A test for my fellow Affiliates

[mojo]

Here is a quiz.

Do you know what the 'High Roller Bonus Term' in your Affiliate Terms and Conditions is at certain Microgaming Casinos?

[giggles7p]

I do I do! [but i cheated and have already read this Mojo, so i won't answer.] loll

Are we in for a "Surprise"?????.....

[mojo]

I do I do! [but i cheated and have already read this Mojo, so i won't answer.] loll

Are we in for a "Surprise"?????.....

I just luv you Pat! You are the best.

[mojo]

I have posted my displeasure in the private section. I have not gotten any satisfaction. I wrote Affliate Guard Dog and was told there was nothing I could do. I wrote Lawrence at Playshare, and posted here and did NOT get a response. It's been over a month now. I do NOT accept this. I will do whatever I can to change this. My friend The_CPA allowed me to post this over from the GIA http://www.gamblingindustryassociati...rums/index.php

Then to add insult to injury we got this from Star Partner:

Quarantine Policy Survey
Many of our affiliates have requested that we reduce our quarantine level from $10000 to $5000 and some have even requested $3000. We would like your opinion.
Click here

Kind regards
Conrad
Affiliate Manager

Is this a joke? LOWER it?


The_CPA explains it best and much better than I could.

This just another name for the HighRoller Term some Microgamings have slipped into their terms over the last few years. I didn't even know Star Partner had added this term.

It started years ago with WagerShare, however, they were forthright about it, and announced it.

Essentially, all it does is limit the Casinos risk of paying commission when a a player wins over 10k in a month, and then plays it back the following month. They quarantine the player until the player loses back the money they won.

There has been some confusion, IMO, by some affiliates to properly analyze the entire set terms of this High Roller policy.

On the surface, it's not unfair for the casino to set a limit when this situation arises. They seem to have the limit set at 10k right now.
They all claim that they don't carryover negatives, but the truth is that they DO carryover negatives if the win is 10k or greater.

They also apply it to month it occured in, and because they are LUMPING the casinos in the group, that win generally wipes out any commission the affiliate might have made on other players for that month.

The player is quaranatined now for the following months, so it doesn't impact the other players from there, BUT it did for the month it occurred in.
So the casino gets a DOUBLE BANG on these terms.

IE: For example: Let's say for the month of April you had one player win $10000.00, but your other players lost $10,000.00.
Your commission would be ZERO for the month of April.
Now,...the 10k winner is quarantined for May, so you don't get commission if he plays it back,.....but what if he does play the entire 10k back, which frequently happens.
Following this so far?
So at the end of May, the Casino has broken even on that "HighRoller", but they also GOT out of paying you those commissions on that 10k your other players LOST in April.

The net result to the casino for this 60 day cycle is that they netted a positive $10,000.00 on your players, and your commission WAS ZERO!

Unfortunately, some affiliates have not looked closely at ALL of the elements of this HighRoller term.

Summary:
This Policy is seriously flawed and PREDATORY as it is currently written and enforced.
#1 The affiliate does not have the advantage of the sum total of wins and losses that the casino itself has. This is why MOST casinos do not worry about having a high roller policy at all, let alone set a 10k limit on wins. They expect, and rightfully so, for there to be some winners.
It's all part of the casino's bottom line.

#2 Since the regular terms of these programs using this HighRoller Term allows for there to be NO NEGATIVE CARRYOVER up to 10k, then this should also apply to any players that are quarantined.
IE: If a player wins 20k, then only 10k should be carried over.
If a player wins, 10,500.00, then only 500.00 should be carried over, and quarantined.

#3 If they are going to use this HighRoller Policy, then the Player should be quarantined in the month it occured, NOT THE MONTH AFTER it occured.
Clearly this is designed to wipe out your earnings from your other players for that month.

#4 In the end, the policy becomes predatory because in certain senarios, the Casino has the ability to make a tidy profit on your players without paying the affiliate a dime.

#5 As for Star Partner's Survey. Why would anyone in their right mind want to LOWER this from 10k to 5k?
It should raised to 25 or 30k, and the predatory terms amended, IMO!

