Why do you think that it is not cannibalistic? You don't create any added value for the network (Ipoker). You just offer your player extra cash/strategy points if they create an account there while they are usually playing on one of the ipoker skin.

On Ongame by adding Europoker you promote one of the cannibalistc skin. They don't contirbute to the network by creating new fish cause that's what the bookmakers do for that network. That the ongame network has no regulation doesn't mean that you should do this that way cause you made a statement that you want change the rules but as a affiliate you don't respect that rules either. It just make no sens for me.
I would understand if you added betsson, betssafe or other bookmakers that contribute to the network but c'mon europoker??

BTW We as a poker community realy need fish to survive and that's true. I think that pokerstrategy could focus on another tape of target player ( I mean sth like 25-40 male from middleclass, frecreational fish). But they wouldn't generate so many cpa, revenue share for you as a affiliate. If you want to judge others you should start changes by yourself.

@iPoker:
If we generate a player for iPoker and this player has some value (he might be a net depositor or a higher raker), it's value for the network regardless on what skin he plays.
Plus, the migration iPoker to iPoker is not even that high at us.

@Ongame/EuroPoker:
I can understand that from your point - but indeed, we selected EuroPoker on advice from and in close co-operation with bwin. Bwin is the owner of Ongame and the main provider of 'fish'. We would have preferred to work with bwin only, but this is currently not possible due to the not really competitive bonus scheme of bwin themselves.

Hi Xantos
I still don't understand one thing. I think that we misuderstood with each other. Don't you think that the relation between Europoker and Ongame/Bwin is pure canibalistic?? Isn't it a parasite that doesn't create any value for the network? As one of the biggest (if not the biggest) affiliate in the world don't you think that you should contribute to the poker market? Now the situation on pokerstrategy looks like that people can choose bwin that contribute to the network but has really poor offer for players and Europoker that doesn't give anything to the network and their existence is based on offering just huge rakeback for affiliates (and indirectly for players).
there is much more skins on Ongame network and as so big company you could choose another skin that contribute to the network(etc other big bookmakers). That there is no regulation on Ongame doesn't mean that you can behave contrary to what you wrote about paraskin/canibalistic affiliates.

I agree with many of your arguments. I just think that you adress them badly. You also started the company as a small forum/affiliate. "Race to the bottom" we have now (affiliates cuttting their margins and offering as much as possible for high rakers) finally will destroy the market and I do agree with that.
But instead of trying to change that You take your part in that "race to the bottom" (Eurpoker case)

Hey gargamel_fk,

the EuroPoker case is a special one and I can fully understand your view from the outside.

I can just assure you that we had many talks with bwin both on a skin and network level - I was personally involved in talks with the upper echelon of the bwin group.

Bwin was fully informed before and was always fine with our co-operation with EuroPoker. They are perfectly aware even why EuroPoker is our partner: because as an affiliate, we need a competitive skin. Bwin could at that time not be the competitive skin for themselves - and they could not yet fix the network problems.

Bwin themselves work on ways how to solve the problems at Ongame - while EuroPoker works on plans on how to acquire more recreational players. And we are providing any support we can muster for both cases.

I'm sorry I cannot give more details here in public - so I just ask for your trust in this special case.

Best,
Lutz

Hi Xantos,
Sorry but It doesn't make sense for me. You try to tell that bwin approved that so you discussed that with them and they agree?!? It would mean that they react against their own business?!?
I just can't imagine that bwin is as you wrote "fine" with that relation. C'mon if you were a CEO of bwin would you support sth like that?? I mean the relation that destroy their margin?!? That's just insane. You wrote that you can't make that public but simply from my perspective (as a poker player) it doesn't have any sense. It is just deeply illogical...

Secondly I read your blog (Confidential) and some time ago I read yours (or it was Korn's maybe) about the parasitic sites and how they destroy poker networks/market. Don't you think that that as you called "exception" for euro poker make that parasitic sites even more legitimate ?? Now with their relation with pokerstrategy they clearly can expand their practices. So they will cut the margin of the contributing skins. Don't you think that you as a company contributed to that?? Even if it is an exception... I mean Europoker is definitely first para site on pokerstrategy and that made them even more legitimate on the market.

So where is the difference between your site and other affiliates (canibalistc affiliates) if you don't act any different (at least in that "case")

Hi gargamel,

as weird as it sounds, what Xantos says is true. Note that BWIN owns the entire OnGame network and consequently is aware of all the issues in the network and the challenges this brings for network partners.

At the end of the day, given that the network regulation won't change / situation won't improve, there is really two options for a contributing affiliate:

1) Do be on the OnGame network at all
2) Be on the OnGame network with a competitive offer (i.e. be part of the system)

We decided to go for option 2 as the OnGame Network is one of the largest. Smaller networks with similar issues we simply won't touch. Now, the only reason why we have to have such aggressive promotions on OnGame is because others do.

