliate will get 35% from $1000 = $350
So,
What was it about the “I know we are used to gauge things by looking at deposits, but they are just totally irrelevant here” again?