- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Hi all,
as you may be aware I’m a big fan of CR but I’m also not one to leap first and then look (still waiting for shins to heal from last time) … so I’m trying to find the down side here.
I’m not putting down CR but I find it hard to believe they’re offering more than what they’re already obligated …
I did read one person’s example where in his scenario the casino would have come out way ahead (using the new formula) but I also realize the numbers he used to come up with those results were very unlikely to be ever experienced in real world scenario.
So what I’m wondering is: have any of you math geniuses did your homework and if so: what were your conclusions?
It sounds great but I don’t want to jump into something I may later regret.
Thanks ahead of time for your replies.
The only way to really know would be to have a mass of data, which they have and we do not. Yes, it is definitely a better deal if player goes in with $100, gets lucky and wins, and then grinds aaway betting thousands of dollars while eventually losing it back. But how many players deposit 500 or 1000 and lose it right away and don’t come back? No way to know without the data, but if it actually made more money for us I doubt they would be offering it.
Ask to switch over temporarily to watch the stats.
If you have the kind of players who bet all their money at once on roulette and leave, not so good.
If your players chisel away, great!
I am doing very well, I always suffer from winners and not here, and I have some nice loyal slot players.
Good to see the retention too – tells you when each player joined. If you have many older players, likely nice for you.
If you have mostly bonus hunters, not so good.
Hi and thanks again for your input.
I’ve got some great players though as mentioned: without the data to see what their tendacies are its a tough guess for certain.
I do know most my players are of the fairer (and apparently smarter too since they’re going with me) :capmiami: sex and that they play the slots (bite your tongue blackjack players: I see where you’re going with that) :burnafatt
… but that’s the extent of it.
I guess I’ve missed the bonus month’s opportunity anyway so it won’t hurt to sit back and wait and see what others think of the deal in a couple of months.
Somebody correct me if I’m wrong but the jist of the deal is that if you can get players lasting longer … then you make more money. Is that correct?
You know I really like the idea of that a lot but I’m incredibly hesitant to trade off because I fear I’d find out later there was no going back .. which I couldn’t really blame them because its set up to be over the long haul and otherwise they’d perhaps encounter situations where the they paid out better than average the first 4 months and then the 5th month things dipped hard the other way and the aff starts screaming back for the old pay system and that wouldn’t be fair to CR
Coming from a gambling background I can tell you that over the “long haul” you will make far more money with the original revenue share deal. This is really the same argument they put up for the CPA deal. You get paid no matter what. It is also the same deal when a casino offers to let you insure a blackjack. Yes, you are guaranteed to get paid, but it is a sucker bet.
If your players are mostly slot players, I’d say stick with the original plan. If your site attracts blackjack basic strategy players, you might be better off with the new plan.
Why would you say that, Ken?
Slots actually pay almost like 36% with the new plan, while the other games are a bit lower than normal. That’s what I am told by those who are better in math than me anyway.
Maybe my info is wrong?
Here’s my thinking…
With slots, most players lose at a rate higher than the actual overall house edge, because somebody has to pay for those big occasional jackpots. So, most of your players will actually lose substantially more than the 3.71% margin they are predicting, even assuming that figure is correct overall.
Since this program wipes out negatives at the end of the month, when you do have a big winner, the effect is limited to one month. When negatives are wiped out, you can consider that a big boost in your commission rate.
The combination of those two things makes it more profitable to go with the old rev-share plan for slots players.
Now, for me things are different. They attribute a house edge of 1.26% to blackjack, while many of my players will do better than that because they’ll play accurate basic strategy. (Well, a lot of my players anyway. Thank goodness for those guys who ignore my advice and contribute a lot more to the bottom line!) If all my players played the best blackjack game offered at Microgaming, and played correct basic strategy, their real theoretical loss is only 0.36%, and RewardsAffiliates is paying me 0.44%. That’s a nice commission rate of 122%!
