- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Spearmaster;206771 wrote:I agree that this is a problem.
This is basically a sportsbetting problem – it isn’t an issue with casino or poker. So the first thing I would do is make sure that this term does not apply to casino or poker affiliates. That will immediately put any issues to rest for a majority of your affiliates.
Once you’re left with only sportsbetting – you then need to create a way to identify offsetting bets – something your fraud department should be picking up. Your standard terms and conditions will contain some sort of term related to fraud – and if your fraud team can pick it up and prove it – then you’re sorted.
I’m going to disagree with you there… this can be a problem on casino and poker,. especially for our wager model.
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.
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.
Just another point of view.
Regarding the clause about not referring yourself, we have a pretty good one in our T&Cs that seems to work fine.
Renee
Rewards Affiliates@thisisvegas 206753 wrote:
come up with a term … to discourage true affiliate fraud and affiliate/player collusion to profit as a tandem.
No I don’t think that this is possible.
Much of what I write on my sites is about finding a good deal / edge for players, be it free chips (casino), good bonus terms (casino / poker / sports) , good free rolls (poker), free bets (sports) and then writing about them.
The whole point is to be more than a bland review site .. and be pro-active to promote various promotions and offers that the casino / poker room / sportsbook are offering. I must get 50-60 promotions a month from my partners – they obviously want them pushed.
The angle for the pormotions is always that the players will get a better deal (and therefore profit?) than average, and of course as an affiliate I’m likely to attract new players and therefore a profit.
I don’t think that you can write clause starts talking about limiting player / affiliate contact that allows website, forum, and email promotions that an active affiliate undertakes.
Either I missed a few of the CK – Schalk posts or something is very wrong.
Quote:This is what I’m talking about. And if you have about 20 of these from one small country, let’s say Bulgaria, and their betting both sides of certain events etc. it all becomes a bit su****ious.I’m sorry, but I am missing the math here. How in the world can you bet both sides and the sportsbook is losing money?!? Putting aside the fact that soccer has 3 sides, even in NFL football there is no way in the world you can make money by betting both sides, unless you are extra lucky and catch a bunch of underdogs. Not to mention that the bookie still gets the juice, if it’s a good bookmaker, of course, if winningBets=losingBets.
Here are 3 possible scenarious with a player signing up as an affiliate at Canbet:
1. The player wins, let’s say $1,000 at the end of the month – is it wrong now for the players to win money? Even if he wasn’t an affilite, he would still win the $1,000, so what’s the fuss?
2. The player loses $1,000, which after 25% commission = $750. What, you are not happy that the sportsbook made an extra $750 this month?!? Get over it, the whole deal brought you $750 instead of $0. Whining about a player losing $750 instead of $1,000, especially in these hard times, is down right asinine.
3. All players bets come to even money for the monht. Did Canbet lose anything? No. Did Canbet gained anything – yes, a player who would potentially lose money next month.
And if you are really concerned about those type of affiliates, do like the rest – no commission until the first 5 real players. Problem solved.
Stupid;206834 wrote:Here are 3 possible scenarious with a player signing up as an affiliate at Canbet:1. The player wins, let’s say $1,000 at the end of the month – is it wrong now for the players to win money? Even if he wasn’t an affilite, he would still win the $1,000, so what’s the fuss?
2. The player loses $1,000, which after 25% commission = $750. What, you are not happy that the sportsbook made an extra $750 this month?!? Get over it, the whole deal brought you $750 instead of $0. Whining about a player losing $750 instead of $1,000, especially in these hard times, is down right asinine.
3. All players bets come to even money for the monht. Did Canbet lose anything? No. Did Canbet gained anything – yes, a player who would potentially lose money next month.
Here’s another:
4. I allow players to open accounts as affiliates, and claim the great new 25% “rebate” on their losses. It works so well as a retention tool, that I actually encourage it, and tell players to open new accounts on their own tags as opposed to the hardworking affiliate that initially sent them (or, of course, word just gets around naturally about this great new “bonus”.)
It’s a slippery slope, which like I said, is in nobody’s interest.
4. I allow players to open accounts as affiliates, and claim the great new 25% “rebate” on their losses. It works so well as a retention tool, that I actually encourage it, and tell players to open new accounts on their own tags as opposed to the hardworking affiliate that initially sent them (or, of course, word just gets around naturally about this great new “bonus”.)
Now you are making things up. That’s cheating the affiliates from their money, it has nothing to do with players opening aff accounts. That’s why there are cookies we use for tracking and some affilites regularly check to see if the programs don’t cheat them by switching players to “corporate” accounts. Also, I as an affiliate would never encourage players to start their own aff account, since that’s the exact oposite of what my affiliate business model is
Those 3-4K players who think they are clever enough to open their own aff account (without being taged with a cookie from an affiliate first) – more power to them.PLus, there are a lot of sportsbooks who offer as much as 100% cashback on losses on certain bets, some even offer percentage of your losses every month as a cashback. It seems you are way behind the whole “cashback” thing. Even if you offered 50% cashback every month, you will still need the affiliates, even more so than with 0 cashback.
