RakeReduction, why are you so cheap?

[William]

First, I have no negative balance at RR (to blueman).

Second, while I thank you for your response (RR) and while I unfortunately cannot show you which affiliates absorbe that cost, I know they exist and perhaps somebody will step forward and name a few.

Finally, FT is a site that sets a rakeback limit to 27% to the players while the affiliate, the more customers he brings, the higher the % he gets back. This, again, it is something I have heard from, in my opinion, reliable source but I have no means to confirm.
If it is not true, then I understand your position (I don't like it, but I understand it) but if it is true that the affiliate keeps earning more and more whithout the possibility of giving more back to the players (an excellent FT rule in your eyes, not that good in mine) then it would only be fair that you absorbed those costs.

Kindly,
William

[Red Lion]

William, you do understand that a rakeback relationship is a revenue sharing relationship. You have to take the good with the bad, both affiliate and player. You are not truly getting 27% of the rake you pay at Full Tilt, you are getting 27% of your total MGR. This is how rakeback has, and will always work.

[William]

Yes and I don't see what difference it makes to my question. If it is a fact that some affiliates don't carry over negative balances, why should others do. In every bussiness you have to make sure one partner doesn't suddenly gets away with the biggest piece of the cake and if the % that RR gets from us has been increasing as they grow themselves, we are stucked at 27% while they get richer and richer.

Of course it is extremely difficult to know what the affiliates really get as they all stick togheter and share this precious secret with no one.

I think it is only reasonable to demand explanations/improvements every now and then to insure a fair sharing of the amount the sites give back.

And once again, if no other affiliate absorbes the store/freerolls/etc.. costs from FT and the affiliates are just as stucked as we are at a fixed rakeback %, then no changes need to be made; but from what I hear, it is not the case.

[Pokeraddict]

With RR it's a trade, if you want to cashout on demand then you have to deal with neg carryovers. If you are willing to wait with another affiliate then you don't get neg carryovers in most cases. RR is right, their system would be primed for abuse if they allowed you to cash out and then go buy a $1000 item in their store on the last day of the month.

[William]

[ QUOTE ]
With RR it's a trade, if you want to cashout on demand then you have to deal with neg carryovers. If you are willing to wait with another affiliate then you don't get neg carryovers in most cases. RR is right, their system would be primed for abuse if they allowed you to cash out and then go buy a $1000 item in their store on the last day of the month.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is rubbish. If you could not cash out on demand, you could still buy at the store and not play at FT for the next month or so. It's not like you can't survive playing somewhere else (also with RB) for a month every now and then.
At the very least you would have the choice of keep playing and paying or taking a month break and not paying.


Not to mention that with the current system you could spend all your points at once just after cashing out from RR and never play at FT again. In that case they would not only lose the amount FT claims but the future income from that player as well.

RR is excellent in many regards, but they need to be less greedy and start giving back a little more. All the explanations about not finding a site for the freerolls is shady as well. Practically every other affiliate has something in place, usually a freeroll per site every month. Why should they be the only ones to encounter problems setting something up?

[RakeReduction]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

All the explanations about not finding a site for the freerolls is shady as well. Practically every other affiliate has something in place, usually a freeroll per site every month. Why should they be the only ones to encounter problems setting something up?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the word 'shady' is very wrong here. Like I said, we are trying to setup a very very unique freeroll and all the of the major sites are not willing to do what we want to do. We want this to be a weekly freeroll for starters. We expect the prize pool to be anywhere from $3000 - $6000 per week. We need it to only allow certain players (players who qualify). The only site who would even listen to our idea was Bodog, but they do not allow Canadian users, so we couldnt use them.

At the end of the day, we will be doing this on the Cake Network, but again, it is a very unique idea, and once it's rolled out, you will understand why.

[kyleb]

William is quite obviously wrong here and RR pointed out exactly how this could happen.

[splurge]

why do you have to have a minimum amount of 25 dollars to cashout to the site you are playing at? in my case, full tilt