View Poll Results: Do you approve of High Roller Microgaming Terms?

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes it's fine

    3 11.11%
  • No, what are they thinking?

    10 37.04%
  • It's ok if it is reasonable, ie: 10k+

    7 25.93%
  • No! I think they should lower it to 3k!

    1 3.70%
  • I will not use a microgaming that does this!

    6 22.22%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29
  1. #1
    mojo's Avatar
    mojo is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    4,985
    Thanks
    1,933
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,222 Posts

    Default Do you approve of the High Roller Term?

    The High Roller Term in essence quarentines your player at Microgamings if they win a certain amount. It may seem fine on appearence. However, affiliate lose. The quarentine starts the month your player wins. Meaning you lose from all of your other players.

    Please see these threads..

    https://www.gpwa.org/forum/t-c-chang...tml#post542835

    https://www.gpwa.org/forum/test-my-f...es-180980.html

    I will post my friend CPA's post as he explains it 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!
    Last edited by mojo; 26 May 2009 at 12:45 am.

  2. #2
    mojo's Avatar
    mojo is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    4,985
    Thanks
    1,933
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,222 Posts

    Default

    Star Partner LOWERED it to 3k! Be afraid. Be very afraid.

  3. #3
    mojo's Avatar
    mojo is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    4,985
    Thanks
    1,933
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,222 Posts

    Default

    Are the folks voting 'yes it's fine' working for the casino?

    Please explain your vote.

  4. #4
    Nandakishore's Avatar
    Nandakishore is offline In Memorium, 1935-2014
    Join Date
    December 2006
    Location
    In Germany near Munich
    Posts
    2,104
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks
    931
    Thanked 496 Times in 367 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mojo View Post
    The quarentine starts the month your player wins. Meaning you lose from all of your other players.
    I must say I am quite confused here.

    The §19 of Star Partner T&C says:


    1. If both measures are met (clause 1), then the negative net win generated by the player (high-roller) will be taken forth and compensated against future net win generated by the same player.
    2. The negative balance carried forward cannot be set-off against other players’ net win.

    I thought this means that the negative balance carried forward will effect only the future balance of the same high-roller. Otherwise this clause will contradict
    §9.5. If the account is in a negative position (e.g. because total customer winnings have exceeded total customer losses) a balance of zero will be carried over until the following month.

    If only my interpretation is correct, I can accept this clause. I also don't like that such a crucial exemption of §9.5 occurs way down in §19, and that too without any reference to this clause in §9.

    In any case, I have voted NO.

  5. #5
    mojo's Avatar
    mojo is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    4,985
    Thanks
    1,933
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,222 Posts

    Default

    Thanks Nan.

    The quarentine is a neg carryover. For the winning player only. However, the neg carryover does not apply until the following month. Meaning the month the win occurs in, you lose income from all you other players as well.

    So with a 3k quarentine, every time someone hits that amount, it comes off of your other players and you lose commission for the month it occurs in. The following month you can earn off your other players, providing no one hits again.

    What cpa pointed out is that the player could play back the win the following month and you are then even. However, you have STILL lost income from the other players from that first month that the win occured in. The casino got the win back and also is keeping the income from that first month.

    If this term is going to apply the quarentine it should be fair and should take effect immediatly. The lower the quarentine the more chance you have at losing earnings from your other players.

    Or, you can promote microgamings that don't do this at all and don't carry over negitives.

  6. #6
    Nandakishore's Avatar
    Nandakishore is offline In Memorium, 1935-2014
    Join Date
    December 2006
    Location
    In Germany near Munich
    Posts
    2,104
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks
    931
    Thanked 496 Times in 367 Posts

    Default

    Thanks mojo, that's correct. If an affiliate has a negative amount of 3k in a particular month, he loses that amount no matter whether there is a quarentine or not. But if that player plays back his win next month, the affiliate benefits only if there is no quarentine.

  7. #7
    Dominique's Avatar
    Dominique is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2002
    Location
    The Boonies
    Posts
    4,777
    Thanks
    452
    Thanked 724 Times in 299 Posts

    Default

    The way I am used to this being handled is this:

    The casino has negative carryover in its terms. You look at your stats and you have a huge winner wiping out your earnings. (huge is in the eyes of the beholder).

    You contact your manager and ask to have the winning player "fenced".

