Why won't sites let current players sign-up for rakeback?

[Cry Me A River]

In the last Full Tilt Answers thread in the Internet forum, FTPDoug mentioned FTP would be doing some things to address this in May. Well, May is almost over...

Thing is, they could easily fix this... Just offer bonuses in the Full Tilt store at player point rates equivalent to rakeback. Kind of like how, umm, Stars does it...

Since the cost of anything bought from the store is applied to MGR, there would be no benefit to anyone already receiving rakeback, but it would give rakeback to everybody else.

Unless my math is off (it is 3am after all), a $500 bonus for 16666 points would be the equivalent of 27% rakeback.

There would be, however two huge problems.

First, nobody would ever buy anything but bonuses from the store. The price of products in the store are so over-inflated (as compared to, say, Star's store) buying bonus would be a way, way better deal.

The second problem is that it would make rakeback available to everyone, not just those of us in the know.

However, that's exactly the strategy Stars has taken. So take another page out of Stars' playbook and do it on a sliding scale, which also encourages more play. Only offer the full 27% rakeback (which is still less than Stars' max rakeback though FPP) to top level VIPs.

I'm currently playing at FTP because they offered me a bonus. However, as soon as I'm done I'm heading back to Stars because I don't have rakeback and I'd be absolutely insane to pass up Supernova level rakeback at Stars. Thing is, I'm actually enjoying my stay at FTP and were things different, I might actually stick around a while longer or just drop in now and again for a break from Stars.

As long as the current situation exists, that'll just never happen. At least not until they offer me another reload bonus...

[demon102]

Cry Me A River it not even may yet dude, u dont know what month it is?

BlackRain I tried pming u but it says that ur not recieving pms

[Cry Me A River]

[ QUOTE ]
Cry Me A River it not even may yet dude, u dont know what month it is?

[/ QUOTE ]

AHAHAHAHA! Yeah, I wrote May but mean't March. FTPDoug's thread said March:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1

"I don't have any details, but I believe we'll begin experimenting with various ideas in March."

[djmeehan]

I would play at Full Tilt again if I could get rakeback but since I can't I closed my account months ago.

[pipedreamz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just want to know why sites would rather lose a player than have to pay them rake on their play??? It seems crazy.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's because you're seeing it from the point fo view of the player, not the poker room. Yes, it makes more sense to get 63% of something, rather than nothing. But there are plenty of players who will play there anyway (or who aren't even aware of RB) - especially US players who are now extremely limited to where they can play/deposit.

Also, this is the internet. As soon as they let even 1 player switch to RB, he/she mentions it on a message board [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] and BAM! 3,283 players who were playing on the site w/o RB now want to switch over to RB. Obviously 3,283 is a completely made up # - but any decent sized number at all would easily make up for the handful of players who:

1) Know about RB
2) Have an account without it (which seems odd given #1)
3) Would refuse to play at said site w/o it

Oh, and as an aside - you are from the UK? That means you get to play at Party, so it's tough for me to feel sorry for you [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] j/k

[/ QUOTE ]

this post is full of assumptions.

any player that knowingly plays without rakeback on a site and not on STARS for FPP's is a complete moron. The only exception would be fish factor, and stars is the largest site right now.

You overestimate this number.

Sites that don't allow switching are losing money, simple as that.

[/ QUOTE ]

As is yours. I play on some sites without RB, and I like to think I'm not a moron. Many bonuses are greater than RB. Many sites are fishier than Stars. Many players are not American, and have many choices.

As to sites losing money by not allowing switching, that's possible. There's a lot of variables we don't know. Would this cost them money by damaging relationships with affiliates?

I suspect you're right, but I don't see how you can be so certain...especially if you're talking about straight-up switching, no tiers, no conditions. I am fairly confident, though, that if they chose the right way to implement it, they could allow switching in a way that is +EV for everyone. Well, it might be -EV for some non-RB affiliates, but this could be mitigated.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only affiliates that are losing out are the ones that never offered their sign-ups RB. if they signed them up as a one time bonus FTP could simply switch them to the RB format. NOBODY loses!

as i said, fish factor is the only factor that you would play without, and you verified that.

There is NO -EV in doing this, stars offers it to everyone in the form of FPP's. are they losing money? (granted, they require more play for more return).

it all boils down to profit equaling....

%MGR of however many new players join for RB

vs

however much %MGR they lose from switching current players. over.

[Bobo Fett]

[ QUOTE ]
The only affiliates that are losing out are the ones that never offered their sign-ups RB. if they signed them up as a one time bonus FTP could simply switch them to the RB format. NOBODY loses!

as i said, fish factor is the only factor that you would play without, and you verified that.

There is NO -EV in doing this, stars offers it to everyone in the form of FPP's. are they losing money? (granted, they require more play for more return).

it all boils down to profit equaling....

%MGR of however many new players join for RB

vs

however much %MGR they lose from switching current players. over.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, fish factor and/or better bonuses elsewhere. Personally, being non-American, I have more bonuses available to me elsewhere than I can get through, so RB alone isn't going to get me playing at FT. That being said, I'd like to have it available.

The only flaw I see in your suggestion is affiliates who are paid based on MGR, but do NOT pay their players RB...this would present a problem.

Actually, I just thought of one other issue. I think you suggested that deducting this bonus system from MGR would ensure that players receiving RB wouldn't get any more money. The only problem with this is that their affiliates would also be penalized. I'm sure there could be a technical solution to this, though.

So all that being said, I like the idea. As long as they tiered the bonus structure, and deducted it from RB, it could be +EV. If they don't want to lose out by giving RB equivalent to players who know nothing about it, they could make the program by invitaion only, or something along those lines.

The only problem to solve is how to handle affiliates who are receiving MGR, but not paying players RB. Either they don't allow those players in the program, or they end up screwing the affiliate...although I don't know how their agreement with those affiliates works, perhaps they have an "out" for this.

[JechtSphere]

FTP needs a bettered tiered program as it is. The Iron Man Challenge is the biggest [censored] promotion ever. Ooooh, "freeroll". Freeroll my ass, I pay my rake as an entry fee to that tournament, and I'd rather have the option to break a 27% bonus than participate in the freeroll OR get bonus medals (that program is borked as well).

[xxSTWxx]

There are 2 sites I don't play on anymore, FT and Bodog, as I can't get a rakeback account with them after signing up thru affiliates when I was first starting out.

There is a very easy answer for the sites though - just let a player buy themselves out from their affiliate. i.e. if I signed up through PSO and they got, say, $150 from FT, just let me repay FT the $150 and open a new account with rakeback.

Everyone would be a winner then, PSO keep their fee, FT aren't out of pocket and now make 73% of the rake of a player who would otherwise be playing on different sites, the new affiliate makes money on the sign up and I get to play on FT with rakeback. Its a winner all round.

[Red Lion]

You are assuming that PSO was paid on a CPA basis for your poker accounts. I would also guess that PSOs CPA is much higher than 150.

[xxSTWxx]

well if they didn't get CPA then it would be in their best interests to give me RB, cos I've only ever played there while I cleared the initial deal and I won't play there again without. So they aren't making anything out of me and never will.