Now, in reality, my players will play a mix of games, and they won’t play perfectly. Still, for my particular situation, this sounds like a good deal, at least for my blackjack site.
Since this program wipes out negatives at the end of the month, when you do have a big winner, the effect is limited to one month. When negatives are wiped out, you can consider that a big boost in your commission rate.
I am not following that.
Everyone always says the player will play it back – well, in my experience, they don’t. They will go and buy that big screen TV and new computer and whatever, and play a measly 5 or 10% back. And I have lost a bunch of income that I would not lose with the new model. Plus I am now making 36%. Plus these slot players do lose, but they wager like crazy in the process. They play for a very long time to lose their 100 bucks, and depending which type slot they use they will keep winning and losing and winning and losing and wager a ton to get the money all used up.
My slotsplayers appear to wager by far the most.
BlackjackInfo wrote:If your players are mostly slot players, I’d say stick with the original plan. If your site attracts blackjack basic strategy players, you might be better off with the new plan.That’s my understanding. They have figures we don’t, and I’d imagine this is something in their favor overall. They’ll adjust the numbers to make it so. Ummm…. they’re a casino… that’s what they do.
That’s ok. But, I think you nailed the theoretical issue right on the head.
The advantage for CR is easy to spot.
They offer a lot of free play and bonuses. They attract a lot of bonus abusers. You won’t make any money on really low value players with this system. That cuts way down on CRs cost of doing business.
It’s really quite simple – if you have good players who spend time and money you end up ahead because all losses are eliminated and the percentages are actually good.
If you have people who play the bonuses and just deposit enough to qualify for the next one, your wagering will be low and you won’t make much.
Bonus players are a drain on the casinos, with this system the affiliate is not rewarded for bringing them in. That all but eliminates one of the main money drains for CR, while encouraging the aquisition of good value players.
Simple, and makes a lot of sense.
I am waiting for a response in the Casino Rewards forum because it look like I have been switched over to the new system when I did not want it.
Is it everyone’s understanding that this was something we had to choose, or are they just switching everyone? I will drop them like a hot potato if they do this.
BJF wrote:I will drop them like a hot potato if they do this.So will I, and I will add them to my blacklist as well. Right now, this is potentially a retroactive change, and it could potentially affect me in a negative way. I will not support a program that *forces* changes like this onto their affiliates, and I strongly urge everyone here to take note of this situation and be prepared to take action if it turns out that the switch is not optional. So the stats are nicer now — whoopty freakin’ doo. That can’t be used as an excuse to switch everyone to the new model — i.e. switching to the new model should not be required in order to have access to more detailed stats.If switching to the new model is mandatory, CR is no better than Referback, Fortune Affiliates, or Vegas Partner.
How can we tell which model we are on?? I signed up with them a while ago and am fairly certain it was under the percentage deal (not the new model). However, I do not see any way to determine from the affiliate site which model I am using.
I really do not want the new model either. I am glad to see my players win no matter what (even when it ruins my month), so that part doesn’t make it any more attractive.
I just want to ensure that I have the deal that I signed up with. Otherwise, removal from all my sites as well. There are plenty of other casinos out there and I don’t promote them heavily anyway.
Engineer wrote:So will I, and I will add them to my blacklist as well. Right now, this is potentially a retroactive change, and it could potentially affect me in a negative way. I will not support a program that *forces* changes like this onto their affiliates, and I strongly urge everyone here to take note of this situation and be prepared to take action if it turns out that the switch is not optional. So the stats are nicer now — whoopty freakin’ doo. That can’t be used as an excuse to switch everyone to the new model — i.e. switching to the new model should not be required in order to have access to more detailed stats.If switching to the new model is mandatory, CR is no better than Referback, Fortune Affiliates, or Vegas Partner.
Couldn’t agree more Referback and FA are amongst the worst. I am not sure about CR yet. I’ve had a couple of good months, I love the new stats layout and the information it provides.greek39