Lowering this to 5k would only mean that they would implement the policy faster, thus wiping out current month commissions more frequently, and not even having to pay you on the 5k, instead of 9,999.00 if it gets played back.

In closing, it's clear that some affiliates don't fully grasp the predatory nature of this HighRoller Term.
Please take the time to FULLY understand ALL OF TERMS involved on this and how it affects Affiliates.
I am NOT opposed to having a 10k limit as long as the Player is, #1 quarantined in the month it occured, and #2 that ONLY the amount won over 10k is carried over.
If they amended those two things, then the policy would acceptable.
NOT GREAT, BTW, just acceptable.
__________________
Casino Player's Advocate!

[mojo]

Thank you CPA! I want to add that I had a high roller that won. I was not allowed commission for that month. Do you really want to wait until it happens to you?

I want to add that the programs that do this are:

Playshare

wagershare

star partner

And one more. Help me out!

Regardless, why would we send players here???????

[Daera]

Yes I do know what it is because I also have a player that's affected by that.

I don't have a problem with the term. Although, I do see your point about the first month.

[mojo]

I didn't know about it until it effected me. So I kick myself. The simple choice is sending players to one of the few programs that enact this term or sending players to a program that does not and never have to worry about it.

I think that many affiliates don't mind this term too much but I do. Hopefully CPA's post will help affiliates decide and at least know about it. There isn't much support to get it changed.

[mojo]

Thought I'd bump this since it's finally getting some attn.

[LiveCasinoPartners]

#3 If they are going to use this HighRoller Policy, then the Player should be quarantined in the month it occured, NOT THE MONTH AFTER it occured.
Clearly this is designed to wipe out your earnings from your other players for that month.

Your right. Lowering the limit if it applied to the same month is beneficial to the affiliate. It it occurs the following month, then there's a net loss to the affiliate. Even if the "high roller" (large winner) losses everything back.. the affiliate still loses.
If they were to apply it to the same month then that would solve the issue.

[mojo]

Your right. Lowering the limit if it applied to the same month is beneficial to the affiliate. It it occurs the following month, then there's a net loss to the affiliate. Even if the "high roller" (large winner) losses everything back.. the affiliate still loses.
If they were to apply it to the same month then that would solve the issue.

To a point WagerX. It is more complicated than that. It does not solve it.

I feel not everyone understands it.

[universal4]

Good points all, but if it applies immediately in the month the negative occurs, it does appear to be more beneficial.

We have to keep seperate the debate about whether applying the terms retroactively is fair and the debate about the most fair way to structure the "big winner" policy.

If at casino A you have $3000 worth of netwin, and a player wins $4000 if there is no policy in place you are paid nothing since netwin is -$1000.

With a policy of fencing the winner immediately above $3000 you are then paid on the $3000 and the player is fenced until it is played back. If the policy is $10,000 then the affiliate loses the commission on the $3000.

In this particular scenario it appears to be better to fence at $3000 then $10,000.

Rick
Universal4

[mojo]

But it doesn't work that way. We lose all income for the month it occurs in as far as I know. It does at Playshare for sure because it happened to me. The terms at Star Partner are nearly identical.

So every time one of your players hits 3000 you lose all your earnings. That could happen quite often the lower it goes.

Also, I did not agree to this at all. There is no opt in.

[stgeorge]

It's an unfortunate term and we have had our debates with the programs over it. I can fully understand their position though. I wouldn't want to pay someone with money I already paid to a winning player.

The problem comes into the retroactive application of the term which is unacceptable.

Anyway, it will happen very infrequently so we just have to live with it becuase I can tell you they won't change and in my opinion it's not enough reason to stop promoting some of those groups you mention.

What is most annoying is that we found out about the terms only once it nailed us which is a pity.

[TheCPA]

Anyway, it will happen very infrequently

Sorry, but that's exactly the wrong way to look at this.

#1 It's happened more times in the last year than it did in the TEN years that preceeded it!

#2 If affiliates keep sucking this B.S. up, it WILL get worse!

