@Renee 206825 wrote:
Say an affiliate signs up a player who constantly places bets on red and black on roulette.. They may be breaking even but the affiliate is making commission from this betting. On a revshare deal this might not be an issue and since we’re the only ones with a wager model I suppose that part only affects us.[/quote]
You probably already have terms which prevent the so-called “offsetting” or “zero-margin” bets – you should be disqualifying the player, not the affiliate. If you are using a wager model (what in Asia is known as rolling – being paid a percentage of all bets) you definitely need to protect against this type of betting.In this case I do not agree that an additional term needs to be placed into the affiliate T&Cs.
Quote:Then you have the affiliates who refer a player they know so that if the player wins a large amount at one casino putting the affiliate in the negative, the affiliate then tells the player to go to another casino so there is a positive at one casino and a negative at the other.. If the casino doesn’t bundle, this is a real problem.LOL. While I certainly understand this point, I cannot see how you could possibly detect it anyhow unless both casinos were within your group. I remember how bundling became a big issue a few years ago, and it’s probably not such a good idea to start bundling now.
In this case I would suggest that you introduce a term which relates to a player having multiple accounts across the group, which allows you to combine balances in certain definable situations, such as a win of $10K or more at one casino – not too dissimilar from those groups who fence off certain players. Plus, CR already links the multiple casino accounts in the backend (or did the last time I checked) – so this should be easy to show.
Quote:Regarding the clause about not referring yourself, we have a pretty good one in our T&Cs that seems to work fine.
Care to share? You’ll probably find it faster than I will 
Schalk – I think your fraud teams need to detect this – and you probably already have a fraud term in your aff T&Cs. I don’t think there is any easy way you will be able to add another term without upsetting the hardworking, genuine affiliates.
Ultimately, what Stupid is saying is something I said many years ago – it matters not whether the affiliate gets a percentage of a player’s loss, or the player registers as an aff and basically uses that account to reduce the juice – the net profit for the operator is the same.