    The casino removes the player from your account until he has played the winnings back. At such time he is returned to your account.

    In the meantime, you are not affected by the carryover and the casino recoups the loss.

    That is what I am used to.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Dominique For This Useful Post:

    Daera (1 June 2009)

  9. #8
    Conrad-Gowild Gaming is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    January 2003
    Posts
    324
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 11 Times in 9 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dominique View Post
    The way I am used to this being handled is this:

    The casino has negative carryover in its terms. You look at your stats and you have a huge winner wiping out your earnings. (huge is in the eyes of the beholder).

    You contact your manager and ask to have the winning player "fenced".

    The casino removes the player from your account until he has played the winnings back. At such time he is returned to your account.

    In the meantime, you are not affected by the carryover and the casino recoups the loss.

    That is what I am used to.

    Hi Dominique,

    This is exactly the same way in which our quarantine policy is applied.

    When a player has a big win, you earn in that same month for the rest of your
    players. Before this was introduced affiliates getting zero.


    The bulk of affiliates that participated and voted in our survey opted to get

    earnings on their other players even if a player won over$3,000. Again, before
    affiliates were getting zero for that casino. If and when that player, plays his wins
    back,affiliates start earning on that player after the win has been played back.


    Some do play it back and some do not ever. All casinos are treated separately,

    as always. We have been forthright about this policy from the get-go and have
    everything possible to keep it as transparent as possible.
    Last edited by Conrad-Gowild Gaming; 28 May 2009 at 3:04 am.

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Conrad-Gowild Gaming For This Useful Post:

    Daera (28 May 2009), Dominique (28 May 2009), mojo (28 May 2009)

  11. #9
    Dominique's Avatar
    Dominique is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2002
    Location
    The Boonies
    Posts
    4,777
    Thanks
    452
    Thanked 724 Times in 299 Posts

    Default

    There are two issues with it:

    A "huge win" means something different to each person, depending on the size of the aff account. If you make $100 a month, $1000 is a huge win. It will wipe you out for 10 months if not played back.

    The affected affiliate may not be the apple of your eye at the time, but you really never know whose site will hit the golden spot next, and s/he most certainly will stop sending you players. Affs have mouths to feed too, none can afford to wait for months and keep sending players that could make money to a place where they will not.

    Secondly, it requires a leap of trust from the affiliate. There is no auditing of affiliate accounts in place, so we have to just believe that you will return the player and trust that it will be as soon as the losses are recouped.

    The thing with large winners is that casinos are (or need to be!!!) set up financially to absorb them. The playerbase should be large enough to make this work, and funds for big wins have to be set aside.

    The larger the player base, the easier wins get absorbed. Affiliates have a much smaller player base than casinos, so it is a lot harder for them to absorb a winner.

    That is why casinos initially did not carry over losses. Losing affiliates because they can't wait to crawl out of the hole can be more expensive.

    The "fencing" is a compromise, but as I said, it requires a great deal of trust.

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Dominique For This Useful Post:

    Daera (28 May 2009), mojo (28 May 2009), Nandakishore (28 May 2009)

  13. #10
    mojo's Avatar
    mojo is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    4,985
    Thanks
    1,933
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,222 Posts

    Default

    Originally Posted by ConradH When a player has a big win, you earn in that same month for the rest of your
    players. Before this was introduced affiliates getting zero.
    Thank you for the discussion.

    Speaking from experience, the earnings from other players the month the win occurs is lost. This has not happened to me at Star but it did happen at Playshare. The terms are similar:


    From Playshare:

    If both of the above criteria are met (see point I) then the negative net win generated by the high-roller will be carried forward and offset against future net win generated by that high-roller.
    From Star Partner:

    If both measures are met (clause 1), then the negative net win generated by the player (high-roller) will be taken forth and compensated against future net win generated by the same player.
    The terms say forward, future etc. I read it to be the same at Star Partner as it is at Playshare.

    I can understand the casino not wanting affiliates to earn on losses but it is hard to swallow when not all programs do this and I will quote CPA again..

    #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.

    In my case my player hit 50k. The 50k was carried forward. However if he hit 9999 it would not have effected me. The quarentine amount should be deducted from the carryover. In other words, 10k quarentine would therefore carry over 40k. I did NOT receive payment for my other players the month the win occured in and was told the terms were clear.

