Doylesroom, To promote or not?

[pipeline]

Has anyone been in the loop with Doylesroom now that they will be on the Cakenetwork. They had god awful commissions before, just wondering if they'll be loosening up or if it's going to be the same old backend/program.

I don't know about anyone else but after losing our players for the second time, it'll take good cpa's not 25% rev share to get affiliates back.

[Beanie]

if you have to ask you might already know the answer. I know there is a tendency to jump in to be in the ground floor with this type of stuff but I think a little bit of wait and see is in order for this group.

[pipeline]

Yea, I imagine no but just wishful thinking. I do hope at least they have to go to the income access backend.

[MJ]

Yea, I imagine no but just wishful thinking. I do hope at least they have to go to the income access backend.

Man their current backend is so bad.

The one plus Roger is you have a cake network option with a casino, remember that was part of the hype with Cardspike.

[Ridge]

Man I dunno, I had some players when they were Tribeca, then lost them.. Now I have a crappy deal with Doyle's the AM's are snotty, but I have some good signups, but low income..

So I'm sure we are losing our players again?? Even if not, cake payouts suck and after their demonstration that they care little about what types of sites are on their network cough**cardspike***cough****, I just don't know..

Jeremy: Can you talk to your buddies at paw about getting us a good CPA deal for Doyles on the new network??

[pokerprop]

after their demonstration that they care little about what types of sites are on their network cough**cardspike***cough****, I just don't know..

Cake actually responded saying they were looking into it to make sure affiliates were getting paid. Even if they do nothing further, this is a lot more than you're likely going to get out of Microgaming.

[Ridge]

I'm not getting into it, but they have handled this like total shit prop.. they should give a shit when affiliates on their network don't get paid for 4 months.. They should care BEFORE we launch a media blitz.. I'm not impressed..

[MJ]

Prop's point is just look at the tusk skins.

[pokerprop]

I disagree for reasons I've already shared numerous times. I think Cake getting involved at all was a mistake, however I can see their reasons with a PR hit and all.

CardSpike is super tiny compared to the problems other networks have had. Not Party, Not Ongame, Not iPoker ever stepped in that I recall to bail out players that were stiffed. Microgaming did on two occasions and then stopped - in fact I could even see where some players should have a legitimate gripe against that networks actions - but again Microgaming never claimed they'd be responsible for players funds and neither did any of these networks. It is not their roll and I think taking shots at the one network who actually stepped in and commented is amazingly backwards. Cake never said that by promoting their competitor: players, affiliates or anyone elses funds would be secure. Assuming they were and putting blame on them is just... actually is just beyond words.

[Ridge]

Just because Microgaming and ongame are irresponsible is NOT a good excuse for Cake. Also, it is a horrible way to grow their brand.. Its just a bad argument to say:

Not Party, Not Ongame, Not iPoker ever stepped in that I recall to bail out players that were stiffed.

I can make several dumb analogies to make my point, but you are smart enough to know what I'm saying.. This is just a case we we have to agree to disagree..

Back on topic, I'm sure I will promote Doyle's, but I will expect to lose players in a year or so So I'll be going for a CAP.. A PAW CPA or hybrid would be really nice..