Our top priority is to encourage better network regulation. There really should be no affiliate based VIP promos aimed at cannibalisation at all, but this can only happen if it is being consistently enforced throughout the network. We are more than happy with giving the same amount or more back to players as long as the system behind it is central across the room/network.

However, the only entity that can make this happen & enforce it is OnGame itself.

Hi Korn,
I still think that you try avoid to explain one thing. I mean even if Xantos eplained somehow the relation and why you choosed that site It is just againts what you as a company want to change. Simply I just think that Europoker is just one of the parasites that doesn't conribute to the network (or to the hole poker market). There is a bunch of skins on Ongame so why exactly Europoker?? There are some smaller skins that try to contribute to the market where you could also offer some good bonus offers and you wouldn't support that type of cannibalistic skin (or whatever you will call them). Don't you think that by adding that site you support that cannibalistic approach to the poker market/network??
Now you support Europoker and they can increase their income and cut the margins of the contributing skins. I am just a poker player so maybe I don't understand something what if I were an affiliate I could....

I think it could be undone. Two simple options:
1) 27% rakeback to everybody. Adjust affiliate commissions accordingly. Advertise 27% rakeback centrally on Full Tilt website and in their campaigns, giving them a competitive advantage over others.
2) Same as above, but with a more refined rakeback structure / points based system.

Full Tilt would get rid of cannibalisation and at the same time make their own product more attractive.

The problem is not really that some are doing a better job than others.

The problem is parasitic cannibalisation within a given liquidity pool based on the fact that player value is based on rake only and ignores win/loss. This can be abused by focusing just on the top 10% of rakers by giving them something extra (races, chases etc), thus taking advantage of their high rake but not contributing towards the overall room by generating new deposits.

Not at all. There have been rooms with 100% rakeback that never worked. Reason being that what makes a room attractive for a VIP is the total amount of money he can make their (wins + bonuses, RB, etc). Now, every single dollar of rake that a winning players makes (wins, bonuses, RB etc) comes from somewhere. It ultimately comes from another player who has deposited and lost that money. Ultimately, the attractivity of a poker room thus strictly depends on the amount of deposits is generated on a daily basis.
Thus, the problem of parasitic cannibalisation is really a problem within existing liquidity pools (i.e. within a specific network or on a stand-alone site). It's not the amount of bonuses / rakeback given on a site that matters with regards to this, but the fact that differences within the same liquidity pool are extremely harmful as long as player value is just based on rake.

I.e. PokerStars could go to 70% flat RB or to 0% tomorrow, it would not really affect the parasitic cannibalisation happening in most poker networks.

As said above, it's not about competition, but really about parasitic cannibalisation. Say the US regulates, and say that 1 company gets a monopoly there (not likely, but for the sake of discussion). You could still get parasitic cannibalisation if the company works with affiliates and allows affiliates to directly or indirectly cannibalise the top 10% of players through "better deals" than at the site itself.

Again, nobody wants to take away price competition. We are only arguing against parasitic cannibalisation within a given liquidity pool. In general, we are actually for effective rake coming down.

More bonuses and rakeback for losing players is absolutely perfect! In fact, people that consistently deposit and lose money should ideally not be paying rake at all or in fact get effectively more than 100% because the money they lost will get converted into rake by others later on. [roughly, about 30-40% of deposits get converted into rake, with the rest being cashed out]

Of course, if you want to generate actual value (as opposed to making a quick buck with cannibalisation) this means a lot of work and investment.

This not only applies to free bankrolls, but also to every proper acquisition strategy in the poker market. Good examples are PokerNews, PokerListings, PokerTube and PokerStrategy, though there are lots more.

You sound like there was an entitlement to making millions with little risk, work or investment by cannibalising the marketing activities of poker rooms & networks.

That's great, but then you could probably do away with the cannibalistic strategy altogether? This would also imply that you'd get paid fair value (i.e. more) on the recreational players that you bring.

Really??
http://www.pokerstrategy.com/news/po...00-Bonus_34020

GG guys. Really good to know that you stay with the opinion you had.

That we work with networks that are smaller than Ongame was obvious before we worked with 24h - as you can see with:
- Unibet
- Ladbrokes
- Cake Poker
- Interpoker
- Pokerheaven
- ...

But there are quite some small networks we don't work with. With 24h, we are upbeat that we can have competitive on the flagship skin of that network.

Best,
Lutz

I underlined the statement in Korn post when he told that network with simmilar problems (huge rakeback) you simply won't touch (look at my post again) when he answered some time ago.
Find me any other network with such a big illegal rakeback, rake races and lack of fish like Entraction.
So you do do this. So how much is your opinion worth if you act exactly oposite?? Where is your poker ecology??
Regards,
gargamel_fk

Hi gargamel,

the amount of rakeback given is never the problems, the problem is parasitic cannibalisation and under the table deals.