    So the affiliate is punished first by losing the income from other players in the month of the hit and secondly by not having the priviledge of the first 10k forgiven. It's a lose - lose for the affiliate which we need to be aware of when chosing programs that impliment this.

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mojo For This Useful Post:

    Daera (28 May 2009), Nandakishore (28 May 2009)

  15. #11
    mojo's Avatar
    mojo is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    4,985
    Thanks
    1,933
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,222 Posts

    Default

    Now Roxy has added this negitive carryover..

    https://www.gpwa.org/forum/roxy-affi...cy-181364.html


  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mojo For This Useful Post:

    Daera (1 June 2009), Dominique (1 June 2009)

  17. #12
    kwblue's Avatar
    kwblue is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    August 2005
    Posts
    832
    Thanks
    404
    Thanked 679 Times in 262 Posts

    Default

    This one is pssibly worse because previously they had a 'No Negative Carryover' Policy and it appears they could apply this to all affiliates. Which means they are in breach of their own contract if they apply this to affiliates who signed up for 'No Negative Carryover'.

    It also means they will be marked as predatory at AGD if they are going to retroactively apply this term. If anyone has a good contact at Roxy, let me know
    Last edited by kwblue; 1 June 2009 at 1:43 pm. Reason: Worded poorly

  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to kwblue For This Useful Post:

    AmCan (1 June 2009), Daera (1 June 2009), Dominique (1 June 2009), Engineer (1 June 2009)

  19. #13
    Engineer's Avatar
    Engineer is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2007
    Posts
    524
    Thanks
    488
    Thanked 437 Times in 211 Posts

    Default

    I don't approve of this at all, especially if it's a retroactive change.

    Please consider scrapping these complicated high roller clauses. If you absolutely MUST have a "high roller" term for whatever reason, please make the rules applicable only to new players -- not the existing player base. Otherwise it is basically a breach of the original terms and conditions affiliates signed up under.

    kw, I posted contact info for Roxy's Conrad at AGD.

  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Engineer For This Useful Post:

    AmCan (1 June 2009), Daera (1 June 2009), Dominique (1 June 2009)

  21. #14
    Dominique's Avatar
    Dominique is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2002
    Location
    The Boonies
    Posts
    4,777
    Thanks
    452
    Thanked 724 Times in 299 Posts

    Default

    While "fencing" a winner by request of the affiliate is fine for a program that has negative carryovers, suddenly creating a negative carryover clause for existing affiliates is breach of contract, whether it adds a "fencing" clause or not.

  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Dominique For This Useful Post:

    Daera (1 June 2009), Engineer (1 June 2009), kwblue (1 June 2009), TheGooner (1 June 2009)

  23. #15
    TheCPA's Avatar
    TheCPA is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    December 1969
    Posts
    2,372
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked 350 Times in 166 Posts

    Default

    Guard Dog said this in the other thread:
    Roxy Affiliates, previously a no negative carryover affiliate program are now carrying over negatives for large winners

    You can see the full terms alert at:

    Roxy Affiliates Carry Over Negatives - High Roller Policy


    This is a bummer for me. I know that the term is not 100% predatory, but it is not one that I enjoy and causes me to stop promoting places where this term is in place.
    Sorry Dog.
    I love you, and appreciate all you have tried to do..... but any program that inflicts a negative terms change RETROACTIVELY on affiliates is 100% PREDATORY and should be deemed Unacceptable by any reputable Affiliate Watch Dog organization, or Webmaster Forum.

    To endorse or otherwise write this kind of thing off based on the "Classic" we can screw you anyway we want to clause, {that ALL programs have in their terms}, is irresponsible, IMO.
    Last edited by TheCPA; 1 June 2009 at 6:04 pm.

  24. #16
    kwblue's Avatar
    kwblue is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    August 2005
    Posts
    832
    Thanks
    404
    Thanked 679 Times in 262 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCPA View Post
    Guard Dog said this in the other thread:


    Sorry Dog.
    I love you, and appreciate all you have tried to do..... but any program that inflicts a negative terms change RETROACTIVELY on affiliates is PREDATORY and should be deemed Unacceptable by any reputable Affiliate Watch Dog organization, or Webmaster Forum.

    To endorse or otherwise write this kind of thing off based on the "Classic" we can screw you anyway we want to clause, {that ALL programs have in their terms}, is irresponsible, IMO.
    You are right and I did mention that above. I just need to change that statement in the specific thread you mention.

