One idea to regulate rakeback on networks

[gavacho]

Hey all,

I am not a RB aff and have nothing against RB affs, but i had an idea about how to regulate RB on networks. I understand operators are rewarded by the network by the rake they generate, but why would networks not introduce rewards also by the overall money in and money out?
After all it is a question of balance, and money lost by operators would be favorable to fish tanks such as the poker rooms from traditionnal bookies, and there would be less temptations from operators to grant these under the table deals. Next step would be for the operators to chase affiliates doing their own under the table deals, not that easy...

Any thoughts? It would be cool to communicate this thread to operators and networks themselves by the way, i'd love to hear their thoughts.

[Graham]

What is the problem you are trying to resolve?

[gavacho]

under the table deals granted from operators and from affiliates which imho are not good for the industry.
Am i too idealistic?

[Graham]

I don't think its that big of an issue. The only site that is bad at this is Full Tilt, but unfortunately they aren't a network and can do whatever they want.

[tiburon]

My view on rakeback these days:

Tare.ro - filme tari, plus clipuri, melodii si faze tari

[gavacho]

It's somehow hard to believe that some rooms on iPoker do not do it though, from the numerous testimonials which we can find on this forum.
Would these "deals" only be proposed by affiliates who do their own stuff? Would not these be partly encouraged by some operators?

[Ridge]

I think you have to realize that everyone does NOT deserve the same deal as everyone else gets. I had a hard time coming to grips with this when I first started in this industry, it's just the way it is.

If I send 500 players a month to a poker room, and you send 100, I EXPECT to get a better deal or a special deal.

Now, I understand what you are saying, if xxx poker network says "we don't do rakeback, or w/e", then I can see an argument for people who discover they DO in fact offer rakeback or w/e, but its just the way it is. I don't this is an issue that needs regulated.

As for affiliates offering a higher that allowed %, that is money out of their pocket and they usually cannot sustain that model long. It usually means oen of two things.

1. They have to offer a deal like that because they are desperate

2. They are shady and looking for a quick buck and will move on at some point and players will regret ever meeting them.

Things always have a way of correcting themselves it seems, I don't think this business is any different

[Tower-Adrian]

Hey guys, just want to throw my 2 cents in here.
with RB the only people that win are the players. Operators make a very small % after all the commissions are paid, and those high commissions are being passed directly from the affiliate back to the players. As competitive as the affiliate market is, unless you are a huge RB affiliate I am talking hundreds of players you are making next to nothing. Always trying to keep your players from jumping ship to go to the next guy offering 2% more.
This is not something that can't continue long, as it stands.
For the RB industry to really succeed IMO, affiliates and operators need to come together and set guidelines across the board on how to properly regulate RB. Obviously this isn't a easy thing to do, and may never be done... time will tell

We all want to give the most to our players to keep them happy and playing, but the bottom line is affiliates got into this business to make money, and IMO RB is the easy way out to compete for players and by far not the most profitable for affiliates with just a handful of players.

You are right Randy "Things always have a way of correcting themselves.." but wouldn't you want it to correct itself and make more money?

[OPC]

For the RB industry to really succeed IMO, affiliates and operators need to come together and set guidelines across the board on how to properly regulate RB. Obviously this isn't a easy thing to do, and may never be done... time will tell

From my experiences, coming up with a set of guidelines would not be the problem... Enforcing them would be the big issue.

Example, I'm "the new guy" and I come in secretly offering 50% at poker room xyz. I make absolutely nothing on the deal, but my purpose of doing so is to get me a customer base. As a result, I steal away 10 accounts from "the veteran rakeback site." He catches wind of this, and reports me. My account is "sanctioned" because I wasn't playing fair - which in turn doesn't alienate many people, because after all, I'm the "new guy."

Reverse the roles a bit... supposing I am the veteran and pull this on the new guy. As the veteran site, do you the governing body sanction me? Of course not... Why would you sanction the big man on campus who is offering cut-throat rates?

I think the only thing "regulation" does in this instance is creates a glass ceiling. If the veteran site has negotiated x% in compensation from a poker room, it should be up to him or her as to how much of that benefit they pass on to the players seeking rakeback. If I am new, and cannot compete, then I either join a cooalition of sorts who can allow me to become competative by offering rates above and beyond what my immediate volume can justify (PAS, for example) - or I find some other way to bring added value into the mix, or partner up with an existing affiliate and earn my keep.

[Mr-AJ]

There are some good points in here. The OPs idea isn't bad and might (!) solve some problems that currently occur. Ipoker, Ongame and many others have huge problems with rakeback and skins that are too aggressive regarding rakeback. I know a lot of skins that were close to getting banned because of rakeback violation. And it's not only that: they take a lot of money out of the network and don't compensate their high volume players properly. So the OPs idea might be a solution but I think it's impossible to assemble.

Tower Adrian is absolutely right! Fact is that only players can enjoy this situation and it can't be a long term state. I already tried to discuss it in this thread.