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

[Jeremy]

This is a fun thread. For starters Beanie is not a free $50 provider and probably laughs at the idea (he makes way more money than to mess around with such a dumb business model). Furthermore PPP is a baller and sends more players than any free $50 guy out there.

Partyforfree, from my observations you are probably one of the affiliates that has done this business model effectively. You have several checks and balances and probably decent player value (somehow).......this is why you DON'T have a negative balance. You should be happy about this, and congratulations on doing it right.

So basically you're in the clear. Why would anyone that is an honest affiliate defend the other 95% of Free $50 guys whom are being targeted here and are obviously the poachers and guys scamming Party.

Overall the Free $50 model is shit for people that are not running it in a way that partyforfree does. And trust me, most do not. As affiliates and poker players, let's just look at this logically for a second. If you need free money ($50) and can not deposit on your own, you probably never will deposit at that site and your player value will reflect it. Hence paying an affiliate a CPA of any amount is throwing it out the window. It's really no different that the freeroll whore who plays 3 hours to win a $25 prizepool.

It works for big guys because of volume. But the affiliate sending 20 players a month on free $50's with CPA is usually garbage.....actually almost always.

I have seen it first hand for several years. If you are an honest affiliate and not poaching or advising players to erase cookies, why in you're right mind would this new policy make you mad?

Take away Beanie and partyforfree. I would love to hear the argument from the other 90% of affiliates affected by this that intentionally signed up their buddies or messenger/forum contacts on CPA deals solely to collect the CPA.

[Beanie]

I actually do agree with you that many of the incentive sites don't really have a business but the few that did got thrown in with the bathwater. They were good partners to Party and were painted with a bad brush.

I did have a business partner that did free $50 but I was only an investor and it lasted about 4 months. It seemed silly that Party allowed it but you would have been foolish not to partake. I luckily had other things going at the time that kept me from getting full on into the mess. I also have always been skeptical of some of the decisions Party has made with affiliates so I have laid off of them. Even with some of my retail partners.

Long story short there are 2 different segments of this industry. Personally I have a difficulty seeing why someone would play at a site without some incentive. In the case of some the big Google guys though, they spent money time and energy, so that is the price the customer pays when they sign up through those links. Back in the day rakeback could not have existed and been competitive with the big Googlers, now I think a few can.

Can we all agree that bad affiliates should be drawn and quartered? And that black hatters should die?

My only point I ever tried to get across was good partners got thrown in with bad ones and I think ultimately Party will suffer because of that, in the same way other companies have that have done so.

[Liam]

Originally Posted by PPP

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.

My Argument is not the fact that they paid an incentive and are therefore out of pocket, but the fact that they acted on the information that Party Gave Them and then Party changed their mind.

Basically if you go to a stockbroker and say hey what do you think of this investment and the stockbroker says yes that's a good one. If the investment then goes broke, you have every right to go back to the stockbroker and seek compensation after all, it was his recomendation.

To me this is exactly the same.

[the27offsuit.com]

Originally Posted by Liam

My Argument is not the fact that they paid an incentive and are therefore out of pocket, but the fact that they acted on the information that Party Gave Them and then Party changed their mind.

Basically if you go to a stockbroker and say hey what do you think of this investment and the stockbroker says yes that's a good one. If the investment then goes broke, you have every right to go back to the stockbroker and seek compensation after all, it was his recomendation.

To me this is exactly the same.

Dont think that stockbroker statement is true

My views are party should have had better stops in place to prevent this , because honestly , there just going to charge the affiliates who will just sop promoting party and not get paid anyway . For myself i can say i lost a lot of players who just stopped playing , probably got poached , and if at the end of this month or next i see a nice bonus from party for past due rake i would be suprised .

But i stand with party if it stops the poaching of players .

P.s. I am rev share with them 100% and do not offer incentives so this really does not affect me .

[the27offsuit.com]

Asked my Am there about whats going on and heres his reply

I would like to inform you that we now have a system in place where the affiliates would not be able to poach players, as soon as they refer an already existing player, the system will identify that player and disqualify that affiliate from getting paid.

[Catfish]

Does that mean the players are identified as existing players upon sign-up ? If so, that's exactly what I have been told to be "technically impossible" by my AM. That would be exactly the system I have been asking for since day one.
In my opinion, with a system like this in place, it's the best way to make incentive marketing work for both sides.
Although I still think that a MGR-based scheme works better in the long run.

And to all you guys defending Party policy, do not get me wrong here : I absolutely agree with you that preventing affiliates from poaching is a very good thing. The questions remain:
a) why did they wait for so long to do something about it
b) why are they putting the blame on the affiliates for it, when obviously they had the means but didnt use them
c) why take the money off the affiliate and not off the fraudulent player

And again, if you guys hope to see some of the rake that those players generated while playing under their second account ... well then I would have to question your sense of reality.

[Beanie]

Originally Posted by the27offsuit.com

Asked my Am there about whats going on and heres his reply

I would like to inform you that we now have a system in place where the affiliates would not be able to poach players, as soon as they refer an already existing player, the system will identify that player and disqualify that affiliate from getting paid.

If thats the case then why go back and why assume it was the affiliates fault unless of course all of the traffic was fraudulent.

One of the stupidest things that any card room ever did was done in droves on Party. Party would actually allow you to close your account (and then sign up for a new one). I remember hearing news at one point and I just laughed thinking that would be fixed within weeks. Went on for years.

Party is to blame people, not the affiliates.

[menny]

are your accounts still under investigation ?

[Catfish]

Not anymore, but they deduced the 1700 $ from my revenues

[regalospoker.com]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

The most important question out there that still has no answer is if the original affiliates will be credited. That should be more important in this entire discussion than the guy giving illegal rakeback or incentives to existing Party players losing them out of his account.

The most important question is that party let us to sign-up players and then they want the money back. If this where said on October things would be different, but waiting to get the players and then stealing our money is not fair.
Proper way would have been "Hey this account does not qualify for CPA"