"I am just talking about sheer numbers PPP, if poker news gets 10K visitors a day and I get 300, then the odds of one of my visitors having been to poker news already is much greater than the odds of their visitors having already been to my site. Its just a numbers game."
Yes, and you can't ignore the math of it. It's not raw numbers, it's a ratio. If 10% of "your" players that went to pokernews first get tracked to poker news, and 10% of "their" players that came to you first, then it's a wash... not in terms of raw numbers, but in terms of the effect.
But the reality on top of that is the effect almost certainly benefits the smaller affiliate as the larger affiliate will 1) likely have slightl better terms to offer the player, and 2) greater site stickiness so pokernews is far more likely to be able to convert "your" players on the players sixth or tenth or 23rd visit to pokernews, since the player is somewhat less likely to visit the smaller site than the larger site 23 times.
You really need to look at this without tunnel vision, and see how cookies protect small affiliates and benefit them more. Still though, the ratios are probably close enough to just not matter.
The thing is some people seem to onlu focus on the players they LOSE, while ignoring the players they GAIN. You can't have it both ways.
"But this really doesn't make a shit, my whole deal is if they navigate away from my site then I obviously didn't give them what they wanted, so I don't deserve to make any money on them."
Hardly. If a friend tells you to check out a TV show, and then a second friend does, and then a third friend does, and then you watch the show, it's silly to suggest that ONLY the third friend's opinion counted. In terms of poker, the first impression is USUALLY the most important. That is, if you convince someone to check out Full Tilt, if they don't sign up the first time it is either because 1) they simply chose not to at that time, or 2) they will very likely NEVER check out the site again because they didn't like it. The first look is USUALLY the most important.
There is no perfect way to assign value here. There is only choosing the best of several flawed methods, and first visit is plainly superior to any method that favors fraud or non-productive affiliates. (Affiliates who only move a player from one tracker to another are of no value to cardrooms.)
"Again I am not talking about players that already downloaded the software ppp."
And you should be. Again, you just can't IGNORE the greater implications of what you are saying. It's the same tunnelvision that ignores players other sites convert for you while complaining about players you convert for the other sites.
"so that the affiliate that actually gets them to download the software and deposit actually gets paid his/her efforts."
Whoa, and now you MIX the two. You really need to think this through more. Downloading software does NOT mean a player deposits.
Your position only makes sense if you look at it from an incredibly simplistic perspective that simply does not exist in the real world. I know you don't mean it this way, but your position would mean cardrooms should pay a different affiliate if they cause a player to make a second or third deposit! You want to stop the "last affiliate" at some random point, and it makes no logical sense on the one hand, and would be a complete nightmare for cardrooms.
(Oh and edmc, people have asked you already to not to make incoherent posts when you are drunk.)
|