I'll get in touch with our poker analyst who can give you some more background info on that particular network.

Also, Entraction is not a small network. In fact it's nowadays bigger than Everest, Cake and Pacific/888 all of which we work with.

Hello gargamel,

There is a difference between a competitive rakeback market and large amount of illegal rakeback. So while it is true that Entraction have a large amount of rake races and promotions resulting in a generally high amount of return per player - these promotions are predominantly centralized across the network. So even though the network has a reputation for competitive deals, I wouldn't say that it is among the worst concerning illegal deals (where there are definitely far worse).

Making a network such as Entraction (currently among the 10 biggest networks according to PokerScout) available to our members (by working together with its flagship skin) while actively trying to help it move in the correct direction is in no way contradictory to advocating 'poker ecology'. I hope you can understand this.

Best regards
Johannes

Guys you still avoid to answer. It's true what you wrote and I agree with that. Simply In one of the post where Korn answer to my question (post #56 in this thread) about Ongame you wrote that you won't work smaller networks with simillar problems (and definitelly Entraction is that kind of network). You made some kind of statement there Korn "Smaller networks with similar issues we simply won't touch."
from what I know you are a CEO/owner of pokerstrategy. Now you act exactly oposite by adding 24h from entraction network.
Parasites, unregulated rakeback, lack of fishes there is everything you are against (looks that only in words). Maybe I just don't understand something.
Looks that you too doesn't care you just want to put pressure on other affiliates to take their market shares.
Is this not against what you wrote, Korn?? I would be gratefull for explanation. Entraction is smaller than Ongame and has the same problems that you wrote you would like to avoid. Isn't it hypocritical???
Regards,
Frank

Like Johannes said: they don't have the same problems in the same intensity like Ongame. Entraction has competitive deals, but less cannibalistic, parasitic rakeback than some other networks.

But yes, Korn's statement ("not touching XYZ") was of course oversimplified. But I think you will agree that it is not contradicting to speak up and actively do something for better regulation / better player evaluation / more incentives to bring in recreational players while still working with networks such as Entraction. And this is basically what it's about.

Best,
Lutz

What Johanness wrote is simply not true. The problems that you were taking about exist there. Illegal deals, huge rakeback, parasites,etc.

If it is really centralized how you will explain that Johannes:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/51...ork-rb-180470/

So where you have your centralized rakeback?? You choosed network where problems are even bigger. I proved that what Johannes wrote is not true. Just take a look on the thread I linked here.

From other thread (last month):
So you will add Merge same problem (just take a look on other affiliates offer rake chases+rakeback,etc.)

Looks that you too don't care. Do you really think that Entraction/ Merge are not hurt by similar issues like Ongame is?? Things are even worser (On Ongame it is illegal to offer rakeback at least, just vip offers).

When I asked some time ago why you added Europoker when you already have Bwin you wrote that is one of the bigggest network and you want to be competitive. You wrote also that it was special case and you won't touch smaller networks with simillar problems. (It is clear for me that Korn was taking about networks that you don't have already so Entraction/ Merge, cause these 2 you don't have yet).

So how much it is worth what you wrote here?? You act exactly oposite to what you wrote. Now you try to prove that Entraction is indeed smaller networks but doesn't have simmilar issues- that's not true. Just take a look on a forum, we can make even a pool here on 2+2 forum. From player perspective problem with canibalisation/ parasites, illegal rakeback Entraction is even worser.

Hey gargamel,

I really don't see where you see the contradiction.

It's just two seperate things:

Goal 1: We want to provide our players with access to all liquidity pools.

Goal 2: We want to support networks in regulating and reduce the unhealthy cannibalisation that, in the long run, will make those networks completely unprofitable for winning players.

It would just not be logic not to work with relevant networks just because they currently have problems. It's always balancing out the two things against each other.

And we think that working with the flagship skins of a network, we can have more positive influence than if we just stand outside and hold them lectures.

Best,
Lutz

I understand that Xantos but that's Korn's words when he told that you won't do this. If I make some kind of statement I stick with that.
If someone read that thread how your company looks??? For me It is hypocritical when you call something exception and promise that it will not happen again and then you do it again and again.
Would you trust a person that act like that?? How much is it worth what you wrote here if you don't care about your own words (or CEO of your company did).
What is the point of the hole discussion if you don't want to change anything ( cause that's how you act)?
I am just a poker player and I think that you make some point that are really important.
Just if you want to change somthing just start from yourself. You critisize other affiliates/poker rooms and then you act the same way.
Are you really better??

As I told you - you should take it with a pinch of salt & don't take every single word like its written in stone.

Korns statement can be misunderstood in such a way that we would not work with smaller networks than Ongame that have similar problems - this is not what he meant. Period.

I don't think its hypocritical. It would be hypocritical if what we do would not make sense. And as I told you - and you didn't disagree - the basic logic is:

Sorry, but I think you're going over the top here. Suggestion: we come back to the topic of the thread and away from disputing the interpretation of 1-2 smaller sentences.

We are not acting the same, as we openly say to every single poker room and every single network: "don't let affiliates & skins outcompete each other with pure VIP schmemes/rewards - especially as long as the player valuation is based just on rake and not on net deposits/cashouts."

But please don't expect us to play martyrs in networks / at poker rooms where they don't listen or act decisively. We are still in the need to offer our players competitive offers.

Example: Full Tilt Poker. We would be the first to say: "we're fine to put our $45k into a pool of money for a big rake race for EVERY SINGLE player on FTP."

But as long as this is not the case and affiliate-based races are allowed, we need to have one that is competitive - because we do not want our players to be the victims of the current situation.

Best,
Lutz

A very interesting original post and I think it hits the nail on the head.

I've had many similar thoughts the past couple of months though it is very well written and is far more precise than if I had tried to post something similar!

To be open from the off, I've been a poker affiliate for the past 4 or so years and was a serious poker player around 2003-2008.

I have a few questions and would much appreciated your thoughts:

1) At what point does $1 invested no longer yield $1 in deposits from a player who will ultimately lose it? If $1 invested does yield >$1 in lost deposits, would it make sense for a poker site to charge much bigger rake, as the games who then financially benefit the site and players more?

2) Given Full Tilt's significant marketing on TV, are you concerned by the fall in their player numbers? http://www.pokerscout.com/SiteDetail...t&ab=378270720

3) Are you campaigning for the rake system to be changed so that net losses of players would be considered?

If so, would you expect current affiliate deals to be grandfathered i.e. affiliates with high volume players wouldn't see their revenues plummet overnight?

4) Would a change to the rake system lower the revenues of Pokerstrategy, given I assume you have net winning players? If a change were to be implemented, wouldn't it encourage you to give bad advice so your players lost

5) What do you think about making the games rake-free but having a % of winning cashouts being taken by the site? Therefore those who have benefit from the pokersite are those that pay.

I find it a really interesting topic and nice one for posting this.

john

Hey John,

thanks for your post!
I'll try to answer your questions:

Higher Rake Percentages do not utomatically result in higher Total Rake - as the games / activity suffer.

There is probably a golden middle of rake somewhere between 1% and 5% - that of course also depends on other factors.

The fall in player numbers is of course not good - but:

1. Also FTP is a victim to cannibalistic parasites - many rakeback affiliates just burn money that would otherwise be earned directly by FTP to do more marketing.

2. Seasonality combined with the World Cup is indeed bad for Online Poker.

3. If the smaller networks solve their huge problems and begin to invest more into marketing, we will see liquidity growing again across the board.

Not necessarily the rake system - but certainly the player valuation system. So the payments for skins and affiliates should be gouverned not just by rake, but also by net-loss. Because this would incentivise bringing in net-depositors - and cannibalistic rakeback affiliates would be in trouble as they don't bring in significant amounts of net-depositors.

Depends on the T&C/contracts and the poker room's decision.

But the priority for poker rooms should be to completely kick out affiliates that violate their rules, stop payments to them, maybe start law suits against them, and better invest this money into marketing or the many honest affiliates who try to bring in genuine new players.

Our credibility and the quality of our content are big assets that we would never risk.

Plus, we don't really need to as most of the players we bring in are in fact net losers - as our free $50 plus information plus education plus community plus services appeals to a very very broad band of players - amongst them being many that are curious about poker, but without a free $50 offer would never overcome their lack of trust into...
- own skills
- poker operators
- online payment options

We offer beginners great education to improve their skills - but most people don't really use it / want to use it. And this is absolutely fine, as recreational players / fun players are the backbone of online poker.

In theory this is a good idea, but it probably be hard to market to players (also recreational players).

I think as long as there are a lot of other things to improve, you should not change a running system.

Best regards,
Lutz

From a poker ecology point of view, this is indeed a brilliant option. The problem is that this system might be much harder to market to recreational players then the rake system (which they often don't notice that much).

In detail: affiliates would be paid a percentage on money being cashed-in. Players would pay the poker room a percentage of their money being cashed out.

From my understanding, in small-stakes games, money is wagered back and forth between the players so off an initial deposit, as much as 50% is granted the house, in rake.

To cover this, the operator would need to charge a 50% cashout fee. That would probably be hard to market to any player, recreational or not.

NOPE THEY never do this !!!!! Firts my english is not that good

They had the same Thread in german on Pokerstrategy , They advertise that they have the best OFER on Pokerstars.

The second one is that the CPA Modell is only for BAD Affiliate, Pokerstrategy get Rev. share as well. (They sayed it in english after a question from a member)