- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Would it be possible to let affiliates choose their plan? I think this solution would benefit everyone as like you said some affiliates attract different players as they are coming from different places. If an affiliate was able to choose their plan they would be able to maximize their earnings. I know this could cause problems as affiliates may want to switch back and forth. I think there could be some solution to cater to affiliates who like the revenue share plan. Maybe you let affiliates have two accounts, one revenue and one wager and as affiliates grow and decide that wager share is better for them. They can just use their wager share account and phase out their revenue share account. They won’t be able to transfer existing players but will be able to get new players in the new model . (This is probably easier said then done, but a suggestion at the least)
One question I have Ryan is do we earn revenue on the players that signup for one of the free hour promos even if they don’t deposit?
Also Ryan, I think everyone understands how the revenue is earned on this model, the questions and concerns that many of us are bringing up is because we are trying to figure out if this model is a loser in comparison to the rev share. I agree with you in that it is tough for small allifiates such as myself to get any geniune numbers from only a few players. After all, that next player we bring in might make the deposit last for days and days and then we are thrilled with this program. But my feeling is that those lucky players are far and few between. And the point that several of us affiliates are making is that in reality we don’t know how well we are doing unless we know deposit amounts and lost amounts. So although profits to the casino don’t play a role in the wagershare model, we affiliates are very interested in this info as it is the only way we can guage if we are infact doing better with this model or at least the model is comparable and because we don’t have deposit and lost amounts in our stats, we really don’t know. So I don’t think we are missing the fundamentals here, I am sure you would agree how profits and such do play a factor to those of us trying to make heads or tails out of this model.
You say push it if it works for you, that is where the problem comes in. I don’t know if it works for me because I can’t compare it to rev share without the deposit and money lost info in my stats. I would love nothing better than to be able to ascertain that it is at least comparable to rev share, then I would push the hell out of you. But I can’t make a move like that with my business guessing if I would have made more money had I sent that same player to Challenge Casino. If you could take the guess work out of this for us I bet you would get affiliates such as myself, and there are quite a few of us to really make a push for you.
Well Said, Bonusgeek,
I think if we were able to see more information on the players (deposit amounts and loss amounts) then we could definatly see the advantage or disadvantage of the model.BJF wrote:One way that may help people imagine this is if they are players at all. Imagine you have a slot player who deposits $100, and loses it. Under the old model you earn $35. Under the new model, for you to earn $35 that slot play would have to give about $2700 worth of action for you to make $35. $2700 on that $100 deposit. When you play does your $100 last that long?There seems to be some confusion about deposit amounts. Deposit amounts are not made available to the affiliate program – never have. The RevShare model is based on profit to the casino, which is certainly not the amount deposited.
Re: Getting $2700 in wagering from $100 in deposit. I know the amount of wager looks large, but you’d be surprised how many times players turn their money over as they play. It gets big … and fast!
To clarify this point, let’s look at the facts. It is a fact that over all the casino’s in our group (excluding recent acquisitions not owned at the time) over the entire year of 2005, the average amount of wager on $100 deposit is:
Here’s the margin/payout table:
Margin Payout
Table Non Blackjack 2.57% 0.90%
Slots 3.71% 1.30%
Video Poker 0.94% 0.33%
Blackjack 1.26% 0.44%So, $100 in deposit on these game types yielded how much wagering on the average:
Table Non Blackjack: $100 / 2.57% = 3891.05 wagered from the $100 deposit.
Aff Comm: $3,891.05 * 0.9% = $35.02Slots: $100 / 3.71% = $2,695.42 wagered from the $100 deposit.
Aff Comm: $2,695.42 * 1.3% = $35.04Video Poker: $100 / 0.94% = $10,638.30 wagered from the $100 deposit.
Aff Comm: $10,638.30 * .33% = $35.11Blackjack: $100 / 1.26% = 7936.51 wagered from the $100 deposit.
Aff Comm: $7,936.51 * .44% = $34.92You can see the totals are slightly off because I rounded to the nearest 100th, but the basic principle is there. Anyway, you don’t have to believe me that these are fact, just ask the independent auditors (xhttp://www.blackjackballroom.com/security/pwc.asp)
Looks like I’m right on targeting more VP players.
Usually not as profitable, they look to be a good bet with you.
I would still like to see a deposit amount for comparsons. Keep in mind the minimum deposit is $20, and I make 58 cents? I doubt it’s worth it, as casino profit would be $20 and at even 25 percent, profit should be $5. I know thats taking an example of a small depositor, but if they deposit 20 daily…….. it doesnt add up as profitable in my stats.
1. I reiterate: deposit amounts will not be shown, and have never been shown in the affiliate program. I don’t blame you for asking (again) though
2. Somebody might put in $20, and only spin 1 spin at $.05 … I agree, not the norm, but certainly possible.
Ryan wrote:The wager model is based on the amount wagered and has nothing to do with profit, cash flow, gross revenue, bonuses or any associated costs.So whether they take $10 FREE and wager it, or deposit millions and play ’til it’s gone … the affiliate earnings would be based only on the amount wagered.
