- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
You’ll have to excuse the tone of my post, but I along with several other members of this forum are more than a little frustrated about this issue. You clearly stated in SEVERAL posts over a month ago that NO affiliates were permitted to give their players rakeback, even though several posters pointed out that PokerSourceOnline OPENLY advertises 27.5% rakeback (go to their page frequentflopper.com — it’s STILL advertised). Obviously Party knows about this and is even FACILITATING this illicit operation by providing PSO with individual trackers.
Listen, all we want is the truth; I don’t like being given the run-around, which is what I feel Party/IGM is doing here. You’re really frustrating your other affiliates with this. All we want is a level playing field: if you want to allow rakeback, come out and say so, and allow all affiliates to compete with the same tools. If you want to prohibit it, fine, go ahead and ban it ACROSS THE BOARD. But don’t get on a soapbox and proclaim that you’re “doing all you can” to curb rakeback, even while other posters point you directly to the website of an affiliate who openly advertises rakeback. Frankly, it’s insulting. If you’re going to tell us that you’re taking action, then TAKE ACTION TOMORROW: freeze PSO’s affiliate account and revoke any pending commissions. But please, for goodness sake — and excuse the french — don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining. We all appreciate your input on this forum, but it’s time to give us an honest response to this. I think I, along with the other affiliates who are playing by the non-rakeback rules deserve as much.
hmmm…
http://www.pokersourceonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10368if this was in response to my post, kudos.
if not, kudos anyway.
Here’s to a level playing field –toast–
this did make me chuckle:
Guess those nimrods on Casino Affiliate Programs web forum will stop their whining and bitching.
– mongoose
This is very nice news.
In response to the quote about CAP, now the “whining and bitching” can be transfered elsewhere, but I seriously doubt stopped :satisfied
Too funny.
:happy: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :happy:
Once again, i am very impressed with Party Poker.
Party Poker is #1 in my book. Thanks Satya for listening to your affiliates and taking care of business. It is much appreciated.
Thanks guys for your continued support to PartyPoker.com.
As a matter of policy, we never allowed or supported any affiliate to offer rake back at PartyPoker.com, since its inception. We have enforced it strictly and I had posted an announcement at CAP on thie matter. ALL affiliates found guilty of offering rake back at PP, had their accounts blocked. The whole clean up is due to our policies and our continued effort and not just because of posts.
However we do appreciate the efforts taken by the affiliate community in sending us information regarding websites and individuals who claim to offer rake back at PartyPoker.com. If you come over similar cases, please mail [email protected].
Thanks,
SatyaHello,
I am not sure why I am weighing in on this since I do not promote poker at this time, but reading the post… and reading the forum (linked above from domino66)..
The forum owner (site admin) claims ‘In fact, we spoke to Party Poker in person about this just a couple of months ago during a London visit.’
It sounds like, from the very first post that they DID have approval. Are we to assume that this is just a false statement? They are fairly specific in where they met up with Party Poker. Usually those who lie would leave out such details.
Just curious.
kw
Doesn’t matter. The affiliate is the one who took the chance with nothing in writing. They should have never represented themselves to players as “having a deal”. I can understand the players being upset but that should be directed towards the affiliate because the bottom line is the affiliate is going back on the agreement. The poker rooms say this type of thing is between you (affiliate) and the player. If the affiliate wants to make right by the players they should A: not only stop the rake backs to this particular room (and get a clue that it is possible that other rooms could do the same), B: continue to pay these players what was promised as they are still making what is a very nice commission off the them.
Didn’t someone around here mention that rake backs could possibly lead to lower profits for affiliates? If this affiliate does what was promised I’d say they’re right in more ways than one.
f&p wrote:I can understand the players being upset but that should be directed towards the affiliate because the bottom line is the affiliate is going back on the agreement. The poker rooms say this type of thing is between you (affiliate) and the player. If the affiliate wants to make right by the players they should A: not only stop the rake backs to this particular room (and get a clue that it is possible that other rooms could do the same), B: continue to pay these players what was promised as they are still making what is a very nice commission off the them.Very true, it is the affiliate that is letting his players down here.
And this is not unexpected at all – even the players say that it was to be expected.
And surely the aff knew – PP has been making lots of noise about stopping all types of rake back for quite some time.
