- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Deposit amounts are totally relevant for business owners such as myself who want to know if they are maxing out with a program. Meaning, if someone is depositing $1K a month and playing $100 blackjack and making the money last 10 minutes, then our $2.79 cents we pulled down in commissions isn’t so hot comared to the $300 we would be pulling down on revenue share, but we will never really know without deposit amounts. But we all know there is also a flip side for the guy that deposits $50 and wagers $50K and we make $400 off that. How often that happens I really don’t know, but there are many many variables in this equation. For example at FA I had a player this month go off $4400. Now I made $864 off that, but if I was on their 40% rev share I would have made $1600. So my first inclination is I am screwing myself for not being on the rev share. But after further research, 2 months before in July I had a $20K winner which I would have made nil and probably still be trying to climb out of that hole, compared to the $1800 I pulled down that month in commissions. And that guy only deposited $450 and I made $1800. So this is just a personal choice. I think showing deposit amounts enable affiliates to really analyize their business like a business owner should be able to do. There are pros and cons to both models, but CR is not going to show deposit amounts, so it is really futile to keep belaboring this issue. Just make a decision on which you think is best for your own business and move forward.
. But we all know there is also a flip side for the guy that deposits $50 and wagers $50K and we make $400 off that. often that happens I really don’t know,
I don´t “know” how often this happens either but I can tell you that the pure payout percentages would make it a one in a million event otherwise the stats and house edge wouldn´t mean a thing and the whole industry would be turned on it´s head.
This example however I regard as being extremely realistic.
Meaning, if someone is depositing $1K a month and playing $100 blackjack and making the money last 10 minutes, then our $2.79 cents we pulled down in commissions isn’t so hot comared to the $300 we would be pulling down on revenue share
What annoys a lot of people I think is the fact that depositors are not reported in order to deprive affiliates of any possible basis to evaluate their performance.
Goldfinger wrote:What annoys a lot of people I think is the fact that depositors are not reported in order to deprive affiliates of any possible basis to evaluate their performance.I agree, I like to analyize everything about my business so I can make the best decision possible. FA offers this same model and shows deposit amounts, and doesn’t hold me hostage under the wagershare model. And as such they get the exposure. What I am trying to encourage affiliates to do here is simply to spend their energy on something that will bear some fruit. I have been very active over the past year in this dicussion, not in this thread but the others. I finally realized that all the energy I was putting into this issue showing my convictions has not put a dime in my pocket. And since then I have a little bit of a different take on the whole model anyway, although I will always remain steadfast with my take on showing deposit amounts.
Perhaps one day CR will realize that the decisions to show deposit amounts and giving us the option to be on either model like FA might turn out to be a profit center, instead of missing the boat with affiliates such as myself who push them down on the exposure list. Not that they are missing much as I am struggling right now with traffic, but bring 1000 affiliates into the equation that feel like I do and they may very well be missing the boat. I guess my point here is I am not so sure anymore that showing deposit amounts will hurt them like I thought it would. Meaning, for affiliates like me that have given them limited exposure or dropped them all together, they only have a chance to gain exposure rather than lose it. But I really just don’t know anymore. What I do know is that I will not be wasting my time in this thread trying to prove points on who is right. Frankly, I would rather be building links or writing articles, something that will benefit my business. Peace in the middle east.
lagunacat wrote:$16,000 wagered – $200 earned! Must be a reason your don’t include deposits in your ‘extensive’ stats. Most programs include deposits in their stats, why not CR? Most affiliates think this is an important stat and want it included but CR doesn’t think it important. Why?Hi lagunacat,
I know it certainly doesn’t look like if you’ve got your revshare model thinking cap on, but you can easily just work it backwards to get the average deposit amount:
$200 earned / 35% = ~ 570+ deposited…. I know the $16k can be a shocker depending on the gametype, but if you spend a couple of seconds with you wager model hat on it will be easy to understand
Remember, the wagering grows very fast and is not the deposit amount.Hi all,
As for the deposit amounts being shown: I completely understand why some of you want this … the wager model is big and scary and you all think in terms of revshare. So it makes sense that you want a revshare metric to compare against.
As I’ve said in the past this isn’t something I’m personally against.
