Account blocked for bringing in players "with a connection"

[BBCasinos]

In the business i see a few operators (casino and Sportsbetting) that have a fraud clausule in there terms & conditions according to bringing in new players that have a connection with you as an affiliate. And when they can lay a connection with you they will block/ freeze your affiliate account. With the result you won't get paid for any income you did.
I have had it with 1 brand i promote on my website. I didn't even knew the player played through my affiliate link.

What do you think of this?

My opinion:
When you start a website you will always promote it on your own social media, your email databases and in your direct surroundings. So the chance a player "with a connection" to you signs up and starts playing is pretty high.
So in my opinion a program cannot use a fraud clausule like that, and for sure cannot freeze all your income.
And what is a connection? A friend, the same ip, the same city, the same age.......

Please let me know your opinion about that. I wanna know if you think the same as me. Thanks.

[JackTenSuited]

My opinion:
When you start a website you will always promote it on your own social media, your email databases and in your direct surroundings..

I don't know how true this is, I've never pushed a program to people I know on my personal fb account. Your own email databases probably won't contain anyone you know and I'm not sure what you mean by direct surroundings.

I understand why they have this clause, especially with sports betting but I think programs should use their discretion. If you have referred 1000 players and 1 happened to be in the same town as you, then fair enough, that happens. If you refereed 10 players and they all live in the same town then that's very suspicious.

[BBCasinos]

I don't know how true this is, I've never pushed a program to people I know on my personal fb account. Your own email databases probably won't contain anyone you know and I'm not sure what you mean by direct surroundings.

The thing is i had some online soccer games. With the game i collected emailadresses. And i am still sending email on these databases. Same with the fact that i have a few soccer applications for local soccer clubs in the netherlands. On these adresses i also promote some brands once in a while.
But what is the big problem if i deliver a player that for example is a friend of mine?
They play, the win or they lose and that is it.
The only thing i can think of is that i give the player chargeback to play through me......

[-Shay-]

I don't know how true this is, I've never pushed a program to people I know on my personal fb account. Your own email databases probably won't contain anyone you know and I'm not sure what you mean by direct surroundings.

I understand why they have this clause, especially with sports betting but I think programs should use their discretion. If you have referred 1000 players and 1 happened to be in the same town as you, then fair enough, that happens. If you refereed 10 players and they all live in the same town then that's very suspicious.

If I owned a football betting website and collected email addresses, I would think it would make sense that a few of my mates would find their way to the list. Especially after "Pub talk", as people would be curious or want to "get in on it".

I know that when I was into poker, there were many locals on the mailing list for various reasons.

[BBCasinos]

I know that when I was into poker, there were many locals on the mailing list for various reasons.

Yes, exactly. And when these locals start to play it is possible your account gets blocked (when they see this). For me this is not a fair policy.
I cannot promise any brand that i will not deliver any locals. As i use my privat and business social media to communicate some bonuses and newsitems.

[Triple7]

I know some brands do not accept it. If it's stated in their t&c, that's fine then and their right to do not want this. If it's not, it's another discussion.

[Renee]

From a program's perspective, a couple of the reasonss we have it in the terms is to prevent "cashback" scenarios, ring fencing scenarios and the like.

If you're sending 1000 players and one happens to be a mate of yours, I don't see why the program would close your entire account. If they don't allow that, they could just ensure you're not earning on that player.

If you're only sending a handful and they are all connected to you somehow, then that might be a different story.

[Progger]

Hello,


bbcasino,i dont see any reason to close a account with this rule- this is stupid.
BUT,if you mate have a problem with this brand ,you have the chance to make big trouble on gpwa. are you following me ?
Every brand try to save her name and remove negative feedback.

A normal player dont come to gpwa and post her issue with a brand.

Cashback or not...Who cares ?


Regards

[Renee]

Cashback or not...Who cares ?

It screws with the margins somehow. I don't know technicalities but this is the main reason programs don't allow play under your own account.

[Miles_FTA]

One of the main reasons you cant allow play under your own affiliate account is that its not a fair practice. its just not fair on the operator

Think about this as a player some casinos give you cash back on your loses every week so if you fall into this category and are already getting cash back + still getting affiliate earnings from your play under your own affiliate account it just doesn't sit well i dont think.

I dont see why you cant refer Players like friends and family that should not be an issue ..

Also on another point if your an affiliate who is getting hit by a lot of fraudulent players .. They are finding you for some reason a bonus code etc The casino needs to do its due diligence before just assuming its you and lock you out if they can prove that you are only sending these guys and are not delivering any quality in between then yes there may be a suspicion but this cant be the only reason to lock you out.

[MMM]

It screws with the margins somehow. I don't know technicalities but this is the main reason programs don't allow play under your own account.

It's simple. Let's say you play Blackjack. Your odds are somewhere near 99%+. Meaning you loose 51 out of 100 hands. Now, let's say that when you win - you win, but when you loose - you get 40% back to you.
What are the odds now?

In regards to your original question: if it's 1-2 of many players that you've brought - you should fight for your money. If it's the only players that you've brought - then I can understand their point.
Are you on rev or CPA, it also makes a difference.

[Jokerman99]

Ask them to remove the player from your account.

[Progger]

One of the main reasons you cant allow play under your own affiliate account is that its not a fair practice. its just not fair on the operator

Sure!...

But we talk not about self-ref....we talk about friends-ref.

regards

[Triple7]

Sure!...

But we talk not about self-ref....we talk about friends-ref.

regards

Not even a friend, as TS wrote he don't know they player that provoked the freeze. I guess it's impossible to judge without seeing the whole picture. It makes kind of a difference if he sent like 1.000 players and just 1 seem to be a friend or if he sent like 5 and all are acting "irregular".

[Renee]

It's simple. Let's say you play Blackjack. Your odds are somewhere near 99%+. Meaning you loose 51 out of 100 hands. Now, let's say that when you win - you win, but when you loose - you get 40% back to you.
What are the odds now?

Thanks. Much better explanation than I could have given.

[Miles_FTA]

All Casinos or Most offer a refer a friend so i dont see this as being an issue i think the bigger issue would be playing under your own Tag

[Triple7]

All Casinos or Most offer a refer a friend so i dont see this as being an issue i think the bigger issue would be playing under your own Tag

That's usually a CPA of some $25, not a revenue share.

[Miles_FTA]

That's usually a CPA of some $25, not a revenue share.

Thanks but what i mean is that if a casino allows you to refer a friend not matter if its CPA or Rev Share that you receive then their cant be any complaints if your friend plays under your Tag ..but should you play under your own tag then i feel they do have a valid point.

[Triple7]

Thanks but what i mean is that if a casino allows you to refer a friend not matter if its CPA or Rev Share that you receive then their cant be any complaints if your friend plays under your Tag ..but should you play under your own tag then i feel they do have a valid point.

I don't know if the casino of this thread has such a "refer a friend"-bonus and under which conditions. $ 50 "refer-a-friend"- bonus with wagering requirements is another thing than receiving a 40% cashback on your losses...

It's guessing as we don't know the whole story. The program should have some reason to block this account. Of course some programs are rogue and block accounts for stupid reasons, but most programs still do just block accounts if terms are breached. They must have seen somehow something irregular...

[Miles_FTA]

Thanks Triple7 ..I will have a wager there is a reason somewhere in the blackhole we call T & C for sure