Allright! Thanks for the answer…
And yep, the fundamentals may be missing, I am still learning:lookaroun
I think Ryan hit the nail on the head!
It depends on the type of player. If someone deposits $100 and place a $100 bet at blackjack then he only wagered $100 but if he takes his time and places for example $1 bets, if he loses his deposit, he more than likely could have wagered $500. I’ve deposit $25 in a casino before and wagered well over $1000 with the bonus from playing the slots.
I didn’t know how well the wagershare was going to work but for this month my players wagered well over $20k and yes it would be a convenience for us to be able to see how much was deposited to see which methods would benefit us the most but it is more probable that this $20k wagered for the month may only be from a total of $500 in deposits, all depending on the “type” of player.
On of my sites’ players have deposited over $5k this month. It could just be 1 player or many. It would be nice to know how much was wagered off that 5K.
Self employment which is basically what we are, is all at risk. It’s our job as business people to choose a method that we believe will be more profitable for us. It would be nice to see results before we assess the risk potential, but that’s not how business works. Casino Rewards is probably one of the best so we need to target potential loyal players so they will keep depositing.
I have one player who has wagered over $300k and I don’t think he has deposit over 10K. If he has, then he’s a bigger risk taker than I am.
I looked at the historical data on an affiliate account today and I have some real numbers to offer instead of all the theoretical junk we’ve been hearing.
This is a 56 month sample dating back to 2001 using actual stats from a Casino Rewards affiliate account.
Due to the 35% commission rate, no bundling, and all negatives wiped out the affiliate has received 38.0% of all player loss.
In the three top earning years, they received 37.8% and in the three lowest earning years they earned 39%. (I guess this backs up the fact that smaller affiliates are hit disproportionately by the new system.)
This affiliate account had no huge winners. In fact, over the 56 month sample there were never negative earnings wiped out in excess of $1800, although many months earnings were over $5000 and there was even one month in which over $9000 was paid.
Even with no BIG winners, this account still beats the 35% True Wager model over time. There is certainly enough activity on this account that any chance of the True Wager model defeating the earnings under the old model would most likely be outside of standard deviation.
But let’s consider for a moment it is possible. Then it is also not unrealistic to think that there would be an extra $5 royal flush or two. With 2 more royal flushes tacked on to one of those negatives, this affiliate’s effective commission rate would have been 44.8%!
Even under the actual numbers, getting a “true wager 35%” instead of the 38% that was ultimately paid under the old program would yield a large difference in earnings paid. The affiliate program would have saved about $8K in commissions and the affiliate’s earnings would have been shaved by about 8% during the 56 month period. :nervous:
One more note…
Considering that there were no large winners on the account, it is far more likely that they received would have received LESS than 35% of the actual loss under the new plan.
While a negative balance is not possible on the new plan, it was impossible to earn less than 35% of the player’s actual losses on the old plan.
If I am reading Ryans post correctly am I to understand that if a player deposits $100 and plays Blackjack, that in order for me to make a true 35% $35 on that $100 deposit that the player needs to wager that $100 deposit $7,936. I know the numbers come from pwc and all, but being a gambler myself it is hard to believe that I can make a $100 deposit last that long unless I am one of the 1 in 100 that gets the hot streak. That is assuming I just play $5 a hand blackjack perfect strategy, then it would take the computer almost 1600 hands to beat me out of that $100.
I am not saying it is wrong, its just hard to believe. It’s just in all my experience in online gambling, sure once in a blue moon I have gotten those hot streaks, but I can remember a WHOLE lot more bad streaks where the casino gobbled up my money like there was no tommorow and I was lucky if I rolled the money 5 times let alone 79.
So I am not sure what to think. I try to be as fair as possible, but I call it like I see it. I may dump a $100 into a micro casino and play some blackjack to see how long it takes before I am bust. I know one test won’t tell me much, but if it gobbles my money like I am used to, then I will at least see what I can expect with this program under the worst case scenario.
That probably is an accurate amount of wagering for the casino to win $100 on average.
But it is also true that most players will bust out long before that. Everything is skewed because the volume of play generated by players on winning streaks, while losing streaks on $100 bankrolls are pretty short. If you looked at the number of players who lost exactly $100 on blackjack, the median amount of wagering would be much, much, much lower than that figure.
The “based on wagering” model is not the biggest problem here. The biggest problem is that the average lifetime player value decreases under this system because the old system was not a true 35%, it was much better.
BTW, Ryan seems like a nice guy but I don’t think the bosses over there lay awake all night trying to figure out how to pay us all more money!
i think rewards casino has make a choice and affiliate can make their choice to promote or not this casinos
personally i think there is many good other casino that convert like crazy and that still paid affiliate decently
the unique problems is that i have optimized as many pages for rc , but no more in future of course
Keep in mind that the majority of programs start you out on 25%, not 35%.
You get 35% after you reach a certain volume with most programs.
So for the majority of affiliates, the % offered here is still substantially superior, even if it is somewhat lower than 35%.
