Legality of being an affliate post-UIGEA

[Benholio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Anyone got a good theory as to why the UIGEA would apply to an affiliate if he is not accepting funds for unlawful internet gambling? I don't see any legality status change after the "bill".

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't have anything to do with the recent bill.

The US considering online gambling illegal before this bill (i.e. see Jay Cohen and the Neteller arrests).....

Thus, being in a business where you "split the revenue" with one of these businesses is absolutely, 100% illegal.

Now, many people, including myself to a small degree, take the risk. But, I wouldn't ever go around claiming it was legal.

[/ QUOTE ]
One distinction that has been made before is that affiliates who get paid a flat fee per signup are probably much less vulnerable than those who take a percentage of the rake.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can anyone give any insight as to why this would be?

[/ QUOTE ]

When you take a percentage of the player's loss, you have a direct stake in the outcome of the player's games. On a per-signup basis, whether or not the player gambles and the outcome of those gambles don't affect you at all.

[jschell]

[ QUOTE ]
On a per-signup basis, whether or not the player gambles and the outcome of those gambles don't affect you at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not necessarily true. Many of the poker rooms require a minimum amount of play from the players that the affiliate signs up. If you keep signing up players that don't play (for real money), the poker room may stop paying your cost-per-aquisition fees or cut your rates. Conversely, if an affiliate demonstrates the ability to sign up high-volume players, the poker room may be willing to pay more per player.

Indirectly, the affiliate does benefit from their players playing for real money and the more the better.