Is it true that affiliates make 25%-50% off MY LOSSES?!!

[jetset]

Former casino employee I think you may need to check your facts on this statement:

"Same thing with eCogra (since you mention it): 98% Microgaming, 2% brand name. It's a private club for all purposes; it's members police themselves. It doesn't represent any governments and it certainly doesn't substitute for "international regulation".

1) There are three major and competing software providers involved in eCOGRA - MGS, 888 Holdings and Ongame, all with differing corporate structures but with major online operations or licensees handling a sizeable chunk of the online casino and poker room business. It is a far cry from being "98 percent Microgaming and 2 percent brand name" as you put it.

2) It is not a private club confined to those software providers, and has repeatedly and publicly emphasised that it is open to any software provider and its licensees that are prepared to commit to its standards, requirements and principles.

3) The casinos and poker rooms that bear the Play It Safe seal do not police themselves. They are monitored by a major international business services organisation contracted specifically for this purpose by eCOGRA - PricewaterhouseCoopers, and most of them are also licensed by various "national" type jurisdictions like Gibraltar, Alderney, Kahnawake etc.

4) You are correct that it does not represent any governmental agencies, although it does have an active professional liaison program with several of them. Your final sentence is open to debate, as the 85 tier one online gambling operations that hold the seal are located around the world.

 

[Chatmaster]

Hmmmmm

I believe you should perhaps considder reading up on the different casino licensing jurisdictions before responding again that the online gaming industry is unregulated you make me think of those nuts who setup HR4777. I think that is why I will agree to disagree with you.

 

[WAYLANDER]

I was thinking of setting up an affiliate site.....................

So what do you all think?

Good idea or what?



WAYLANDER

 

[jetset]

We have differing interpretations of the word "regulated".

Your example is the outcome of how things work in this industry at the moment: a casino cheats a player (or a webmaster) and the event is publicized, leading - eventually - to the casino losing business.

However, while this cause and effect relationship does exist, this is not a true form of "regulation". That rogue casino going out of business is more the effect of slow strangulation than an actual rendering of accounts between it, the law and its unhappy customers. It's literally like old-fashioned wild west hang 'em high justice. AND - sometimes the dead resurrect, and yesterday's rogue casino "X" is today's new casino "Y" - nothing prevents the same bad firm from coming back.

The recent 888 issue didn't interest me but from what I saw it provided a perfect example of non-regulation in this industry: an upstanding casino which does everything to the 'tee' suddenly turns around and does something that agitates the industry. In an unregulated environment this is perfectly possible: in fact (until they went public) there was nothing to legally stop 888 from suddenly withholding payments or "flipping the switch" if they want to. And as usually happens, casinos which deviate from ethical norms but eventually come around are all forgiven. There's no real compensation made for the injustices they committed.

But the rounds of criticism on chatboards or delistings by affiliate sites don't compensate for a lack of proper *legal* regulation. What we have today is simply this: [some] affiliates/webmasters blacklist allegedly bad sites because to be seen to do business with a rogue business makes that affiliate also look bad - guilt by association. This isn't justice, it's just an expedient. And there is no direct justice for the abused customer. He has to hope that self-policing in this industry works, but because under today's circumstances money changing hands can buy silence or influence site content our mechanism of self-policing (and this includes eCogra) is imperfect.

You'd have to ask yourself: if the current system is so good how is it that so many bad casinos still have affiliates plugging them? And why in general is affiliate content by and large so propagandistic? Sites pose as objective locations and yet all the content is slanted and biased. Why, because the bottom line is business and not justice. Everything goes.

As regards non-casino affiliations, I'm sure that manufacturers like Pfizer or the FDA can locate misleading affiliates because the product you're dealing with is a regulated item (or a known object in a regulated market) made by a transparent firm, with a name and an address. Distance doesn't protect these companies - that's how tobacco firms still got sued in foreign countries; that's how eBay got sued in France for carrying certain German items.

That's precisely the weak link with online casinos - no country has established a proper body of laws determining what it really is and how it should operate. And for their part online casinos don't sue against misleading advertisements or other issues because they don't want to rock the boat. Better to settle - or suffer - silently, than to make noise.

Whilst there are parts of your post with which I take issue, it is in general a reasonably presented opinion and I would agree that proper national government regulation with legislative power and authority to impose really tough punitive measures for non-compliance would certainly be a good thing for the industry as a whole and major markets like the USA in particular.

That would be especially true if it brought big, reputable land brands into the arena, tightening competition for US players and thereby leveraging market forces to improve even offshore casino performance.

The UK seems to have the right idea in its consultative process to arrive at practical and effective regulations and it will be a good barometer of operator opinion to see which companies are prepared to submit to its regulation (assuming that the British taxman imposes a realistic taxation regime)

Because that will be the acid test - how many operators in this borderless Internet world voluntarily submit to British or any other form of real, enforced regulation, and for what reasons.