    Any retroactive change that negatively affects earnings is predatory.

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to kwblue For This Useful Post:

    TheGooner (1 June 2009)

  26. #17
    TheCPA's Avatar
    TheCPA is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    December 1969
    Posts
    2,372
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked 350 Times in 166 Posts

    Default

    Hi Andy.
    Sorry for the agression, but this B.S. is starting to **** ME OFF!
    It's happening mostly at MG's and this extremely disturbing, IMO.

    I understand things are probably pretty tight for the casinos since UIEGA, and MG pulled out of the U.S.,.........but let me tell you,....it's hurting the affiliates bad too.

    The last thing affiliates need is for the programs to turn on them, and tweak out even more of their earnings. It's bullshit, IMO.
    We all need to survive and live to see them re-enter the U.S..

    Many of us paid the price for 10 years or more to help get us ALL to this point.
    Retroactive,...NEGATIVE Terms changes to all the folks that have been loyal and faithful over the years is like taking a KNIFE in the back.

    Yes it is 100% Predatory, and VERY wrong!

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TheCPA For This Useful Post:

    kwblue (2 June 2009), TheGooner (1 June 2009)

  28. #18
    villa10 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2007
    Posts
    188
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 13 Times in 12 Posts

    Default

    I voted NO, but I have three scenarios.

    For new players it is not the best plan for affiliates, but we can choice with which casinos we'll working in the future. And eventually if this induistry is a good place to stay.

    For former players is predatory. A players base is acquired on the basis of money/time/knowledge, and this retroactive change is abusive.

    My guess is that the quarantine scheme will be lower in the future, and that our players base acquired from now, will be affected with future quarantine minimums.

    In fact my guess is that all winners from 1$ to infinite $$$ will be quarantined in the future. Regulations and taxes could make this real.
    Last edited by villa10; 2 June 2009 at 11:33 am.

  29. #19
    matted's Avatar
    matted is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    June 2004
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    2,685
    Thanks
    118
    Thanked 328 Times in 222 Posts

    Default

    It is a complicated issues - I certainly appreciate the discussion on the topic.

    From my point, I think it can be done in a way that is fair to affiliates. Just like how affiliates do not like their entire earnings wiped out by a single player on a winning streak, the casinos do not like removing carryover when the player will just lose it all back the next month. These players can throw the laws of averages off - even for the larger affiliates. (And contrary to Dom's post, not all of us can contact a program and get a player fenced... we just do not have the clout).

    So, I am fine with it provided the terms are clear and fair... And an affiliate has the ability to opt out (and continue earnings or a settlement for old players)

    It is a bigger issue, but I feel ANY T&C change should provide for an affiliate to opt out with a fair payout for their player base. The nature of rev share leads to a codependent and unhealthy business relationship.
    Owner, Cognitive Powers, Inc.
    Soon to be ex-webmaster
    Facebook, Twitter, and Linked In

  30. #20
    KasinoKing's Avatar
    KasinoKing is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    February 2009
    Location
    Hastings by the sea - England
    Posts
    158
    Thanks
    125
    Thanked 102 Times in 54 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mojo View Post
    The player is quarantined 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!
    I've read this 3 times - but I still don't see how the casino is getting a "DOUBLE BANG"
    (Please correct me if I'm wrong!)

    If they didn't have the quarantine system, in April your commission would be zero anyway if one player won $10K and all the others lost $10K.
    Then if he played it back in May you would get commission from him + nett commission from all other losing players.

    So all you lose with the Quarantine system is the High Rollers May commission.

    Of course affiliates don't like that, but it is really fair when you think about it.
    I would certainly much prefer that to Negative Carry-Over; Last month one of my players had a VERY big win at ClubWorld, which means I probably wont see another cent of commission from them for well over a year...
    (Last time someone won just 1/3 of the amount I didn't get a bean for 6-months).

    KK
    Slots Addict, Golf Lover & Webmaster.
    KasinoKing.co.uk : All the best casinos on the internet today (and Sky Vegas).
    Rival Gaming Slots : Slots info and Welcome Bonuses sorted from Best to Worst.
    Slot Beaters : Slots Strategies, Statistics, Reel Layouts & Best Bonuses.

  31. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to KasinoKing For This Useful Post:

    Dominique (4 June 2009), TheGamblingGuru (4 June 2009)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •