1700 $ deduced from my revenue for "fraud" !!!

[PartyForFree]

Oddly enough, I don't have a negative balance in my account (yet).

I think part of the problem may have been with in the manner in which people ran the free bankroll promotion.

Three of the many security checks, we did are the following:

1) Made people verify their phone number. OK, this isn't 100% secure, but it means they know we have a direct channel to them, which they know.

2) We work with credit reporting agencies in Canada, UK, Australia & Germany to do a "soft" credit bureau. We don't get any credit information about them back from the reporting agency, but they provide us with a true or false as to them having a record of a person with that name, address & date of birth. Addtionally, we do a search of the electoral rolls in each country to see if the person is a registered voter. All of this happens in real time during the sign up process.

3) Geographical IP tracing, proxy server detection, anonymous proxy detection are done on all accounts at the time of sign up, and whenever they log into our site. Our site then analyzes this information to look for differences in their location. IE, are they jumping from one side of the country to the other (done via lattitude & longitude of the IP), etc...

We wouldn't fund a free bankroll account without all three of these conditions being passed.

Now, this wouldn't prevent someone from signing up twice, but it would ensure they are in fact a real person. I think a lot of people wouldn't sign up twice knowing they have to give their accurate personal information in order to get the incentive...especially not an avid player as they know they risk having their accounts closed.

As I've said a number of times...the no deposit bonuses aren't for eveyone. If you don't have systems in place to prevent abuse, you'll get run over. But I think it's grossly unfair of the detractors of these promotions to simply lump eveyone who offers incentive based promotions together into one group.

Some of us worked very long, very hard hours to prevent abuse of their systems.

[Beanie]

exactly, and it is not like Party couldn't have done their end. Clearly they saw the value in doing it but why go retro on the bit. Once you have the systems in place use it.

An affiliate can only do so much to satisfy the rooms conditions.

That is what I don't think people are getting. Everyone wants the big bad customer thieves gone but lets assume that some of the people getting hurt did not do anything and they took every possible measure to stop fraud. Should they then be charged back?

I feel a lot of you guys with the incentive stuff and I go to great lengths to be different. But where does the affiliate's responsibility stop and the cardrooms start?

You see I am not arguing for the crooks. I am arguing for the people being perceived as crooks that did everything within their power to comply. But certainly Party should have known who the crooks were and not just assume everyone was one.

It doesn't matter, Party is going to do what they do and none of the people that got players poached will see those revenues. You can book that.

[PPP]

It seems some folks can't get out out of a very short-sighted mode, especially given the lack of alternative ideas.

If a fraud player is discovered, the player should be dealt with as soon as possible, even if that is years later.

No affiliate is harmed in any way by this. The affiliates who had fraud players assigned to them got a benefit they didn't deserve for a month or a year or whatever. Expecting Party to detetct fraud at the moment of signup is a ludicrous idea that reflects the small business outlook of some affiliates. Since fraud costs *them* more money than us, we should expect them to seek and destroy fraud situations as promptly as possible but vetting 7000 players on a daily basis is wildly optimistic.

"Some of us worked very long, very hard hours to prevent abuse of their systems."

We all do. That isn't relevant. You need to stop thinking that what you did is "special" somehow. You spent money ro get players just like the rest of us do. Likewise, most of the rest of us try to avoid abuse (for example, most affiliates don't say stuff like "uninstall your software). But the reality is there is one business model that screams "please abuse me", and you ended up with a lot of fraud players. In getting them, you got paid a lot of money you did not deserve in any way shape or form. Party owes you nothing. They do owe to the original affiliate better policing. Thus this is a long overdue step most of us have been eagerly hoping for since the stone age.

Once again, this is the best thing to ever happen to affiliates. If every cardroom did this the parasitic cruft of affiliates would be cleaned out, and the genuine affiliates would make more money, and MGR and CPA rates would be higher, and on and on. There is no downside. No one is hurt in the slightest. It's win-win.... and will of course be massively even better if 1) original affiliates are credited, and 2) fraud or poached players are identified more promptly in the future. Hopefully we will see adjustments like this every month from now on.

[Beanie]

we are just going to have to agree to agree on this I think. But I don't agree with you that if an affiliate has done everything to prevent fraud that they should be deducted. Its unfair. At some point the room needs to take over. There are a lot of guys that did everything they could and still customers found a way.

That is not on them. That is on Party.

I have been vehement in my distaste for the "clean your cookies" people but don't lump everyone into that group. Some people are doing good work, they shouldn't be hit out of the blue with charges. That is contrary to a good partnership.

You are missing my broader point. You can't sweep with a broad brush especially when you were the one at fault, they had the ability to check for fraud. ORIGINAL AFFILIATES WILL NOT BE CREDITED! That is a pipe dream. Even CPA guys should be screaming for higher CPA's, which they won't get.

This was accounting genius on Party's part because too many people don't see it for what it is because many of us are constantly suspecting the others of wrong doing.

What about the people that did nothing wrong? What is their recourse. They paid bills based on that money and did everything within their power to comply with Party's wants and needs. You can't say there aren't because you don't really know. Neither does Party, yet a lot of good affiliates got punished. Just because its not your model doesn't make it inherently wrong.

[PPP]

It's hard to figure what you aren't getting.

Here... http://www.partypoker.com/?sometracker.com
Somebody comes along and clicks the link.
They are a fraud player without my knowledge, who get detected six months later due to a pattern of IP addreses and inter account transfers.

It isn't somehow PARTY's fault, and it isn't mine. But it is a fraud player for which ?sometracker.com does not deserve payment.

How can you not get that? This idea that affiliates aren't accountable makes no sense.

Suppose there is a site called partybenefitshere.com, that you have to be a Party player to join. Suppose I buy advertising on this site, saying "join Party and get an extra $100 on signup" (the standard deal). No suppose some folks uninstall their software and signup via that link. Now suppose I get paid. It's just nuts to think that Party should not take back any funds they gave me for that player -- regardless of whether they give the original affiliate (if one) anything.

This is a slam dunk, and you guys looking at this in a selfish, micro way need to think like bigger businesses. Everything we do has risks. Every nickel I spend may be a bad choice... especially if I choose a business model that targets more-prone-to-fraud signups.

Maybe even the most important point, this is not news to anyone honest about it. A lot of affiliates have benefitted from getting players that they deserve no payment for.

All this statute of limitations stuff is silly ("they paid me, it's mine"). Fortunately now we have at least one cardroom finally, thankfully saying affiliates can't benefit from fraud players no matter what, and no matter how long it takes to discover the fraud, intentional or unintentional.

Zero downside, hugely positive thing for genuine affiliates and the entire industry. Now we need others to follow, or for affiliates to abondon programs that don't.

[PPP]

Originally Posted by Beanie

What about the people that did nothing wrong? What is their recourse. They paid bills based on that money and did everything within their power to comply with Party's wants and needs.

It's repeating the point, but I think this is the thing where you just have to force yourself to look at the bigger picture. Paying $50 to a player is no different than paying for an ad or paying for business cards. If I pay for an ad on some site that gets me 15 players, ten of which are fraud players, I may have made a poor choice in my marketing. That's it.

The reality is simply that these free $50 things were a bad business model. They generated a lot of non-legit players. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you market, some of your marketing dollars will not be profitable.

[geoffvro]

Unless you represent Party Poker, and thus have extraordinary access to affiliate records than you are not in a position to question whether catfish, beanie, or any affiliate, was marketing to players in bad faith. Party is not explaining their actions and, like the affiliates being penalized, we do not have access to information that would allow us to make a sound judgment.