For right here and right now, though we have to deal with fragmented national and other systems, some better than others, including the informal power of the message boards. But don't knock it too much - we can be thankful for that in the absence of the thoroughly enforced government regulation across the world that would be nice but we are unlikely to see in the immediate future.

For now, the players have some recourse rather than no recourse, and many baddies have felt the pain of community alienation and opprobrium as an incentive to behave in a more reasonable and ethical manner.

 

[soflat]

So the affiliates say the industry is regulated.

What do the players think?

 

[spearmaster]

So the affiliates say the industry is regulated.

What do the players think?

You're oversimplifying things. A couple of affiliates believe that the industry is regulated. That does not mean all, or even a majority, of affiliates say the industry is regulated.

 

[casino employee]

Hmmmmm

I believe you should perhaps considder reading up on the different casino licensing jurisdictions before responding again that the online gaming industry is unregulated you make me think of those nuts who setup HR4777. I think that is why I will agree to disagree with you.

The issue of the licensing jurisdictions (as it is at the moment) is almost all academic. First, consider how many casinos actually lost their licenses for doing something bad... I can't think of one.

Then, recall how often posters here (for example) have spotted casinos sporting logos for licenses that have expired / not been renewed / never been issued.

Then, consider the jurisdictions themselves: these are not 1st world countries or major capitals therein. They are places like Costa Rica, Belize, Antigua, Curacao, Gibraltar, Isle of Man - and a few more crumb-cake islands. They're a hair away from being called tax havens (or shelters for shady people), and far away from the centers of power. Legally speaking it may even be that they have not all signed on international anti-money laundering laws either.

And to top it off, consider the major source of income for most of these places: online gaming. Companies invest in a lot of manpower and construction. There's a potential (and actual) conflict of interest here. The reason why few/no online casinos have lost their licenses is because these governments don't want to bite the hands that feed them.

There's no consumer protection from these licenses.

 

[Linus]

So the affiliates say the industry is regulated.

What do the players think?

I think Chatmaster comparing it to hawking Viagra on the internet pretty much sums it up.

It may be safer than buying prescription drugs without a prescription from South Africa (or wherever)... but I really hope that's not the standard the industry is setting for itself.

 

[dominique]

No matter what you do on the net - or elsewhere for that matter - it's "emptor caveat" or "buyer beware".

This industry used to be alot worse than it is now, and it has created it's own checks and balances.

A lot of casinos are towing the line because they don't want the likes of Bryan and Meistermembers to come after them. That's a type of regulation - self regulation.

888 screwed up big time but we went after them and bit by bit they are removing the offending marketing materials.

Jackpot Factory screwed up and was made to take the stuff down.

I don't think it's all that bad if you stay away from using spam you get in the mail. Most everyone who posts here or reads here gets an education pretty fast.

Most of the really large sites are large because they have player loyalty, and that is earned by providing useful and clean information and avoiding rip off places. The larger sites are who are on top in the search engines, so there is a reasonable chance that you will end up someplace decent as long as you don't dig too deep down in the search engines and avoid small cookie cutter sites.

I was thinking of setting up an affiliate site.....................

So what do you all think?

Good idea or what?
WAYLANDER

It's a great idea if you have something to offer that players want and need and you have the time and knowledge to create a website that has useful content and grows at a pace that the search engines like so you can get indexed and maybe someday players will find you and if they like your content maybe one in a hundred will click your link and you made a buck or two... Stick with that for few years and you might build something good and useful enough that draws enough people for you to make a nice living.

 

[Linus]

Most of the really large sites are large because they have player loyalty, and that is earned by providing useful and clean information and avoiding rip off places. The larger sites are who are on top in the search engines, so there is a reasonable chance that you will end up someplace decent as long as you don't dig too deep down in the search engines and avoid small cookie cutter sites.

The first site that shows up if you google "online casinos" is Casino On Net.

The first portal is casino.com. ("Over the last few years, Joyland Casino has proven to be one of the most highly regarded casinos on the web...")

I'm not sure being search engine optimized offers much protection to a player.

 

[dominique]

The first site that shows up if you google "online casinos" is Casino On Net.

The first portal is casino.com. ("Over the last few years, Joyland Casino has proven to be one of the most highly regarded casinos on the web...")

I'm not sure being search engine optimized offers much protection to a player.

We were talking about affiliate sites.

Online casinos usually leads to - well - online casinos.

Affiliate sites should come up when you look for information, like new slots or Boss Poker or Blackjack strategy and stuff like that.

But on second thought, you're probably right. There is so much crap floating around the search engines lately...

 

[Casinomeister]

...I'm not sure being search engine optimized offers much protection to a player.

Depends on what you are looking for

Google "online casino problems" or "online casino information" and you should be squared away.

A fool and his money are soon parted is sooo true in this industry. It's fascinating really - it would make excellent material for someone's master thesis or doctoral dissertation.

