What some affiliates don't know

[thegreatwarnzini]

I've been arguing with the someone I believe is the owner of a major affiliate website and runs a large affiliate program. Although his members have not been as cordial, he has not mentioned who I am in public so I will extend him the same courtesy...warranted or not.

I was explaining to him how rake is calculated at most sites, most of you know this, but it blows my mind that someone who runs an affiliate program wouldn't understand this, but...here we stand.First here is the text...cut and pasted directly from the fulltilt affiliate agreement on the FT website.

A Player's contribution to the rakes shall be determined as the quotient obtained when dividing the actual amount of each rake, in hands which such Player was dealt in, divided by the total number of persons playing at the table (“players”) at the start of the hand. By way of example, if the rake in a hand with six players at the table is three dollars ($3.00), each player's contribution to the rake will be fifty cents ($0.50)."

So basically, you don't have to play, you just need cards dealt to you to be counted into the equation. If you fold you are still credited with paying some of the rake. Again, that cut and paste was directly from the FT website, straight from their affiliate agreement.

Now here are a few quotes from this guys postings and emails he has sent me.

Your information on rakeback is completely false and you should not be telling people this. Players at Fulltilt only generate rake if they actually play in the hand. So saying that you can just sit there, post blinds, and get rake back is false.
How in the world could you actually think FullTilt is going to pay... a player just sit at the table.
It just gets annoying when affiliates post stupid claims like this
...end quotation....

for the record, I couldn't put quotes in this post...it changed them during submission process, sorry

I acknowledge, some sites do not operate this way, some use a contributed rake method or a method with a sliding % scale that can change, but my understanding is that FT and a majority of other large sites calculate their rake this way. I would think that someone who runs an affiliate program...I think it's actually one of the largest one's I know of...would be privy to this kind of information.

By all means, if anyone thinks disagrees with the way I interpret FT's method of rake calculation, please prove me wrong. Maybe I would understand why this guy came from left field to slander me in his forums.

[Pokeraddict]

You are correct, FT is rake/# of dealt players. Most sites are not that way though. About 2/3-3/4 of sites are contributed. There are more if you count each Prima and Ongame skin as contributed instead of each network once.

[freecard4all]

you are correct about FTP.

I would think that every small affiliate should know how FTP calculates it but there are still sites that big affiliates and people (here) are unable to come to a verdict if it's contributed or dealt (or how contributed).

But FTP is well known and he should definitely know. (maybe FTP is ripping him off [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] )

[RakeReduction]

I'll chime in my 2 cents. I saw this post at another place, I think PAW. You are leaving out some important details.. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Anyways, this is the story as I heard it. You were advertising to people that, like you said, you don't even need to play to get rakeback!!

While this is true as pointed out, you are leaving out one very important detail, you do have to play. You cannot just sit down and get dealt cards. You have to actually put money into a blind before this cycle starts.

I believe it is a simple miscommunication between your advertisements and what this other affiliate is saying. I believe you are both right, just your advertisement is a bit misleading.

Again, correct me if I am wrong.

[thegreatwarnzini]

true i suppose. you can't have cards dealt without posting something. As far as I concerned, the chicken came first and the egg was merely an afterthought.

however, if you read his comments I posted above, he himself mentions posting blinds and just folding, saying this will not work. Since you already read from the other site....you probably know that people there didn't even know what the correct rake % was for the tables I was speaking of and wanted to argue with me on that too.

[Komodo]

Ok, I got another question.
Lets say you dont know how to play, but just sit there for rakeback and bonus.
How much would you lose sitting there just posting blinds and folding vs how much would you get back in RB+bonus?

[thegreatwarnzini]

It would really depend on your limits, table structure, rake structure, # of people at the table and amount of action.

The only place where you can make a profit by just sitting and folding would be at the .5/.10 tables at FT......and even at those tables there is often not enough action to make this happen. You have to stick to the craziest omaha tables. But if you do the math.....

9 handed table
.5/.10 blinds
10% rake
once the avg. pot reaches about 5.50 you will be making about what you need to cover blinds.

rake does not increase proportionally for the most part as you increase limits...so if you sit down at the $400-800 NL table...you're not going to become a winning player by getting rakeback setup

[freecard4all]

[ QUOTE ]
true i suppose. you can't have cards dealt without posting something. As far as I concerned, the chicken came first and the egg was merely an afterthought.

[/ QUOTE ]

OFFT, but an egg was first


(i.e. we had an egg and then we had an chicken).