On the notion of fraud – the word fraud is used very liberally by online gaming providers as a means to define unacceptable behavior: fraud traffic, fraud player, etc. However, the actions of any affiliate accused of poaching players neither constitutes fraud nor represents an illegal act. There are simply no laws defining poaching affiliate accounts as an illegal act. Unethical – yes, fraudulent or illegal – no

Any affiliate acting in good faith promotional activities should be paid by the affiliate. Party was never shy to encourage affiliates to offer incentive cash to players, and many affiliates are being penalized for these good faith marketing efforts. It is irresponsible for Party to conclude that players with multiple accounts were marketed in bad faith without acknowledging their own role in the abuse. With the exception of “real” player fraud, affiliates should not be accountable for abuse of the TOS by the player.

While many, including myself, applaud Party Poker’s implementation of a policy that is desperately needed in this industry, I question whether their action was a desire to set an industry standard or simply a cash-grab to shore-up their financials in lea of a possible sale. Party’s silence leads me to believe the latter is true, and their reason for confiscating affiliate funds does not reflect their true motive. So, they get absolutely no praise from me…or banner space.

And to conclude my pitch-a-bitch: The gaming industry needs to come together and create a fair and just mechanism that will provide dispute resolution and binding arbitration for players and affiliates. Just for players would be a huge progress.

As always, just my three cents.

[PPP]

Originally Posted by geoffvro

Any affiliate acting in good faith promotional activities should be paid by the affiliate.

Any affiliate acting in good faith that delivers a new player should be paid.

Expecting to be paid for sending duplicate players just because you act in good faith makes no sense on any level.

Let's try to keep this focused on the serious issues.

[PartyForFree]

Originally Posted by PPP

Zero downside, hugely positive thing for genuine affiliates and the entire industry. Now we need others to follow, or for affiliates to abondon programs that don't.

"Genuine affiliates" ? I'm curious just what you mean by that...

Originally Posted by PPP

The reality is simply that these free $50 things were a bad business model. They generated a lot of non-legit players.

What do you base this statement on? I have solid evidence to the contrary. Do you have anything to back your statement up with?

First off, I have funded many thousands of free $50 accounts. Party has yet to deduct anything from my account under this new initiative of theirs. One would think, they deem my players "legit".

Bad business model? Perhaps on Party Pokers part when they started paying $200 CPA's for them. The average return time for our players at party was approx. 50 days when they were paying the $75 CPA. Not great, but good enough. We were making lots of money, and they were making lots of money. Granted, they weren't making as much per player as a non-incentive based site but I bet I've sent way more player to Party than you have. Hmm, actually, I shouldn't say that. I don't know how many players you sent and I'm going to try and avoid making bold statements for which I have no factual basis....hint hint!

I run another site which offers the free bankroll option on another site. We run the whole thing on MGR, and we're making money. If we're making money, the site is making lots more. How is that bad?

[PPP]

""Genuine affiliates" ?"

Affiliates who provide genuine players.

"What do you base this statement on? I have solid evidence to the contrary. Do you have anything to back your statement up with?"

You mean aside from the complaining posted here now?

"One would think, they deem my players "legit"."

Then they are. So?

"Bad business model? Perhaps on Party Pokers part when they started paying $200 CPA's for them."

Yeah, okay, that's a good enough example. What is bad for cardrooms is bad for affiliates.

"but I bet I've sent way more player to Party than you have."

Dude, chances of that are zero. I've seen the numbers you posted and you aren't even close to the ballpark. So, perhaps you ought to take your hint and not make really foolish statements.

If your point is that free bankroll sites can make money, of course they can. But stop staring at your navel. That isn't the point. In general, free bankroll sites are a terrible business model. They cost cardrooms and original affiliates money. That doesn't mean that a free bankroll site couldn't be done right... just like someone like Gus hansen can play 75o effectively. Overall this is a losing play for people who try it. You can be congratulated for making it work if you do, but its not a good business model in general, and I assume you would agree that it is a simply awful model for people who have absolutely no idea what they are doing.