It's becoming increasing clear to me that the Programs are getting organized to make all kinds of changes at the expense of affiliates, and SADLY,....affiliates are no longer unified enough to stand up to these kinds of negative changes that are being inflicted on affiliates retroactively.

If the affiliate community were truly united and webmasters could CUT a PROGRAM off at the knees for making retroactive changes like it used to be, then none of this BULLSHIT would be happening.

Sorry, but affiliates large and small need to band together again to stop this kind of stuff DEAD in it's track!
AGD and the THE GPWA Leadership need to STEP UP or turn it over to someone that will!!!!!! JMO, of course!

[slotplayer]

the frequency is directly porportional to the growth of an affiliates' player base.

[mojo]

the frequency is directly porportional to the growth of an affiliates' player base.

Part of it is that more and more programs will be adopting this if we allow it now. It is poorly set up and an unacceptable retroactive term.

I would much rather use a program without this term whatsoever. Fortunatly, most do not have this term. At the very least it should be opt in. In which case I would not opt in.

As an affiliate trying to make a living I do not want to see more programs forcing this on us.

[TheCPA]

<HR style="COLOR: #ccc" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->
the frequency is directly porportional to the growth of an affiliates' player base.

I think the "FREQUENCY" of these affiliates breeches , (at least with the MGS Programs), is directly related to loss of Casino and Program income from U.S. Players,... post UIEGA.

While I understand these difficult times, it is NO LESS difficult for long standing afiliates that gave their trust and built their incomes around these programs that made and promised to keep their agreements for sending them players.
This is pretty basic stuff, IMO.

You are either honorable and make changes going forward, or you aren't,... and you screw the affiliates that got you this far to begin with.

That's what we are seeing lately, especially with the MGS Programs.

* Some exceptions apply, of course.*

[universal4]

If the affiliate community were truly united and webmasters could CUT a PROGRAM off at the knees for making retroactive changes like it used to be, then none of this BULLSHIT would be happening.

Sorry, but affiliates large and small need to band together again to stop this kind of stuff DEAD in it's track!
AGD and the THE GPWA Leadership need to STEP UP or turn it over to someone that will!!!!!! JMO, of course!

I think these are very important points.

I for one will react to this much more quickly and swiftly than I did with the Grand Prive fiasco...and I encourage all affiliates to join in on this one.

Rick
Universal4

[stgeorge]

I think these are very important points.

I for one will react to this much more quickly and swiftly than I did with the Grand Prive fiasco...and I encourage all affiliates to join in on this one.

Rick
Universal4

I am interested to know how you will react.

I am by no means in agreement with the policy as such. As I have said, retroactive is unacceptable but we have been having this debate with a number of programs for some time now and while I do not like to term I can understand where trey are coming from.

From where I am sitting it looks highly unlikely they will change it unless we can conjure up strong numbers in resistance which based on the Grand Prive scenario sadly seems unlikely.

[mojo]

I am interested to know how you will react.

I am by no means in agreement with the policy as such. As I have said, retroactive is unacceptable but we have been having this debate with a number of programs for some time now and while I do not like to term I can understand where trey are coming from.

From where I am sitting it looks highly unlikely they will change it unless we can conjure up strong numbers in resistance which based on the Grand Prive scenario sadly seems unlikely.

We were blindsided with this term. I'll be the first to admit that I didn't know about it until it happened to me. You can bet I wished I sent my player somewhere else.

What can I do? I can make sure that everyone is aware of it by posting it here. If one chooses to go that route, at least they are aware. I have a feeling until it happens to them, it's no big deal.

I know it won't happen to me again.

The term is retro. That in itself is rogue behavior. It should at the very least be an opt in. Personally, I'll be putting Casino Rewards, 32Red and Red Flush amongst other quality programs in the path of any High Rollers that may come my way. Not programs that change the rules on me without my consent.

Banners have been taken down by many webmasters over this so I don't think it's ineffective to post and let everyone make an educated choice. There is always something we can do and not throw our hands up and say oh well.