Clearing cookies set by other sites

[offyourface]

Originally Posted by PPP

How do you figure that? Sorry this makes no sense. Your visitors are more likely to visit a big affiliate site, then a cardroom, then decline the cardroom, then visit your site and want to join... but not the other way around in a similar percentage? There isn't any logic in that, unless you think bigger affiliates are shittier marketers than you. But still this is a very very trivial point compared to the main issue clearing cookies to steal players.

Well I am not going to give you a math lesson on simple how odds and ratios work. Its really not that hard to understand. And I guess your saying all smaller affiliates just fall into deals if the visitor has already been to a bigger site. It must be pure luck if the big affiliate didn't convert them and we did. A complete shot in the dark hey?

I can't believe an affiliate, a guy on this side of the coin is actually backing this flawed way of doing cookies. How can you possibly justify that doing cookies this way is more fair as opposed to giving credit to the last referrer? You can't possibly be making your posts with a straight face are you? I convert the player from my site, but the poker room pays another affiliate just because they clicked on a link a couple of weeks ago, real fair bro. If there is anyone else here who thinks I should do their work for them, please let me know. I just love working for free.

[offyourface]

Originally Posted by PPP

Obviously not, just like moving ahead of somebody in a line isn't the same as burying them underground. Existing players can't use bonus codes.

I didn't think existing players could open up dupe accounts either.

[RakeAway]

ONTOPIC: I've come up with an alternative. Is it possible to set a cookie when someone leaves a page? That would solve the problem 100%

[PPP]

Originally Posted by RakeAway

This is not at all about existing players.

Of course it is. Either you are being hopelessly naive or just pretending not to see the issue. Saying it is your INTENT to not target existing players is like saying it is your intent to play a round of golf at two under par.

The reality is any site offering any deal to players will encounter players with existing accounts wanting the deal. Insisting otherwise is too silly to take seriously.

Small businesses should not think big businesses are even capable of acting like a small business. The cardrooms need to protext themselves from absuing players and affiliates. Saying "I want to do it this way for this specific type of player" without considering how people could abuse that is just not looking at the big picture. The point is not the one to twenty players you refer today. The point is the thousands of players the larger cardrooms sign up EVERY day, and the second fact that there may be a million players ineligible for you promotion, and the third fact that you have no way of knowing if a player is one of those millions.

Clearing out cookies is saying "screw you and your problems" to the cardrooms. In direct contrast is bonus codes where players are tracked to you, but the history of that player is not wiped out for the cardroom.

Making headaches for the cardrooms is not a better business plan than doing everything you can to cooperate with them.

[PPP]

Originally Posted by offyourface

Well I am not going to give you a math lesson on simple how odds and ratios work. Its really not that hard to understand. And I guess your saying all smaller affiliates just fall into deals if the visitor has already been to a bigger site. It must be pure luck if the big affiliate didn't convert them and we did. A complete shot in the dark hey?

You can't fight the math. Try to think about it logically. Why would people who visit pokernews first be more likely to sign up at your site than those who visit your site first and pokernews second? The fact of the matter is the reverse should be true, since bigger affiliates often get somewhat better deals for players.

It is simple odds and ratios on the one hand, but then it is even BETTER for smaller affiliates who get players first. Pokernews (and Pokerlistings, etc) converts players for small affiliates every day. The reality is once players get introduced to the poker world, they generally want more, which means they are FAR FAR more likely to go from a smaller site to find a bigger site second than they are to find a smaller site AFTER they find a bigger site first.

The bigger sites convert players for smaller sites at a higher ratio than the other way around. Frankly the astonishing thing about threads like these is that most smaller affiliates don't get this part of the business. Cookies benefit smaller sites at the expense of bigger sites. This phenomenon is not awful enough for it to matter so much to bigger sites, but the reality is once players get hooked on poker at some forum (or whatever) they will gravitate to bigger forums like 2+2 in a higher percentage than someone who finds 2+2 first. It is not natural to say "hey, I found this big forum with lots of participants, and that makes me want to go to a smaller forum with less participants."

Originally Posted by offyourface

I can't believe an affiliate, a guy on this side of the coin is actually backing this flawed way of doing cookies. How can you possibly justify that doing cookies this way is more fair as opposed to giving credit to the last referrer? You can't possibly be making your posts with a straight face are you? I convert the player from my site, but the poker room pays another affiliate just because they clicked on a link a couple of weeks ago, real fair bro. If there is anyone else here who thinks I should do their work for them, please let me know. I just love working for free.

Last referer would be just a plain dumb way to run an affiliate business... although I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't mean play money players here. You do believe that the first affiliate to get a player to download software, sign up for an account, and encourage people to sample a site is the key affiliate, right? The idea that the "best" affiliate would be one trolling play money tables really seems too much.

The bottom line though remains that the current system benefits small affiliates who effectively work to create new players at the expense of bigger ones who also work to create new players, but this isn't a major problem since it does go both ways.

[offyourface]

Originally Posted by PPP

You can't fight the math. Try to think about it logically. Why would people who visit pokernews first be more likely to sign up at your site than those who visit your site first and pokernews second? The fact of the matter is the reverse should be true, since bigger affiliates often get somewhat better deals for players.