That said, the company has made the decision to move to the wager model – no news there – but the underpinnings of that are in fact that the company wants affiliates to focus on bringing people who wager a lot. As a result, the company doesn’t want to display the deposit amounts because people will get caught up when one month’s wagering doesn’t work out to the exact average it should when compared against the deposit amounts. As we’ve all gone over many many times in this forum … it will work out to the 35% over time. It might be all the time, you might have one month this way and the next month the other.
So as long as you focus on bringing players that create a lot of wagering then you will be very successful with the RA program.
I know that isn’t what some of you want to hear. I would also hazard a guess that I’ll get snappy comments from those who don’t yet understand this model – or haven’t given it a chance to even out – as they will be frustrated and feel that it’s all big sham and yet another conspiracy theory.
I know the wager model is a new relatively new concept and we’re all afraid of change/the unknown. However, as you can see, there’s more than just Dom standing up for this model and how it works. Summer is over and numbers across the board are reacting accordingly. Watch the fall and it’s very likely you will see what the others are experiencing.
I’m going back to my vacation. Cheers Guys!
ok, one more thing…
on my comment re: call center support and the cooks merger.
it’s not like we had some mass exodus of players or anything. I said that support was backed up and it would be silly not to think it had some effect. So those of you with only a handful of players could have lost a single player but it was noticeable due to the size of your account.
Obviously, even one player is less than ideal, but any time you do anything for the first time you always learn something … and we did. Our support has come a LONG way!
I tell you guys this because I feel you are able to handle the reality. If you want I can start to sugar coat everything with a bunch of horse$hit like everybody else … but you know that’s not my style.
Also keep in mind that shape cooks was in when we took them over and paid out all their debts… obviously having the majority of your players playing again is a lot better than all their accounts locked like before we took over.
ok, now really back to vacation.
lagunacat wrote:Actually deposits ARE relevant! Also, I know how the system works.I have been watching your posts concerning CR for over a year now and have been more than curious about something. What is it with you and them?
Look we all know how you wonderful you are doing with CR and how much you love them. What I would like to know is why you defend them so vigorously (we have seen all your posts) but aren’t so quick to defend other programs when a little criticism blows their way? Considering all the affiliates that are unhappy with them (with legit gripes-like lost players from Cooks) it amazes me how fast you are in their corner defending them and Ryan (with all his double-talk). Just curious.
What it is with “me and them” is that I was doing ok before the new model and that I am doing twice as well since.
What it is is that I have a lot of slots players who love feature slots that pay out frequently and so they tend to play and play and play to see the next feature.
These are wonderful players to have under any system, and I do well with the Fortune deposit percentage as well, and also with Wager Share’s and Casino Profitshare’s rev share systems, and but they really shine under a wager system.
If you have a different type of player, your results will differ.
As far as Cook goes, I never did well with them and players I sent usually disappeared after one session of play. So I have nothing to say about that, personally I saw nothing unusual happen.
Obviously something bad did happen though, to several people.
I am generally one to go after issues until they are fixed. There is nothing to fix here. We have ascertained that Rewards had lousy player support and lost a bunch of Cooks players back then. We have repeated apologies. I see no way these players can be retrieved. It’s a dead end. Just like all the casino players I lost in the Tradal/Party deal, they are just gone. At least Rewards tried to map them over, Tradal wouldn’t even allow Party to do that because they didn’t want to share their affiliate base.
I like to resolve problems and tend to stay after them until they have resolved one way or another. There is nothing to resolve here. There is nothing to resolve with the Tradal players either. I just don’t want to touch Tradal with a ten foot pole, and obviously you feel the same about Rewards.
This thread is chewing the same old stuff over and over again, and I hate threads like that because they are totally unproductive.
As far as wagershare, I like it and you don’t. Nothing wrong with that. I’m sure there are lots of things we both like in this world, and lots we don’t.
If you have read CAP for a while, or you attended any of the conferences, you know I am very outspoken.
I say it when I have something bad to say, and I say it when I have something good to say.
What it is with this thread and me is that it keeps turning into a lot of unconstructive griping, and escalates into character attacks, which we don’t tolerate here at all.
We try to resolve issues, not attack people. This is a professional forum.
It’s miracle I haven’t long closed this thread.
The reason I haven’t is because the general discussions of how the system works and who benefits and who doesn’t are good for everyone who is trying to make up their mind.