 

[rowmare]

I beg to differ with the explanation of a site coming up high in google being due to player loyalty. Google algos know of no such thing. It's age of site, incoming links from authority sites and content. Google has put a lot of emphasis on sites that are old. The older, the better.

Now, this is a generalization, of course. There are hundreds of variables involved, and if anybody actually knew exactly what google wanted, they could write an e-book explaining it and retire.

One example: A new site. You could have a great site, with a ton of useful content and generate a huge amount of player loyalty and still not show up for any searches in google if your site is new (sandbox lasts from 6 mos to over 1.5 years - longer in some cases).

And some of the sites high on the list are there as a result of BH SEO, although google does a better job of filtering out the crap than does Yahoo or MSN, IMO.

 

[aka23]

The first site that shows up if you google "online casinos" is Casino On Net.

The first portal is casino.com. ("Over the last few years, Joyland Casino has proven to be one of the most highly regarded casinos on the web...")

I'm not sure being search engine optimized offers much protection to a player.

I get:

Online Casino -- Golden Palace, Online Casino Reports, Intercasino
Online Casinos -- Glowing Casino, BJ Ballroom, 888.com

Google ranks highly according to external links pointing to that site, especially links from quality, relevant websites & major portholes (like Yahoo directory). I'd expect the larger casinos with high affiliate payouts to be listed well according to this system.

 

[dominique]

If you type in "online casino" and google gives you online casinos they are doing their job.

Except with "glowing Casino", which is there because of blackhat marketing techniques same as 888 was rogued for.

 

[LinkMeistress]

A23456789TJQK
Less than Zero

Reputation: -107

That about sums it up

LM

 

[lydia]

A23456789TJQK
Less than Zero

Reputation: -107

That about sums it up

LM

He doesn't post since 3 days. But some people still holding a grudge..., giving him neg. points behind his back Obviuosly there's something in what he says.., if he drives some people up the wall...

 

[Simmo!]

Obviuosly there's something in what he says.., if he drives some people up the wall...

It's more to do with the way he says it, rather than what he says

 

[LinkMeistress]

giving him neg. points behind his back

Well, I never gave this person or anyone negative points. When I made my post, I was just going by what the name said and the reputation points that is visible on every one of this member's posts. I think that you and a few other people musta thought that I gave this person several negative points as I was given negative points as well.

He doesn't post since 3 days.

I hadn't been here in about 3 days, but did click on threads that I had read before and noticed some shouting going on.

The reputation points and how it said less than zero below the username just summed it up for me (That's why I didn't say anything else in my post) - The person is obviously angry and had angered several others.

If a person feels angry of what 'affiliates' make, thats up to them. IMO, it's up to the casino how they want to spend their advertising dollars and should they choose to hire an 'affiliate' group to manage 'affiliates', they pay them. The 'affiliate' group then accepts applications from webmasters to promote certain brands. They enter into an agreement with each accepted webmaster and they pay them under the guidelines of the plan agreed upon. I see nothing wrong with that at all. Some webmasters put a lot more into their sites and some do not. To me, 'affiliate' income - it's a way that some webmasters help to support themselves and their family. I just don't think that a person should have their earnings taken out on them.

I placed (' ') for 'affiliate' just in case 'paid advertising' is a different thing to what is offered for affiliate webmasters.

LM

 

[lydia]

Well, I never gave this person or anyone negative points. LM

I didn't mean you at all!
I don't agree with everything that A.....Q said, but I've seen a much more insulting and rude posts around here, but it didn't start a rep. points witch hunt. :icon_twis That what I don't understand and that's what I was trying to say. I prefer to say my opinion open, without any backroom activities especially if the person is not present and can't defend himself.

And now count down - how quickly my rep. points will be decreasing!

 

[dominique]

And now count down - how quickly my rep. points will be decreasing!

I think if you stick around you'll see that people are not vindictive here at all, and we all like free speech.

Like Simmo said, it's not what you say, it's how you say it.

 

[soflat]

Whatever A238967965's Rep Points balance is, I think it was an interested thread.

 

[lydia]

I think if you stick around you'll see that people are not vindictive here at all, and we all like free speech.

I stick around long enough to make my own judgement about some people. I like and respect 95% people in this forum, but to be honest the story with poor A....Q left a very bad taste in my mouth... Well, where the money are involved, there's no much justice, IMHO. The reaction of some affiliates to some innocent questions was unadequate, I believe. But as I said, SOME.., not all. Simmo, f.e., was as always a gentlemen. even if he participated in "backroom activities".

 

[Simmo!]

Simmo, f.e., was as always a gentlemen. even if he participated in "backroom activities".

Except when i dress in drag - then I'm a laydee Guess then that becomes my main backroom activity



PS. Er...for what it's worth, I don't

 

[lydia]

PS. Er...for what it's worth, I don't

Heh? Excuse my french - Je ne comprene pas ?