It is simple odds and ratios on the one hand, but then it is even BETTER for smaller affiliates who get players first. Pokernews (and Pokerlistings, etc) converts players for small affiliates every day. The reality is once players get introduced to the poker world, they generally want more, which means they are FAR FAR more likely to go from a smaller site to find a bigger site second than they are to find a smaller site AFTER they find a bigger site first.

The bigger sites convert players for smaller sites at a higher ratio than the other way around. Frankly the astonishing thing about threads like these is that most smaller affiliates don't get this part of the business. Cookies benefit smaller sites at the expense of bigger sites. This phenomenon is not awful enough for it to matter so much to bigger sites, but the reality is once players get hooked on poker at some forum (or whatever) they will gravitate to bigger forums like 2+2 in a higher percentage than someone who finds 2+2 first. It is not natural to say "hey, I found this big forum with lots of participants, and that makes me want to go to a smaller forum with less participants."

Well I can appreciate your concept here, but I am not getting into the psychological aspect of knowing what my visitors are thinking when they decide to navigate to another site and not mine. 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. 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. Your saying I do even if they go to poker news and decide to download and deposit through one of their links, while having already visited the poker room through my link. That is in no way a fair and just structure to do cookies. I say this assuming the programs could distinguish between players that have already downloaded the software and players that have just surfed the websites.

Originally Posted by PPP

Last referer would be just a plain dumb way to run an affiliate business.

Again I am not talking about players that already downloaded the software ppp. I am just talking about simple surfers that visit my site and have never downloaded the poker room. Saying that giving credit to the last affiliate that actually converted them is dumb is probably one of the dumbest remarks I have read yet on this forum, no offense. Taking out of the equation the players that already have an account or have previously downloaded the software, then there is absolutely no reason in the world to give the commission to another affiliate that didn't make the player convert while I did. If they found what they needed on poker news they wouldn't be browsing my site in the first place.

I just don't understand your logic at all. If we took a consensus on the way affiliates wanted cookies done, you would no doubt be in the minority. Theres no logical explanation to doing it this way, and what I don't understand is you keep making the argument that its a wash and it benefits the smaller affiliate, and if this were genuine you would not be so opposed to doing it this way. It doesn't make sense, what are the negatives in doing cookies the way so that the affiliate that actually gets them to download the software and deposit actually gets paid his/her efforts. Your right, what a dumb idea. Your argument is like paying the secretary at Atlanta Ford the commission on a sale just because she picked up the phone and talked to the prospect first, but the salesmen actually sold them on the car. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[PPP]

"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.)

[Dave]

Tushay edmc

That was a very cheap shot PPP

The affiliate game is.... what it is.

Play by the rules.

Love it or leave it.

[offyourface]

Originally Posted by PPP

"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.

Not a hard concept PPP, if there are 100,000 potential prospects on the internet, and pokernews gets 10K visitors a day and I get 300 a day, then what percentage of those 100,000 potential visitors already have the cookie on their computer that would negate the next affilaite from making money on them. Does the guy who gets 10K hits a day have more cookie imbedded customers out there or the guy that gets 300 a day? But really I could care less who is right here. I could very well be wrong? I am not a mathmatecian.

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.

I never said it doesn't work both ways, only that its retarded to even put affiliates in the position to make it have to work both ways in order for it to be fair.

"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.

With all due respect PPP, what a moronic way to justify giving another affiliate credit for my conversion. I guess the poker rooms should just go ahead and pay my commissions to the wsop for creating the interest of online poker on tv.

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.

For the 27th time I am talking about surfers, I told you 4 posts ago that if an affiliate makes that player deposit or download the software, they earned the sale in my opinion.

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.

To my knowledge poker rooms don't pay commission on players that already have an existing account. So I doubt its a big nightmare to make the cookies so that the affiliate that actually gets them to download and deposit gets the credit. Anyway, I've had enough drama with this thread. I respectfully disagree with everything you said. There is just no reasoning with a guy who is never wrong. Good luck.

[offyourface]

Originally Posted by PPP

"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.

Not a hard concept PPP, if there are 100,000 potential prospects on the internet, and pokernews gets 10K visitors a day and I get 300 a day, then what percentage of those 100,000 potential visitors already have the cookie on their computer that would negate the next affilaite from making money on them. Does the guy who gets 10K hits a day have more cookie imbedded customers out there or the guy that gets 300 a day? But really I could care less who is right here. I could very well be wrong? I am not a mathmatecian.

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.

I never said it doesn't work both ways, only that its retarded to even put affiliates in the position to make it have to work both ways in order for it to be fair.

"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.

With all due respect PPP, what a moronic way to justify giving another affiliate credit for my conversion. I guess the poker rooms should just go ahead and pay my commissions to the wsop for creating the interest of online poker on tv.

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.

For the 27th time I am talking about surfers, I told you 4 posts ago that if an affiliate makes that player deposit or download the software, they earned the sale in my opinion.

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.

To my knowledge poker rooms don't pay commission on players that already have an existing account. So I doubt its a big nightmare to make the cookies so that the affiliate that actually gets them to download and deposit gets the credit. Anyway, I've had enough drama with this thread. I respectfully disagree with everything you said. There is just no reasoning with a guy who is never wrong. Good luck.