- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
TheGooner wrote:You’ve been listening to double speak too long Fergie – and now you’re starting to repeat it.
Lets not get mired in semantics, or my sloppy writing. My point was in regards to a commission structure, and not its label. Don’t get sidetracked because I got sloppy and called it “NO NEGATIVE CARRYOVER’
Call it whatever you like, the structure is set up so that the negative from the winning account is not applied to commissions from other players. Several programs employ it, and my point was that it is seems to me it’s a fair commission model.
Isolating the player is common practice in such situations.
Fergie, I was in no way being criticle of you, I sincerely want to know who it is, so I can make sure to never work with the thieves.
Let me state ths part again though so what I said wasn’t misunderstood. If a program states no negative carry over and doesn’t have clauses like those at Wagershare or Focal, and then doesn’t pay, then they are stealing. There is no possible way around it. It is bad enough we are forced to work in the dark and trust programs to pay us for players we actually do send, and then to have a program openly renig on a contract like this is unacceptable.
If you don’t mind Fergie, I would appreciate a PM with the program that is doing this. Thanks.
I could be wrong but I thought she said she was in communication with them now working it out?
Seems like she posted about it just to get everyones opinion on the matter without prematurely slamming the program; after all she might get the resolution shes seeking. I am almost certain she will name them if she cant work it out.
Oh and yes just love having my whales drop off the face of the earth. Promoted a few programs in the past where every whale I caught won big and swam away.
Quote:3. Fee Schedule – You will earn referral fees based on the Casino Revenue (net customer losses less net customer winnings less the progressive contributions (progressive games only) less fraudulent purchases) calculated according to the percentages reflected in the table below. Only credits actually purchased by a Real Player will be eligible for payment.I checked in the wayback machine, and the sentence in bold has been there all along.
I didn’t see this, as it was in the “fee schedule” section.
I was completely wrong the entire time because I didn’t read the entire T&C’s. I read the sections I thought were appropriate – the sections adressing negative carryover!
So you see, I was right in not revealing which the program it was. I was wrong about this the whole time, and am incredibly embarassed. :banger:
My appologies.
At least I’ve learned something. Read the entire T&C’s so you don’t make an arse of yourself! :blush:
But, really, I am glad I brought this subject up. I honestly wasn’t aware that so many “no negative carryover” programs did this. I’m sure a lot of us weren’t. Interesting topic.
The Gooner raised some good points about this in his post.
But, did the player withdraw the winnings…then play them back? Or did he never make a withdrawal?
The player withdrew a little over half the winnings, and played back what was left in her account, which was a sizable amount.
I assume that if the player withdrew all their winnings, and then deposited, those would be commissionable (that a word?) deposits. I should get a clarification on that.
This actually raises an interesting topic.
While researching this, I’ve found a lot of programs that claim to have “no negative carryover” commission structures that do this with winning players.
Can these programs truly claim to not carry negatives over?
Obviously, these are negative carryovers, even though they do not affect an affiliates earnings on other players. Still more profitable for affiliates than a straight negative carryover, since they simply don’t earn anything from the winner’s account until it is in the black, and continue to earn money from their other players.
Semantics again.
Do what exactly with winners?
Dom, they simply don’t credit your account (affiliate account) with commissions from losses incurred by a winning player (from the previous month(s)) until their particular account is in the black.
It doesn’t affect commissions on any other players.
Ah yes, that’s what I meant by “isolating the winner is a common practice”.
It is, however, supposed to be discussed between parties as a possible remedy when a winner is too large for the program to absorb.
I understand this other term, but think it would have served us better if it was written next to the no negative carry over term.
I would surmise that all programs do this, after all how many programs out there are going to pay you 40% commission on a $100k jackpot won off a $100 deposit that is lost back the following month? :p
axl wrote:how many programs out there are going to pay you 40% commission on a $100k jackpot won off a $100 deposit that is lost back the following month? :pJackpots come out of a special fund and should have nothing to do with this.
Sorry, my bad; “jackpots” errrrrr semantics again.
The numbers are fictional. Just trying to explain why programs dont want to pay when players win big. Which IMO is a good explanation as to why so many big winners disappear from our accounts.
Back to my example minus that trigger word. LOL If a player deposits $100 and gets lucky enough to run their bankroll up to $100k at the start of the following month the programs with no negative carry over will put you back to zero. Now say the following month that player loses $75k of their previous months winnings do you seriously expect to get paid for that players $75k loss?
Does that explain their position any better? sleepy.gif
I think that the position is perfectly understood.
BUt you CAN’T talk about your program offering NO NEGATIVE CARRYOVER if you adopt this policy of CARRYING OVER NEGATIVES.
:notify:A lawyer or a commerce commision would have a field day describing their headline description of no negative carryover as either preditory, or deceptive.
:notify:What we have is QUITE A LOT OF NEGATIVE CARRYOVER (in this case 13K worth) whenever it affects their bottom line.
All I’m saying is – just be up front with what the progam is REALLY offering.
:popcorn:
