If You're Promoting RTGs Then You Should Read This

[bb1web]

Hi all and thanks for coming in,

I'm very concerned with the 180 day idle account term at RTGs and you should be too.

As I understand it to be ... that any casino account not logged into for 180 days is closed, the money (if any) is forfeited.

If RTGs are closing accounts if left idle for 6 months then this is potentially a lot of money taken away from you ... at a time when you probably could use it most.

Here's why my concern.

a few years ago ... getting on to be quite a few ... I stopped promoting RB because they had slipped to a point where I didn't even make enough to meet the minimum for a monthly payment ... and they had stayed that way for months on end ... finally I couldn't justify allowing them to shoulder up next to places which were making thousands.

Its not fair to the ones making the money to let others free-ride like that (sorry but that's how I see it) ...

anyway that account sat idle for many months .. perhaps a year or more (I'm telling this from memory) and then while I had completely removed the RB properties from all but the most remote spots

all sudden after perhaps a year's time ... the account started making money again into the 5 figures.

It kept paying 5 figures for about a year's time ... every month.

That money obviously came from players who hadn't played for well over 180 days.

Had that been a RTG sponsor that closes accounts after 180 days if not active .. nothing for the affiliate.

That's not to say the players wouldn't seek to play again when they did decide to return ... its just a sure-bet that the aff won't be seeing any further money out of the deal.


That's a lot of money lost just because of a stupid term that removes player accounts for no legit reason.

......

I'm curious, when the casino closes that account ... if the player returns say a year or two later ... who is that player tagged under?


I am not the only aff that I know of ... who has seen the above mentioned experience where it would have made a difference of tens of thousands ... (perhaps the other will see this thread and chime in)

Or perhaps one of you has had similar experience.

at very least it is obvious to myself that I need to make clear to readers on my sites that they need to log into their accounts at least once every 6 months in order to stay in good standings but as you all know that doesn't work nearly as well as ... perhaps removing the damn term in the first place

... I was told politely by CP that the term stays ... followed up of course by the traditional (this is not a direct quote) "We'll never use that term because ... "



I bet for every "we'll never use that term" that I have heard uttered ... there has at some point in time ... been that term used .. or at least attempted to be used ... at least once.


The term is (by my guess) a standard set of terms handed out by RTG for casinos to use ... because it was either very poorly thought out which would explain why it is still showing up on more than one RTG powered casino ... or somebody else besides myself ... has experience with how much money stands to be lost ... or gained ... if this term is used.

I realize some of you may think no big deal ... but trust me .. it is .. and if the time ever comes when you've fallen out of grace with google or for some reason can't convert traffic ... this is the stuff that gets you thru to the next good run

it IS important. Ask yourself .. if it was such a non-issue ... why'd they bother to put it in the terms in the first place? Its not like it costs a ton of money to keep a few extra accounts on a software that must exist anyway.

[casinojack]

PLEASE note that not all RTG casino have this. We do not NOT have this term in ours for example.

[AE-Martyn]

Hi bb1,

Just thought I would pipe up on this one and clarify this as i believe you have misunderstood it.

First off. I wanted to clarify that the players affiliate tag is not removed so the player remains linked to the affiliates account that referred them. So if the player returns then you see this reflected in your stats.

OK, on this 180 day rule. Any funds that are removed from a players account is actually benefitting you directly as an affiliate, and here is why. If a player has some cash left in their account and the 180th day is approaching then we as a company attempt to make contact with the player by any means possible based on the details they left us, phone, email, fax whatever.

If for whatever reason we cannot contact the player, yes the funds are removed. In doing so, you, the affiliate get paid out on the cash amount from that players account as it affects the overall Net Win figure.

Net Win is the figure that your commissions are calculated on.

The balance that has been removed is not forfeited or lost just simply removed so that the negative affect dormant accounts give does not roll over for months/years.

If the player returns (they still have their affiliate tag) and they say, 'oi buddy, where's the cash I left in my account 6 months ago?' then this will be added back to the players account without issue. The player account is not closed.

If the cash is left hanging around then this will affect your balance negatively going forward.

If the term was not in the terms and conditions and this happened surely the player would be concerned as to why we have dipped in their account and taken the balance without warning?

I hope I have explained this clearly and I wish to point out that this is how its done at our group of casinos which currently include Club USA, Club UK, Club Euro, Aladdin's Gold and Lucky Red.

P.S. Our accounts don't like the term either, as it costs us money paying out on the affiliate commissions for all the removed balances from dormant accounts.


BB1, I am about to drop you an email also please keep an eye out for it. Thanks.

[universal4]

the negative affect dormant accounts give

How can money sitting in a players account be any kind of negative?

Since commissions are based on netwin, money sitting in an idle account does NOT affect the netwin in any way. (the operator does in fact earn interest on this money though)

Sure, the idle money is in a spreadsheet cell in the operators backend somewhere, but that still does NOT change the netwin on that players account.

If the cash is left hanging around then this will affect your balance negatively going forward.

How? Money sitting in an account does NOT affect the netwin for the first 5 months and 29 days, why would it affect the netwin figure after 181 days?


Rick
Universal4

[offyourface]

How can money sitting in a players account be any kind of negative?

I think any monies sitting in a players account would typically be bonus money given, and affiliates are dinged 40% of this money as soon as it is given which is why it creates a negative for the affiliate.

This goes back to all the fantasy funny money given out by rtg programs and how it drops our bottom line as an affiliate even though this bonus money never leaves the casino door. Even if this bonus money is never played, we are still paying 40% or whatever as soon as it is given.

Knowing that cwc flushes this money if its not played after 180 days is definitely a good thing since it returns the % (our portion) we already paid out on it. I am curious though how all rtg programs work regarding this.

Martyn feel free to correct me if my understanding of this is wrong.

[MainStAffs]

PLEASE note that not all RTG casino have this. We do not NOT have this term in ours for example.

Agreed. Please do not paint all RTG's with the same brush. I would also suggest and request you edit your thead title to the particulars.

Mainstreet Affiliates does not have this term in our T&C's.

Thanks,

Jason

[universal4]

I think Steve worded his post very well, and I think the title fits the post well and does NOT need edited.

He posted this because in fact it does affect a lot of RTG's and like he posted, it could be due in part to a set of rules that are supplied to opertaors as a default.

Thank you for clarifying the terms that your properties use Jason, as that clarifies it for players and affiliates alike.

Rick
Universal4

[AE-Martyn]

How can money sitting in a players account be any kind of negative?

Since commissions are based on netwin, money sitting in an idle account does NOT affect the netwin in any way. (the operator does in fact earn interest on this money though)

Sure, the idle money is in a spreadsheet cell in the operators backend somewhere, but that still does NOT change the netwin on that players account.


How? Money sitting in an account does NOT affect the netwin for the first 5 months and 29 days, why would it affect the netwin figure after 181 days?


Rick
Universal4

OK Rick here is a scenario for you which happened not to long ago. A player referred by an affiliate on a free chip code won around 10k or so. After trying to cash out the full amount the player was informed as the bonus was won on a free chip that there is a max cashout amount was around $250.

The player took the $250 and left the remainder of the balance in the account and did not return, thus leaving a wedge in the account and a negative balance on the affiliate account that will never be cleared.

The balance was removed and the affiliates account looked much healthier.

This should demonstrate how and why this rule is in place, and how you benefit from it and also how it DOES or how it CAN create an issue.

180 days gives a player a decent amount of time to return to the casino. Stats show that generally that is the amount of time that players are unlikely to ever return.

As I said, if the player returns then there is no issue with returning the balance.

Can you see how it is of benefit?

[AE-Martyn]

Hi BB1 and Rick, did I make this any clearer and why this 180 day rule actually works in your favour?

Please let me know.

Cheers,

[bb1web]

there is a max cashout amount was around $250.

The player took the $250 and left the remainder of the balance in the account and did not return, thus leaving a wedge in the account and a negative balance on the affiliate account that will never be cleared.

If the most that can be taken out is $250, then how does any amount over that ever come into play? (I mean aside it perhaps needing to be taken off stats by accounting)

there is a max cashout amount was around $250.

The player took the $250 and left the remainder of the balance in the account and did not return, thus leaving a wedge in the account and a negative balance on the affiliate account that will never be cleared.

The balance was removed and the affiliates account looked much healthier.

so you're saying that Rick waited 6 months to get paid for money that was withheld as being won ... on an account which could never have paid out that money.

Martyn I like you but you're going backwards my friend (unless I'm wrong on perception of your statement).

[bb1web]

I should add that I'm very happy to hear that players stay tagged to us.

[AE-Martyn]

I think maybe I am not explaining it very well. It is a weird one but you do benefit longterm.

Plus are we the only program that does this? Just wondering why noone else has piped up?

If the most that can be taken out is $250, then how does any amount over that ever come into play? (I mean aside it perhaps needing to be taken off stats by accounting)

The amount comes into play as its been won and hit the players account therefore reflecting in your stats. Then as you say, it needs to be removed.

so you're saying that Rick waited 6 months to get paid for money that was withheld as being won ... on an account which could never have paid out that money.

It's possible, but again it depends on the case and what the players actions were...Free chip, deposit bonus, max cashout etc. My explanation was just an example.

Martyn I like you but you're going backwards my friend (unless I'm wrong on perception of your statement).

I like you to...but I thought that was our little secret?

[offyourface]

Plus are we the only program that does this? Just wondering why noone else has piped up?

I don't know how every program does this, but if I found out one of my players had won $10K off a coupon that had a max cashout of $250 and the program didn't eventually remove the excess balance resulting in me paying 40% of $9750, then we would definitely have a major problem. I would consider that theft.

[bb1web]

Even having to wait 6 months before its removed from the equation is not right.

any money that can never be included into the bottom line .. should never be included into the equation for any times other than noting that it was removed for obvious reason.

even having that money come into play for that month is not right because it concievably removes income that is justifiably earned .. and that we count on every month.

For instance ... on 30% commission 10k is 3000
If the aff had earned $2000 for the month .. instead of being paid $2000 ... they are paid nothing ... all on money that was never, ever going to be paid out.

..........

that said.. . brings us back to the original point of my thread, minus the information that the player stays tagged to us but the account is deleted of funds. Which is what he term SHOULD say for many obvious reasons .. the most being that the player never feels that their account is at risk .. so they never have reason to question whether or not they should/can return to play. As it is ... the term leads us to believe that if we didn't return within 6 months that we would no longer have an account at the casino.

If I NOW understand what you're saying .. then that wouldn't be true.

is that the case?


.......


On a side, side note: Martyn has brought up a very interesting scenario that amazingly enough .. I don't think any of us ever questioned before now .... and reason is because we never thought it would be something to have issue with.

I cannot help but wonder how many times I have had a player win money at an RTG which they could never actually cash out ... that effected my income directly such as voiding my entire income for that month.

hmmm.

I take this opportunity to state that not all RTGs may use the 180 day rule as a cut-off date to refigure stats but as I understand it to have been presented by Martyn ... apparently is a possiblity.

I'm not even sure exactly where GW stands on the issue as he's got me confused if nobody else: what formula is used at GW: is money that cannot be cashed out ... taken out of the equation THAT month ... or is it allowed to sit on the books for 6 months?

[mojo]

From an affiliate perspective, money left in an account affects us is if the program has a negitive carryover. In that case it helps to have it removed.

From the casino end, I would imagine that the 180 day rule is helpful when doing the books etc and showing positive results. General housekeeping so to speak. So if someone is playing with a free chip and has a balance of 1k but hasn't met the playthrough and gives up. Then there is a negitive that isn't real money. I think there are lots of scenerios and some sort of rule should be in place.

I have no problem with a rule like that. However, if a player comes back and requests their funds after the 180 days then they must have it returned. That is the problem we saw recently at Rushmore. They refused to give back 2k. They finally did but CM took them off the accredited list for a bit. Another problem was that the casino made no effort to contact the player to tell him they were closing the account. Source

Good thread bb1. There is a danger to those who implement this rule. Players could possibly view it as a way for casinos to 'acquire' funds if not done respectfully.

