Rake-back restrictions


RIP Brian
Feb 22, 2001

"Rake" site advertising verboten

Playtech's iPoker network seems to be applying restrictions on rake-back marketing involving its affiliates, judging by a recent email to affiliate marketers.

The communication reminds iPoker affiliates that in terms of clause 1 of the iPoker network policy, member cardrooms are not
allowed to advertise their sites in "rake-back oriented" affiliate sites.

"These sites include any affiliate site that has the word "rake" in the URL, the email advises. "In addition, iPoker reserves the right to declare certain affiliates as "rake-back oriented".

"iPoker's operators will not be allowed to advertise their site in "rake-back oriented" affiliate sites. For the sake of clarity, any
affiliate site that has the word "rake" in the URL or in the name of the site will be deemed a "rake-back oriented affiliate site". iPoker reserves the right to declare certain affiliate websites as "rake-back oriented" and iPoker's operators will do their utmost to remove any related promotions from the site within 24 hours after receiving notifications from iPoker."

The email concludes by informing affiliates currently advertising iPoker on any rakeback or site that could conflict with iPoker's members that it is important that this is removed.

"If you have registered only your rakeback url with our affiliate program please can you update this and let us know where our banner will be located otherwise."


Dormant account
Jul 5, 2003
The Boonies
Poker rooms should learn to pay their players decent comps themselves instead of encouraging a cutthroat industry.

Rakeback is a stupid idea from the poker rooms point of view, they let the affiliate handle the distribution of comps and the affiliate has no interest in loyalty to the room, s/he will move players from room to room as the rooms try to undercut each other. The affiliate is loyal only to him/herself and not to the room or the player.

It's a bad thing for the affiliate business because instead on concentrating on what room offers better service to players, rake back affiliates concentrate on which room offers them a better deal. It's exactly what I have always tried to combat in the affiliate industry. Under the table deals instead of quality control.

But most of all, it's bad for players. Players are led to believe that they have to be grateful to the poor affiliate taking a pay cut in order to serve them. Instead, it's the rooms making under the table deals with the affiliate, and the affiliate taking players out of perfectly good rooms because a bad one elsewhere offers more money under the table.

What you see is not what you get in rakeback, it has become a shady and sleezy way of doing business. In reality it's just rooms stealing players away from other rooms and the player is a pawn in the whole thing, always assured by the affiliate that it's just for the player's sake.

I'd like to see the rooms do away with this nonsense and pay players decent comps without all these under the table dealings. Whatever is wrong with giving players decent comps on their play in the first place? Why do they have to be bought and sold and moved around like checker pieces?

IMO this whole rakeback thing has severely hurt the poker industry and made it sleezy. I don't even see the point in it, just pay your players appropriate comps and be done with it.

Then everyone can go back to looking at quality instead of hunting for under the table deals with rooms that can't attract players any other way.


Aug 3, 2002
Las Vegas
The biggest trouble iPoker had was not so much with rakeback itself but it was every skin trying to slit each other's throat. Rakeback was just one of the issues. VIP programs and bonus programs were another. iPoker first triedto cap rakeback %'s, then they finally banned new rakeback players while existing rakback players were allowed to keep their rakeback. IMO that is the only fair way to end rakeback.

I'm not exactly sure if it is still this way but about a year ago iPoker made a rule saying players could not create more then 1 account on the network. Existing accounts were allowed to stay. This seems a bit extreme to me though. Absolute had a better way to deal with it. Skins could not accept a new player that had played on another skin in the last 90 days. This kept skins more concentrated on bringing in new players and not trying to steal existing ones. This is much more player friendly because if a player had an issue with a skin they were not stuck on it if they were not satified.

Users who are viewing this thread