I as an affiliate don’t feel threatened by a handful of guys who decide to open their aff accounts. If they do so at a sportsbook to where I have refered them – they are already my players, no matter how many aff accounts they open. If it’s at a different sportsbook – I don’t lose anything. Don’t forget that a lot of affiliates started as players, so a long-term profit is also possible. I know I played online casinos long before I became an affiliate…
It’s a slippery slope, which like I said, is in nobody’s interest
The few online casinos and sportsbooks I play at would beg to differ with you on this one
I know gambling some of my aff earnings is not in my interested, but the casino sees it in a very different light.Stupid;206837 wrote:PLus, there are a lot of sportsbooks who offer as much as 100% cashback on losses on certain bets, some even offer percentage of your losses every month as a cashback. It seems you are way behind the whole “cashback” thing. Even if you offered 50% cashback every month, you will still need the affiliates, even more so than with 0 cashback.Ok mate, I’m not going to argue with as to whether it can or can’t be done. I’m not here to argue with you guys, I’d much sooner we make some money together. Just thought I’d bring up some points for discussion.
Just actually posting to correct one thing:
xhttp://www.canbet.com/whatsnew/bonuses-main.aspx
A quick look down that list would reveal no less than 5 cash-back bonuses. There’s a big difference between cash-back bonuses, and affiliate revenue. The main one of course, being intent.
As for the casinos that pay your aff revenue into your player account: different story altogether. The lines are blurry, but their there.
Your aff revenue (that you EARNED as an affiliate) is yours to do with as you please. If you want it in your player account, nobody can stop you. You’ll get it there eventually, even if you have to deposit it yourself.
Aff revenue is there to reward affiliates for the work they have done.
Now using an aff program as a rebate, you are not getting money that you EARNED, are you? Your getting extra cash through a loophole that you discovered. A loophole that aff programs will try and close with terms. Terms that will peeve normal hardworking affiliates.
Which brings us back to why we are here in the first place…
@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.
Spearmaster;206839 wrote: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.Oh I’m with you Spear, and they do, but it’s hard to detect before the fact, and too late after. We tried voiding winnings and returning the deposit a while ago, and had some big flak from a major aff (because these guys also know where to kick up a stink).
The argument was pay out, and lock after.
Edit: Just to add – I’m not complaining
I love my job. Just pointing out that there’s more too it than just sitting on a big pile of money trying to think of new ways to screw people 
@CK – Schalk 206840 wrote:
Oh I’m with you Spear, and they do, but it’s hard to detect before the fact, and too late after. We tried voiding winnings and returning the deposit a while ago, and had some big flak from a major aff (because these guys also know where to kick up a stink).
The argument was pay out, and lock after.[/quote]
Yes, it’s a lot more work for your fraud team. I don’t know if I’m aware of the issue you’re referring to, but basically it should come down to this – if it’s fraud, deposit is returned. If the player met the T&Cs, winnings should be paid. There shouldn’t be any issue of paying winnings in case of fraud.
Quote:Edit: Just to add – I’m not complaining I love my job. Just pointing out that there’s more too it than just sitting on a big pile of money trying to think of new ways to screw people I believe it
But still you have to be wary of introducing terms which may cause a player or an affiliate to take up arms, as in this case – in the end it comes back to whether or not people know that Canbet is an operation that can be trusted – and I’ve already made that point earlier OK this is my second try. Had a whole post written out but IE closed itself for no bloody good reason whatsoever..
Spearmaster;206839 wrote: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.
I was only explaining reasons why I disagree, not telling you that there should be a T&C against this. We already have one and this is why:
There is also the case of affiliate fraud here. An affiliate who knows the player sends the player to play at one of our casinos, placing these kind of bets to make money through the affiliate account with no loss on the player side. Thats why it is in the affiliate T&Cs. Not all affiliates are genuine (even though we would all like to think they are). This is why I am disagreeing with the post that I said I was disagreeing with… I guess that point was not made clear by me?
Spearmaster wrote: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.We have 19 brands. Of course I meant the two casinos were at the same group.. I thought it was obvious I was talking about within the same group – Sorry, Ill make sure I explain a little clearer next time.
Spearmaster wrote: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.Again, was only giving an example of my disagreement. We already have a term for this.
Spearmaster wrote:Care to share? You’ll probably find it faster than I willNope because I can’t post links.
Ok ok it was a cheap attempt at getting people to visit our website, but the T&C is:
No affiliate can profit from an account generated by themselves or by a relation of any kind to the affiliate member. If an affiliate is caught profiting from an account generated by themselves they will forfeit any earnings they have made and their account will be terminated. [/quote]
CK – Schalk;206840 wrote:Edit: Just to add – I’m not complaining I love my job. Just pointing out that there’s more too it than just sitting on a big pile of money trying to think of new ways to screw people Agreed. It’s not like the money would go into our pockets anyway so what benefit would the affiliate manager have of sitting on a pile of money that’s not theirs thinking of new ways to screw people.. unless it was the good kind of screwing :wink-wink J/K
I love my job too and without affs I dont have it.. so Id like to make sure its fair for everyone..
