When are bonus codes better than rakeback?

[jdwanchalk]

I have a review site that I am working on and have both bonus codes and rakeback offered.

The site is purely for reviews and no strategy/news whatsoever.

I have been wondering if I am burning money by offering rakeback. I inform players what it is as well as how to sign up for it through me.

Now, if this were a strategy site it is more likely that players already know what rakeback is and would insist they have it, but with a review site am I not catering to players who are largely unaware of rakeback?

I will have to re-do a lot of the site, but so be it. I have just been thinking more and more about the ~30% rev share I would be giving up unnecessarily.

Any input?

[Pokerkeep]

From a player's perspective, I want both. In most cases you can get rakeback and the bonus so why settle for one or the other?

As an affiliate, I love rooms that don't offer rakeback - 25% - 40% commission beats the shit out of 3% - 8% unless the players are dedicated rakers.

My strategy has been to offer a large enough mix of rooms that I get both types of players.

[Newjabber]

Make some sites with rakeback, and make some sites with bonuses.

But if rakeback is possible at a site, then offer it or take a big chance of loosing the player pretty quicky to another rakeback affiliate.

[jdwanchalk]

I believe my question was misunderstood.

I do have rooms that do and do not offer rakeback on the site. That is not my dilemma, the dilemma is whether to solely offer bonuses from all sites.

Yes, I will lose rakeback players, but I think that will be outweighed by the amount of players that sign up and I get 30-40% revshare that would have otherwise earned me 3-8% if they saw that rakeback was offered.

Does that make sense? Maybe an example would better explain my point.

If you are at an amusement park and you see a hot dog vendor selling a hot dog for $2 and don't know another vendor is selling a hot dog for $2 with a drink included, will you not simply purchase the original hot dog for $2?

Of course you would. Now, pretend you see the first vendor and the second vendor were next to each other. You would then go to the second vendor in order to get a hot dog and drink for the same price (bonus and rakeback). From the amusement park's perspective, it would be better to only offer the hot dog alone for $2. But some visitors will know a drink might be available (rakeback) and not take you up on your offer.

I am banking on the amount of people buying the hot dog alone for $2 outweighing the amount of people who would see the second vendor and visitors who step aside without a drink regardless of what I offer.

Make sense?

There are two scenarios...

1. Players don't know about rakeback and would get rakeback only if they found out about it

2. Player's don't know about rakeback and sign up for bonus because it is all that they are aware of being available

Of course I will lose players who demand rakeback, but would that not be outweighed by players who I get 30-40% for as opposed to the 3-8% I would get had I advertised rakeback?


So hard to explain everything that makes sense to me to everyone else.

[MPC]

The person who get's the $2 hotdog with no drink will wander around and eventually spot the hotdog stand that offers the $2 hotdog+drink. When they get hungry again, they'll go to the second spot without consideration for the first vendor.

That is the risk you are taking. In the long run, some of these "new" players you sign up via bonus offers will come to realize that they can get a better deal, and they'll take it. Having said that, A LOT of players still don't know anything about rakeback and there is plenty of money to be made by none rakeback.

I just think the trend is that people or promoting RB more and more, and it's just a matter of time for it to become the main thing. Rooms don't care, they make the same profit. It's the affiliates who cut their paycheck by offering RB.

If you want to promote what is in the best interest of players, then promote RB. If you want to promote what's best for you, that could be either bonuses or RB depending on your target market.

[leporello]

Im really starting to consider investing more time in non rakeback poker projects. The majoirty of organic rakeback signups are very low value and commissions are obviously much lower. I also think that the rakeback niche is far more saturated.

[Newjabber]

I believe my question was misunderstood.

Nope not at all, you just dident understand the answer

Like i said when you bonus players find out about rakeback you will loose then unless then dont play much, just like MPC said.
Offcourse 1000 players that dont play much but earns you 40% adds up.
Rakeback players usually also get a welcome bonus, but sometimes its deducted from your earnings, at some sites its not deducted.

There is really no straight answer to your question.
Its like poker, there is a luck factor involved.
Thats why i say do some bonus sites, and some rakeback sites.
I myself have gotten lucky a few times and landed some players making me thousands of $ in a few months, who were not getting rakeback.
I think that the perfect site, is a site that dosent offer rakeback, but have a good reward system.
So you earn 30-40% and the player gets "cashback" or whatever the site wanna call it, and also have some "points" races or whatever that are attractive to players and make them play much.
I have few rakeback sites because its a very competetive marked, and its much easier to get success with bonus/regular sites.
But then again, everything changes all the time and lying sleepless last night i was braining domaines names. Ended up getting out of bed after trying to sleep for 2 hours, to check on some sites i had been thinking about and picked up a killer .net rakeback domaine that is both very brandable, and very keyword rich.

Bare in mind that i am no expert, and this is just my oppinion.
(and my english is still not perfect)

[Ridge]

I have to say it, but again if you are getting 3-8% Margins on Rakeback, you are getting ripped off. The smallest margin I have is 12% and the largest is 40%, combine the margins with the FACT that rakeback players are on average worth more than twice a non rakeback player, then the choice is clear. Also consider what everyone else has mentioned about the player eventually finding rakeback, and feeling cheated at not getting it in the first place. Do you think they will continue to be loyal to the website that gave them the worst deal? Would you?

[Bryan]

I have to say it, but again if you are getting 3-8% Margins on Rakeback, you are getting ripped off. The smallest margin I have is 12% and the largest is 40%, combine the margins with the FACT that rakeback players are on average worth more than twice a non rakeback player, then the choice is clear. Also consider what everyone else has mentioned about the player eventually finding rakeback, and feeling cheated at not getting it in the first place. Do you think they will continue to be loyal to the website that gave them the worst deal? Would you?

You don't promote rakeback at Full Tilt?

[Ridge]

Ah ya got me, but I am maxed out there. SO discounting FT, then.

You obviously are looking to make a point rather than engage in a discussion though. I hope everyone else will look at the point in my post though.