Consequences of "under-the-table" rakeback deals?

[Self Made]

What are the consequences of privately offering/accepting rakeback deals that violate a site's rules? E.g. the site might not allow rakeback, or only allows deals up to a certain percentage but you offer higher. These deals happen all the time, and I'm skeptical that there are many consequences to them. A player told me they were afraid to do them because he though he could have his account closed and lose his money (which I'm very skeptical of). But I thought I'd ask about the risk to a player/affiliate just to know.

[pokerprop]

I doubt there is too much risk to the player. On the affiliate side I've had legit balances confiscated from a room I never broke their rules, due to having been previously blacklisted on network. In one case I am near certain the poker room (a large one too) freerolled against me, but at time (mid 2007) I was habitual offender, breaking rules elsewhere and getting paid (wasn't worth it on the skin that stole from me) so I never made a public issue out of it. To be clear all players I sent that particular room followed terms and conditions - but because I was blacklisted from the network this room decided they didn't need to pay me and kept the players I sent. By time 2008 rolled around I lost interest in gaming the system and decided to focus more on delivering value to visitors and the rooms and collect money in process.

[pokerworx]

Battlefield Poker = players lose affiliate/s??

[parttimepoker]

"a player told me", huh?

[Self Made]

Uh... yes.

[fina100]

I doubt they would ever close the account of any player who is generating a significant amount of rake, but the affiliate revenue would certainly be in the sites cross hairs.

[pokerworx]

"a player told me", huh?

Just cause of the spam Im answering, think I still have the image of my bankroll sitting at battlefield somewhere on my computer! They fuked me right up! Plz dont mess with me on this issue because whatever you say I am right and got robbed as did many others. So Tfuk You mate!

[parttimepoker]

i have no idea what the hell you're talking about. try harder.

my post was simply meant to say that the OP sounded a whole lot like "a friend of mine has this problem and i was wondering...", which is to say he wasn't asking for a friend but for himself.

[pokerprop]

This thread takes a moment to process, but then gets quite funny once understood.

I don't think there was too much to read into in the OP. If reading into it says something like "I tried offering private rakeback and my player was skeptical" or "hey I want to offer private rakeback, what are my risks?" or was just cassual. Either way the friend reference didn't at all seem to be a cover up thing - the question seemed pretty straight forward.

So what happened is: Chris responded reading into it a bit or w/e.

Then his response was misunderstood by pokerworx, who though the a player told me was directed at his post of "Battlefield Poker = players lose affiliate/s?? " as to stay something like yeah a player told you they lost at Battlefield huh? which triggered a retaliation post.

Its actually pretty funny after deciphering who is reading what how and what each is responding to.

"What we've got here is (a) failure to communicate" Cool Hand Luke

[GFPC]

@Prop - that is my favorite MOVIE of all time. I love that one. You just made my night by reminding me of it!!



Sorry for derailing guys!