Those posts are constructive and make this thread worth keeping around, even though it has on occasion deteriorated into personal attacks.
Hopefully we can get back to analysing the wager share system and help people make up their minds about how they personally would fare with it.
That is worth the time the posters put into explaining their positions.
Ryan wrote:Hi lagunacat,I know it certainly doesn’t look like if you’ve got your revshare model thinking cap on, but you can easily just work it backwards to get the average deposit amount:
$200 earned / 35% = ~ 570+ deposited…. I know the $16k can be a shocker depending on the gametype, but if you spend a couple of seconds with you wager model hat on it will be easy to understand
Remember, the wagering grows very fast and is not the deposit amount.Ryan, thanks for the basic math lesson and belittleling my original post by suggesting (2x) that I dress more appropriately and if I did then I wouldn’t have a problem with the rev share system.
If you weren’t so quick with your condescending comments you would see my post wasn’t a question about doing the math it was about seeing deposit amounts in the stats. Like the comment in the post by M.D. says “One must be blind to think those who complain fail to understand the new model and that’s why they complain.” If I do have a problem with the math it is I just don’t like the math. It is the same math I see month after month.
To me, at it’s most basic feature, seeing deposits in the stats is about fairness. It is something we, as affiliates, have expected from the programs we have joined. Anytime I have joined an affilate program I do like most affiliates, I scrutinize their terms, stat structure and other things in order to make a determination if it is a program I want to be a part of. I can’t remember ever coming across a program with a ‘no deposits in stats’ policy. If I had it would be a no-brainer to me.
There are other reasons why seeing deposits can be important, as both Goldfinger and BonusGeek have both succinctly pointed out in their posts. After reading these posts I think most affilates will agree that ‘deposit stats’ are VERY relevant.
Well, as bonusgeek pointed out I will also be constructive about this and just make my business decisions based on my opinion about the wagershare system. One thing that´s been annoying me recently (and I will mail and inquire) were two people who wagered ~$140 and ~$210 respectively. I´m not sure if this is because I advertised the Yukon Gold money back offer and they wagered a rediculously low amount and then withdrew or what is going on there. If they had lost any sort of deposit their play would suggest a very miserable payout.
Another thing is that even the percentages that Rewards deducts from the game types were challenged by mane, notably Howardmoon, as being lower than 35% of actual payouts.
Anyways, I don´t want to start another 100 post flame but merely suggest that Rewards takes the complaints and concerns voiced seriously and implements some changes.
For the record, I never said they were not relevant.
Also, I’m not trying to be condescending. Tone can be hard to interpret via text so sorry if it ‘sounded’ that way.
I am merely trying to explain that it seems to be that you are thinking in a revshare sense and not in a wager model sense. You might be interested to know that so far this month you’ve earned $78 more on the wager model than you would have on the revshare model. Don’t let the high wagering amounts fool you. That’s all. Nothing derogatory intended.
…Wear whatever hat you desire… it’s just a figure of speech where I am from. I didn’t realize it would be taken that way.
We obviously take your comments and feedback very seriously. I am on vacation and I’m still on here trying to help/explain/support/answer queries.
I always take your feedback to management and fight for you guys. That’s a fact. As usual, affiliate managers are always stuck trying to stike that balance between trying to get your concerned addressed and keeping our jobs.
Hey Ryan hope your getting a nice tan and a good buzz on your vacation:rasta:
I just wanted to say I was one of the big complaining folks about cap cooks accounts, then I realized how many players left due to the problems the casinos were having paying out winners and remember they could not pay affiliates either towards the end.I balked at this new program as well but I am a believer in it now..lol Just give it time and watch it grow I think you all will be surprised and if not remember no one is twisting your arm to give the program exposure that is your choice go with another program that does make you money.
Also I don’t think it is fair to attack Dom because she said she likes the program that is just silly.
I’m a believer in the Wagershare system. Its the only commisions I have
generated so far!
NOw if the US government would just go away and hide somewhere that
would be good also..-Cheers Ryan & Renee.
P.S. In a completely non-relevant note did you know that a lot of the major
accounting information for enron was held in World Trade center building 7
(the one which was purposely demolished later in the afternoon of sep 11)
Hmmmm.. Gambling is A Disney Film compared to what the GOvernment are involved with..:nono:
