Congrats to all those that made the iGB Affiliate Awards Shortlist

[Progger]

why gpwa dont make any awards ?

Let the activest members vote...this make more sense...

[Jokerman99]

They are the NO DISCUSSION market - it is forbidden / verbotten to mention.

European organisations that cowtow to local licensers and regulators cannot be seen to be frequenting with the BLACK / GREY / UNLICENSED market - for fear of losing their own little patch.

That's simply incorrect. Look at the past winners in all the casino categories. One AM in particular of a prominent US casino group has won the award numerous times. There are nominees on the shortlist this year who are part of groups that target unregulated markets.

[Renee]

It's not, but it's a flawed process and that has shown this year.

1) Entrants nominate themselves and provide reasons to win.
2) Judges are told to shortlist 7 of them (you tick a box saying yes/no) and that you can recommend up to one additional entrant for the category. However it's a free form text field so you can write what you want.
3) (Apparently, have to trust iGB on this) the 7 with the most votes make the shortlist

It's nothing to do with how many nominations you get. The format of the awards is so that doesn't make a difference. If they did it on most nominations, the shortlists would have been hilarious.

The issues are:
- Many of the most deserving (imo) winners do not enter and most of the entrants that do are not good enough to be on the shortlist. I judged 7 categories. There was one category where the nominations were so poor I think I only shortlisted 3 of the applications (I found and wrote in 4 others that should have been shortlisted but didn't apply), whilst the most deserving affiliates did not enter.
- Evidently, most of the judges just pick from the people who apply rather than considering whether they are the most deserving of the award or if there are others who did not apply that are more suitable.

It's not corrupt, or even biased in favour of people's friends, just poor on the application side and more importantly lazy judging.

I have to agree here.

I judged 3 categories and had to email Emma a few times because I was confused whether I had the right ones. There were so many operators listed in affiliate categories. I don't know if they thought they would stand a better chance at winning by putting themselves in irrelevant categories or because it wasn't clear that they were affiliate categories and not operator categories, but I felt like it made it very difficult to shortlist this year due to that.

There was very little choice IMO on the people who were nominated in the correct categories. I nominated some affiliates who I thought deserved to be there who weren't (in the text area), however none of them are on the shortlist. If it means the majority with "shortlist" get pushed through I'm not entirely sure how the text field noms could have made it which is a shame because as Luke said, there were some I felt should have been on the list that were not.

Oh, I never actually knew people nominated themselves, I was under the impression that it was performance based.

Some of the affiliate programs on there though?? They are only short of adding Foxy and Sky Vegas to the list.

In all seriousness, how on earth do 888 get on the shortlist? This is the same 888 that got a record fine from the UKGC. Ok, that was their player facing operation. But let's be honest here, their affiliate program is pretty unresponsive and certainly not the best.

It's always open for discussion.

Bet 365, while their program turned into a mess lately. Some people nominated for best affiliate manager didn't even reply to me when I've send them a mail after I spoke with them on a conference.

Best affiliate program: it's funny that programs like GVC, Pokerstars, 10 Bet, William Hill are nominated. Or Bet 365. Of course it's all subjective, but I don't see why programs like Energy Partners, Cruise and Codeta are nominated. They're ok maybe, but nothing special. Same thing for Larry Affiliates. I've opened a topic here a time ago about that they do not even comply to their own terms.

I believe this is through lack of choice and as Luke said, some lazy judging.

I wonder how many of the judges actually read the criteria for winners. The theme this year was "Tenacity" - those who have succeeded against the odds. Some of the nominations addressed this and the full set of criteria. Some wrote barely anything.

I do wonder if everyone posting here made nominations for the programs they thought were deserving? In any non-mandatory voting process there are always going to be people not happy with results, and some who don't put their votes in because they think they don't need to (maybe because they think someone/thing is a sure winner). I'm guilty of that this time around. I was on leave while the nominations were open and didn't realise they were open, so I did not put one in.

That's simply incorrect. Look at the past winners in all the casino categories. One AM in particular of a prominent US casino group has won the award numerous times. There are nominees on the shortlist this year who are part of groups that target unregulated markets.

+1

[Cash Bonus]

I have to agree here.

I judged 3 categories and had to email Emma a few times because I was confused whether I had the right ones. There were so many operators listed in affiliate categories. I don't know if they thought they would stand a better chance at winning by putting themselves in irrelevant categories or because it wasn't clear that they were affiliate categories and not operator categories, but I felt like it made it very difficult to shortlist this year due to that.

There was very little choice IMO on the people who were nominated in the correct categories. I nominated some affiliates who I thought deserved to be there who weren't (in the text area), however none of them are on the shortlist. If it means the majority with "shortlist" get pushed through I'm not entirely sure how the text field noms could have made it which is a shame because as Luke said, there were some I felt should have been on the list that were not.





I believe this is through lack of choice and as Luke said, some lazy judging.

I wonder how many of the judges actually read the criteria for winners. The theme this year was "Tenacity" - those who have succeeded against the odds. Some of the nominations addressed this and the full set of criteria. Some wrote barely anything.

I do wonder if everyone posting here made nominations for the programs they thought were deserving? In any non-mandatory voting process there are always going to be people not happy with results, and some who don't put their votes in because they think they don't need to (maybe because they think someone/thing is a sure winner). I'm guilty of that this time around. I was on leave while the nominations were open and didn't realise they were open, so I did not put one in.



+1

Hello Renee,

I couldn't have said it better, Renee. You make some valid points there. That is very well said.

[allfreechips]

Hmm, can't say much about what I see as I just have to assume this was a paid to play inclusion.

[Miles_Videoslots]

This is odd and a double edged sword for me as I do agree with a lot of what Luke and Renee had to say.

In the past I think the awards system of votes etc was flawed and open to "misuse" and it seems in the attempt to correct that process its created more issues.

There are people and companies that did deserve to be there and are not and that is a pity and maybe the powers that be can sit with all the stakeholders and come up with a solution that is fair and make everyone happy if that is possible ?

In Saying all of that I am honored to be on the list as i cant believe it was only my nomination that got me there . I have to believe that there were a few other people that put my name in the hat . ( Hopefully i have done my fair share of good things over the 13 years to warrant it on my own merit) . Some may agree others maybe not but its still a good feeling even if its flawed.

Good Luck to those that were Apologies to those that were not but remember we know who you are and value you and your companies !

[Roulette Zeitung]

Oh, the good people, with so big and so much words.
But some "good" have a big mouth but are to coward to say one word, that the whole thing and also the physically 2018 awards are proven financed by criminals and indirectly also by murderes.

It I am honest, for some of you I have not a shred of respect anymore and I will make this very clear in the future.

For some it would have been better so say nothing instead of playing the good people, because saying nothing can also be a sign of protest, but IGB's blind buddies will have a hard time in the future, because they have dirt at their fingers, because of 888 and Buffalo and their money, and it's a proven fact. No one can say, it's a conspiracy theory. This is the good thing.

And IGB will come under criminal investigation if they continue with Buffalo.

No mercy for supporters of criminals in this industry.

Leopold

[PhilF (ex-WhichBingo)]

As with Luke and Renee I too was a judge.

A few comments;

One of the first things they tell you at school in preparation for the exams is 'answer the question'. I have to say a good 30-40% of the applications didn't do this. As a judge we are asked to answer based on the criteria (not what we think). I would have not been doing what I was asked to do if I didn't throw out some of the utter rubbish that was entered as a submission. I don't know - if a 'good' affiliate submits a garbage entry, should I nominate them?

The amount of 'throw enough **** at the wall and some of it will stick' was shocking too. Exactly the same entry content for different categories with different terms of reference? How do these people think they should be put forward as credible submissions.

Those who didn't submit an entry have no leg to stand on when they complain either that they aren't shortlisted or 'their favourite'. EVERYONE is eligible to nominate ANYONE. Get involved. Nominate. Put yourself forward as a judge. (no, you'd rather sit on your laptop and complain....)

And to to those who say judges/award winners are the ones in iGB pocket and/or spend the most with iGB I can honestly tell you (and Alex will back me up) I have never spent a penny of sponsorship with iGB.

Did you vote Trump or Clinton? Remain or Leave? Did you vote in BGT/AGT? Did any of those votes go against your view? Yes they may have done, but hey YOUR opinion isn't RIGHT, it's just YOUR opinion. If you don't like who wins awards either submit yourself or your favourite site or become a judge....

[Roulette Zeitung]

I admit, a judge, who lost his private GPWA membership here due to deception of the forum community, playing the payment shill together with a mole of a sister-program, this is indeed a thing, one can be proud on.

This was one of the biggest scandals here on GPWA this autumn, but only a fistful of people recognized it.

I was myself a real judge in my life in the German Airforce and Lay Judge in civilian life and not such a Kindergarten judge, and if I see, how this term will be smudged by IGB's Buffalo Connection, then I only feel disgust, unfortunately.

Leopold

[Triple7]

If you don't like who wins awards either submit yourself or your favourite site or become a judge...

Or, beside writing about it here, just ignore it. I won't say every nomination is bought, but objectively some nominations are really ridiculous. Just like nominating myself would be.

[Roulette Zeitung]

"some nominations are really ridiculous"

For example 888 (Best Affiliate Manager & Best Affiliate Program) and Bwin (best non-english), one criminal program and one shady program.

Both pay a lot for the booths. Years ago, when Bwin took affiliates for an idiot, IGB'S puppet Alex personally started a Psyop here on GPWA at that time to defend Bwin, which made him look like a fool.

After he declared official here on GPWA some weeks ago, that the Buffalo Crime Family is innocent for everything, his career is over, because no one with decency outside of IGB will give him a job, not even as pool boy.

888 and Bwin?

Either I am handling here with a bunch of complete idiots or most of you are so boneless, that you don't want to see what is going on.

Leopold

[Roulette Zeitung]

What disturbs me, neither Renee nor Celia are on the list, which is a distortion of reality.
It would be an easy win for them.
If you want to give this awards shortlist at least some justification for its existence, why obviously no one nominated Renee or Celia?
No one?

Then I will do that the next time, even if I am everything but a friend of IGB.
Yes, I promise.
It's official.
You can write it directly into your red diary, Alex.
"Sleep last night was fantastic. I dreamed, I was riding on a huge Koi Karp and was drinking on all fours from a dog bowl. Very strange. Leopold will nominate Renee and Celia next time. What shall I do?"

Others are nominated, and Renee and Celia are like the fifth wheel and can only enjoy the cozy atmosphere outside at the liquor stand?

Hello?

Leopold

[Cash Bonus]

Renee and Celia should certainly be on the list.

I fail to see why they are absent from it.

They should be on the top of the list as they are top notch Affiliate Managers.