How to know which casinos are part of a group?

[aka23]

You don't have affiliate tags associated with the links to rogue/high risk casinos, do you?

In some cases, yes. In some cases, no. I have never received a commission from the more severe rogue casinos.

Rather than pretend rogue casinos do not exist, I choose to list the casinos with a summary of the possible risk, and let players decide for themselves. In some cases players may disagree with the warning or think the risk is worth the possible benefit. It is also useful to have a complete list of casinos for many reasons, including trying identify which casinos are in the same group. For example, I have a warning listed for all Fortune Lounge casinos due to the incident last year (locked thousands of accounts, confiscated winnings, etc) and related recent events. However, I still list them and have affiliate tags.

[lojo]

In some cases, yes. In some cases, no. I have never received a commission from the more severe rogue casinos.

Rather than pretend rogue casinos do not exist, I choose to list the casinos with a summary of the possible risk, and let players decide for themselves. In some cases players may disagree with the warning or think the risk is worth the possible benefit. It is also useful to have a complete list of casinos for many reasons, including trying identify which casinos are in the same group. For example, I have a warning listed for all Fortune Lounge casinos due to the incident last year (locked thousands of accounts, confiscated winnings, etc) and related recent events. However, I still list them and have affiliate tags.

I guess we've had this conversation before, but I was under the impression then that you did not have affiliate tags... but I guess you just said you hadn't recieved payment. I am so freaking naive sometimes, I kill me.
Rogue is rogue, accomplice is accomplice, doncha think?
I give up, really.

[Simmo!]

Rogue is rogue, accomplice is accomplice.

Actually it's quite an interesting discussion....do you ignore the rogues, not warn players but provide them no exposure. Or do you recognise them, expose them, but in doing so increase their exposure.

This thread is just one good case in point. If you don't know who owns who, then how do you know the rogues? It's why white labels are such a thorny issue with the anonymity aspect.

In general, I take the stance that if the information you provide is "factual" and not "promotional", or if it tells the truth about a rogue, then displaying it is a good thing. However if the text is clearly designed to tempt a player to play there, then it's the wrong thing to do and Lojo's "accomplice" argument is spot on. Showing a Rogue's bonus for example is wrong...unless it's accompanied by text explaining the trouble it can bring (if that's the case). But then there's the whole argument about defining "rogue". People are bound to have different opinions on how you define "rogue": ignorance, misguided decisions or deliberately deceitful? We've seen them all, but where do you draw the line? Answer is: everyone will draw it in one of several different places.

It's all about information and freedom of choice. If a player is stupid enough to risk a rogue after being told about them, well...you make your bed. It annoys me that people know but still go after the free money - it keeps these cowboys in business. But it's their call at the end of the day. Better the player have enough info to make an informed decision than to take the stance of certain politicians which ultimately says you're too stupid to make your own mind up so we'll do it for you!

I'm all for affiliates carrying rogue casinos. As long as they make it clear to the punter just what to expect and don't "promote" it. Education is important.

Adding the affiliate link into the equation...well...interesting. On the one hand you could argue as Lojo does that it makes you an accomplice, on the other you could argue that if the affiliate sends a player over with an affiliate tag, the rogue makes a good deal less than if the player had gone direct

[lojo]

Adding the affiliate link into the equation...well...interesting. On the one hand you could argue as Lojo does that it makes you an accomplice, on the other you could argue that if the affiliate sends a player over with an affiliate tag, the rogue makes a good deal less than if the player had gone direct

Bwahahahaha.... never looked at it that way

[Simmo!]

Bwahahahaha.... never looked at it that way

LOL.

So there you go - my answer would be to encourage affiliates to show the rogues, point out their shortcomings, stop short of "promoting" them, add their affiliate links, and then at least the rogue doesn't see the full amount from any mugs stupid enough to go there. Where do I patent that idea?

The obvious risk being that they rip off the affiliate aswell

[GaryWatson]

Since we have went offtrack and the post has been answered I thought Id butt in.

Just looking at AKA's link http://www.beatingbonuses.com/bestbonus.htm

Now that is about beating bonuses. All fine and well but by doing that some players are considered bonus abusers.

The players may follow the terms to the letter but in by doing so they are leaving them open to being labeled bonus abusers because they are joining the site for the sole purpose of taking advantage of what is advertized.


The playthrough is to prevent bonus abuse. If the site does not make the correct calculations, tough titty. If they are promoting a spectacular bonus they damn well better honor it because they are making money off players who are not as astute to take advantage of the deals.

I have no specific point but reading a lot of the regular complaints, a deal is a deal.

[aka23]

I don't consider someone who claims a bonus, "follows the terms to the letter", uses optimal strategy, and wins to be a "bonus abuser." I'd call him an "advantage player." In my opinion, a "bonus abuser" need to do something to violate the T&C, such as have multiple accounts. Violating terms and true "bonus abuse" is in no way encouraged on the site. Discussion about such topics are prohibited on the forums.

[GaryWatson]

I am not aware of any incidents, in which a player has been flagged as a "bonus abuser" because of signing up through the site. Also note that many persons that a casino would consider to be "quality players" sign up through the site , as well as advantage players. The former may come across links on Wizard of Odds, Casinomeister, a search engine, etc.

No, you misunderstood. Its nothing against your site content, which is about taking advantage of bonuses. Its directed towards sites who have a playthrough rule but dont stand by them and refuse to pay players, labeling them bonus abusers for going specifically for their bonus and cashing out. There are many instances

[aka23]

No, you misunderstood. Its nothing against your site content, which is about taking advantage of bonuses. Its directed towards sites who have a playthrough rule but dont stand by them and refuse to pay players, labeling them bonus abusers for going specifically for their bonus and cashing out. There are many instances

Yes, I did misunderstand at first. I apologize. I edited my initial post prior to your reply.

[GaryWatson]

Yes, I did misunderstand at first. I apologize. I edited my initial post prior to your reply.

haha, I get where you are coming from now. You thought I meant your site. you had me I was referring to the actual casinos on your site