@Renee 206842 wrote:
OK this is my second try. Had a whole post written out but IE closed itself for no bloody good reason whatsoever..[/quote]
Haha… and ouch! Happened to me all the time – so I no longer use IE except when absolutely necessary… try Chrome, it always stores the intended postQuote:There is also the case of affiliate fraud here. An affiliate who knows the player sends the player to play at one of our casinos, placing these kind of bets to make money through the affiliate account with no loss on the player side. Thats why it is in the affiliate T&Cs. Not all affiliates are genuine (even though we would all like to think they are). This is why I am disagreeing with the post that I said I was disagreeing with… I guess that point was not made clear by me?As I said, you do have a unique situation there – and you must prohibit that by exercising the clause in the player T&Cs. If prohibited and closed at the player level, it has zero affect on the affiliate. Thus it should not be considered an affiliate issue, even if the affiliate happens to know the player.
My point is that you can cut it off at an earlier junction and thus you should do that, rather than leaving it to the affiliate employees to manage.
Your other term is perfectly fine – but as I mention in the post to Schalk above, the net result for the casino is the same whether it’s me, my brother, my dad, my dog, or Joe Schmoe that loses the money to the casino. However I wouldn’t consider this term particularly problematic anyhow, as the reasoning is quite clear.
Spearmaster;206844 wrote:Haha… and ouch! Happened to me all the time – so I no longer use IE except when absolutely necessary… try Chrome, it always stores the intended post
As I said, you do have a unique situation there – and you must prohibit that by exercising the clause in the player T&Cs. If prohibited and closed at the player level, it has zero affect on the affiliate. Thus it should not be considered an affiliate issue, even if the affiliate happens to know the player.
My point is that you can cut it off at an earlier junction and thus you should do that, rather than leaving it to the affiliate employees to manage.
There is no advantage to the player to play this way (unless they are doing it to try to clear a bonus which is in the T&Cs not allowed). So if the player and affiliate are linked, it is quite obvious that this is affiliate fraud. I don’t want affiliates who are going to purposely try to scam us. An affiliate is supposed to be a partner, not a scammer. Players and affiliates are two separate systems, so seeking affiliate fraud is my job, not the job of the person taking care of player fraud. It’s possible for the RM dept to tell me when a particular bannertag sends a heap of dodgy players, but sometimes it can be an affiliate who sends craploads of traffic and just so happens that a handful of fraud players signed up through his id. So the affiliate is not fraudulent, and I know that, because I have a relationship with them. The RM guys wont know that, so they would close an account for no reason. Thats why aff fraud is the job of the aff manager.
Spearmaster wrote:Your other term is perfectly fine – but as I mention in the post to Schalk above, the net result for the casino is the same whether it’s me, my brother, my dad, my dog, or Joe Schmoe that loses the money to the casino. However I wouldn’t consider this term particularly problematic anyhow, as the reasoning is quite clear.The issue with playing under your own account is that if you calculate royalties, bonuses, loyalty points, admin, affiliate commission etc and it keeps going round and round, eventually the percentages end up being over 100%.. so the casino is actually then making a loss on the player that is playing under their own affiliate account. This is why most aff groups do not allow it.
@Renee 206847 wrote:
There is no advantage to the player to play this way (unless they are doing it to try to clear a bonus which is in the T&Cs not allowed). So if the player and affiliate are linked, it is quite obvious that this is affiliate fraud. I don’t want affiliates who are going to purposely try to scam us. An affiliate is supposed to be a partner, not a scammer. Players and affiliates are two separate systems, so seeking affiliate fraud is my job, not the job of the person taking care of player fraud. It’s possible for the RM dept to tell me when a particular bannertag sends a heap of dodgy players, but sometimes it can be an affiliate who sends craploads of traffic and just so happens that a handful of fraud players signed up through his id. So the affiliate is not fraudulent, and I know that, because I have a relationship with them. The RM guys wont know that, so they would close an account for no reason. Thats why aff fraud is the job of the aff manager.[/quote]
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.
Quote:The issue with playing under your own account is that if you calculate royalties, bonuses, loyalty points, admin, affiliate commission etc and it keeps going round and round, eventually the percentages end up being over 100%.. so the casino is actually then making a loss on the player that is playing under their own affiliate account. This is why most aff groups do not allow it.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.
Now using an aff program as a rebate, you are not getting money that you EARNED, are you? Your getting extra cash through a loophole that you discovered. A loophole that aff programs will try and close with terms. Terms that will peeve normal hardworking affiliates.
I agree – this is not exactly earned money. But again, why would you (the sportsbook) care?!?
And how the quotas would protect you against this? I can still bring 5 players every month, while I continue with my even bets (which I still don’t see how’d work, although I am not the biggest math wiz around). Not to mention that we already agreed it’s impossible to actually make profit this way from a Rev-share program, other than get 25% discount of your losses.
I do realize that this could be a problem for Reward, since they are on a totally different model, but that’s something they should take care of themselves, as Renne said, they are the only casino aff program that uses the wager model.
