PlayShare Affiliates Adds High Roller Clause to Terms

[kwblue]

Hey all ~

This change affects Playshare Affiliates as well as affiliates for any of their white label operations (such as Player's Palace).

The new term is for High Rollers (which is determined monthly by any player who wins at least $10k). This player will be removed from your stats until which time that negative amount is recouped.

This is, in reality, negative carryover. The only difference is that it affects 'High Rollers' only and is applied on an individual basis (by player, not in your overall stats). It will be more like the player was removed from your stats (until the $10k is subsequently lost)


See the full term at: PlayShare Affiliates Terms Changes

[MichaelCorfman]

Interesting. I certainly can't say I like it, but there is a very simple strategy for breaking the house if there is an affiliate involved if they don't have a rule like this, so I can understand it.

Let's take the case of European Roulette where you have a "friend" place one bet in the amount of $50,000 on red each month.

In 16 out of 37 months the player will win, netting +$50,000. In 17 out of 37 months the player will loose, netting -$50,000. This results in an average monthly loss for the player of -$50,000/37, or $1,351.35.

Now, let's suppose you are an affiliate with a 30% revenue share. In in 16 out of 37 months you don't earn anything, and in 17 out of 37 months you win 30% of $50,000 or $15,000. This results in average monthly earnings for the affiliate of $6,891.89.

This means the affiliate and the affiliates "friend" together would expect an average monthly gain of $6,891.89 - $1,351.35, or $5,540.54 in such a situation. A quick expected earnings of $66,486.48 a year with very little effort. Do this at a few casinos, and you'd make a very good living as an affiliate, thank you, with just a few hours of work each month.

Michael

[matted]

Dont forget that most high rollers tend to win one month and play back the next (after that negative is zeroed). I just worry about abuses... But I'm with you Michael - I dont think this is unfair.

[WagerX]

Originally Posted by MichaelCorfman

Now, let's suppose you are an affiliate with a 30% revenue share. In in 16 out of 37 months you don't earn anything, and in 17 out of 37 months you win 30% of $50,000 or $15,000. This results in average monthly earnings for the affiliate of $6,891.89.

Correction Michael: From what kwblue mentioned in his first thread is that the negative is not carried over, BUT you won't start earning a revenue UNTIL the balance gets back to >$0. They wouldn't magically forgive the lost $50,000 in player winnings and give you a revenue on the next $50,000 won the month following.

As you pointed out, as the amounts of wagers appraoches infinity the results of their affiliate payment method is equal to a straight revenue of 30%. In a sense they are just removing the peaks and lows.

Am I right, or did I miss something?

It just so happens that this month I am going to make nothing due to a player making a huge win (for me). I like winning players, but it makes it hard this month to see such a high number. Kind of makes me want to play!. lol

[mojo]

This may or may not be relevant but Playshare had a term some time ago which has since been removed that High Rollers would be removed after two months. In other words, you were allowed a high roller for two months and it would then be confiscated.

I am sorry I don't have the cache on it but it was there. It was when they first arrived.

[kwblue]

Originally Posted by mojo

This may or may not be relevant but Playshare had a term some time ago which has since been removed that High Rollers would be removed after two months. In other words, you were allowed a high roller for two months and it would then be confiscated.

I am sorry I don't have the cache on it but it was there. It was when they first arrived.

That must have been before we were tracking them I checked terms back to: 2007-03-06 20:05:13 and could not find anything outside of no negative carryover. I read each term-set that had a change notification along with the original terms from that date.

Regardless, this term is not predatory, but not favorable.

My main problem with it is that it doesn't really only affect High Rollers. This is ANY player that wins more than $10k. Your average player that wins this amount may never put it back in, so this is like losing a small time (but consistent) player - and income.

[TheCPA]

Naturally we hate to see any changes that aren't in our favor, so that sort of sucks.

At the same time, we have to be fair, and think in terms of fairness for the casinos too.

This change isn't awful, but will no doubt reduce affiliate payouts because that's what it is intended to do.

At the same time, I never thought it was particularly fair to the casinos when a player deposited 100 bucks, and was say,.....100.00 up on the casino on the last day of the month and then won 20k.

Frequently they are going to lose a good amount back to the casino the next month, and now the casino is paying a commission on their own money.
If I were a businessman, and casino owner, I wouldn't be too thrilled about that either.
Granted, they do get the Lion's share when the players lose too, so I never exactly felt guilty on those occassions either.

In the end, it isn't awful, and most of the time the affiliate will still benefit.
IE: If the player is only 9k up at the end of the month, we will still see the commission on the casino's money if he loses the 9k back the following month. Not that bad a deal when you think about it.

I see this as a leveling of the playing field a little, HOWEVER, I think there should be a 10k maximum load against the affiliate, and a 6 month time limit. After 6 months, he should be put back in the system,...for better or worse, and restart the clock so to speak.

Additionally, I don't feel that progressives jackpot wins should count into this term change since players are essentially funding them as they go.
The WIN isn't paid for by the casino itself.
In fact, I believe these used to be paid by Microgaming directly, but I could be wrong on that.

Lastly, the biggest problem I always have when a program makes changes is the retroactive issue. I have no problem when a casino changes terms going forward with new affiliates, but I'm not crazy about changing terms on exsiting affiliates.

The real reason I feel that way is that it opens pandora's box. If one program changes a term and is allowed to do that, then these agreements we sign on to are meaningless, and we will be vulnerable to ANY future terms change, regardless of it's merit or fairness.

[TheCPA]

My Bad on the Progressive remark.
I see they have in fact excluded them in the last line of the change!