[Caruso]

OK, on this 180 day rule. Any funds that are removed from a players account is actually benefitting you directly as an affiliate, and here is why. If a player has some cash left in their account and the 180th day is approaching then we as a company attempt to make contact with the player by any means possible based on the details they left us, phone, email, fax whatever.

If for whatever reason we cannot contact the player, yes the funds are removed. In doing so, you, the affiliate get paid out on the cash amount from that players account as it affects the overall Net Win figure.

LMAO.

Goodie goodie. Casino and affiliates are OK. Rob the player and pay the affiliate.

Glad we got that sorted.

Oooh, here's a novel thought, CWC Martin (that's "Casino Web Cam", right?). How about rather than robbing the player of his money, you just send it back to him?

I know I know, stupid idea. Pay the player? As in, give the player money that's legitimately his?

I must've lost it.

There is a danger to those who implement this rule. Players could possibly view it as a way for casinos to 'acquire' funds if not done respectfully.

No kidding?

[mojo]

LMAO.

Goodie goodie. Casino and affiliates are OK. Rob the player and pay the affiliate.

Glad we got that sorted.

Oooh, here's a novel thought, CWC Martin (that's "Casino Web Cam", right?). How about rather than robbing the player of his money, you just send it back to him?

We are not on the same page. If the casino makes every effort to contact the player and gets no results, then remove it. If the player comes back, regardless when, give it back. Simple.

Who know where the player is. Deceased? Life in prison? Moved to a mountain cave?

The same works for player chargebacks. How long should that sit in there.

Yes, some casinos will take advantage of the rule. But not all. CWC/Martyn is not one that would do that and 'rob'.

[universal4]

Caruso, CWC is Club World

BB1, GWages formula is pretty simple to understand.

If you send players and you make money, they do a coupon, bonus or any other creative bookkeeping so that your commissions fall back to as near to zero as possible for as many months as necessary that you continue to send visitors.

Rick
Universal4

[offyourface]

Even having to wait 6 months before its removed from the equation is not right.

Although I agree with you here, waiting 180 days is something I personally can live with. Naturally I would prefer to have this money that can never be withdrawn by the player flushed immediately, but it all comes back around. So as long as they do eventually flush this money and return any portion of revenue that has previously counted against me, then it's sort of a wash imo. It might actually be a nice shot in the arm after 180 days, although truth be told I would much rather have it now.

In a perfect world, any player money that cannot be withdrawn should be completely irrevalant when it comes to affiliate commissions. This would include winnings off a free chip that has a max withdrawal term attached to it and also non cashable bonus money given that can never be withdrawn. This especially comes into play with all these huge 400% bonus offers, we are being taxed on money that shoud not even be in the equation and I would definitely like to see this changed by rtg. This would handle most of my concerns in one swoop.

I just viewed my total stats history with some of the rtg programs I promote and nothing seems out of the ordinary - at least with cwc, mainstreet and c-planet. With my stats there is less than a 5% margin between deposits, less withdrawals then comparing that to the netwin. And chances are the 5% difference is just current balances in active players accounts. This tells me these particular rtg programs are being fair with affiliates and not taxing us indefinitely when it comes to player bonuses which is nice to see. I get all crazy everytime these threads come up saying wait a minute, this is not right. And then I go and check my stats and am reminded that things are pretty much the way they should be with my revenue, at least with cwc, mainstreet and c-planet.

[Caruso]

We are not on the same page. If the casino makes every effort to contact the player and gets no results, then remove it. If the player comes back, regardless when, give it back. Simple.

Well yes, but that is nowhere in sight. The casino is not putting it back if and when the player returns. They are stealing that money. It is beyond gobsmacking that casinos consider this their right. Club World's response here is just jaw-dropping. The contempt in which they must hold their players.

Thanks for the clarification, Rick. I should have realised myself that Casino Webcam didn't use RTG, LOL.