hi, ive read most of the thread so far, and i think u (ps.com) is being a bit cynical? ( dunno if thats how its spelled) while its true that u do not offer under the table deals and talk openly about poker ecology.
there are at least one room that does this and u r their affiliate, im talkin bout mansion poker and u benefit from this.
this is a thread that about a player that got offered rewards on top of their vip system, this is the only one that is been talking about because the player got screwed by the old manager is in spanish, but im sure that there are other playes that got offered this kind of deal.
http://es.pokerstrategy.com/forum/th...hreadid=119775

so heres a though, instead of trying to fix the world u should start fixing ur own site.

Hey CondeDeTepepan,

while I'm thankful for your hint (which we will investigate), I think you don't want to imply that we are fully responsible to what firms we work with do without our knowledge?

The reason why we discuss this topic with players, rooms and networks alike is exactly to prevent such stuff.

Best regards,
Lutz

im not saying u are fully responsable of what the rooms that u are AFFILIATE with do, but at less to pay attention to those problems, that guy was openly talking about all the "extra" rewards that he was getting for playing in mansion, and u never talked to him/the room, about it?
even at this time today there hasnt been a single post of one of ur CM spanish talking bout it or making a statement about mansion poker.
so yes u are part responsible for what happened to him and if u cant accept that well w/e

You're absolutely right that we should react to such things and report them. However, this is sometimes easier said then done when you have 18 languages and your policy team just speaks 2-3 and for the rest needs escalation by the CMs who are often not aware enough of these issues.

This of course is a training/coaching issue we will address. So thanks again for your reporting.

After reading trough all that and waiting for weeks for this topic to develop, there's only one logical arguable conclusion.

You can easily compare the poker ecology to other economic systems out there and therefore apply a lot of laws that work in other branches to this one. (James Mill, John Keynes)

No matter what the affiliate does to support this ecology, he is actually hurting it. When you count in that the most just try to cash out the most they can, you have to come to the conclusion that unfortunately all of you are a plague to online poker. No matter how well you mean it, and how hard you try it.

The sheer existence of affiliates is a cut in every poker players revenue. Sad but true.

@wellju:
That's just not true.

1. A good affiliate is a cost-efficient generator of a well-balanced player mix - and as such an alternative/addition to e.g. big TV campaigns.

2. A good affiliate creates genuine new interest into poker / enlargens the overall poker market / the interest of people in poker.

Both directly and indirectly lead to growing liquidity / net deposits, which is good for a winning player even if he's not tracked to any affiliate.

Sadly, most affiliates are not doing these things - but instead concentrate on existing poker players & poaching them from A to B with monetary incentives / outpricing the rooms themselves.

The same counts for most skins on networks.


Besides fixing the ecology problems, poker rooms 'just' need to do more things to get their rooms growing again:
- invest into marketing / your brand (TV, print, online) to gain market share and increase interest into poker => shrinking poker rooms cannot uphold big margins, but need to market more aggressively because otherwise they will shrink further and quicker
- invest into basic software/client quality - too many networks / rooms have less performant/less stable/less usable poker clients than the top softwares such as Stars/FTP/Party - considering that some of the networks act as nothing more than a software provider, this is basically a disgrace.

More on the matter:
http://confidential.pokerstrategy.co...o_do_to_thrive

Best,
Lutz

I agree 100% with all of what you've posted above.

I quoted your paragraph in which you confirm my statement tho.

Sadly, the most affiliates are just parasites but it's just not possible to wipe out the bad ones and leave the good ones. If it is, please explain that to me.

I'm not being stubborn here, in fact I try to understand all these mechanics without any prior knowledge of that branch.

It just sounds impossible that the net deposits all of the affiliates generate together, which wouldn't happen without their involvement, are bigger than the money the affiliates take out of the system.
I would be very pleased if you prove me wrong on that one.

And if you like it or not, even tho I respect the effort you put in, your are in the same boat as any other affiliate in the big picture so don't answer why you are so different, it's about the whole poker ecology here.

@wellju:

How to keep the good affiliates but not the bad ones

1. Centralise monetary incentives
• the poker room itself (or in network case, the network), should control monetary incentives
• helps getting rid of the problem that you MUST go through an affiliate to get the best deal
• thus reduces the chances to acquire experienced players without offering real value the room cannot (i.e. DeucesCracked would still have a business model, as a poker room cannot replace them - but a poker room easily can give rakeback)
• needs to count for all VIP-targeted incentives, i.e. rakeback, races, chases or "Top10 freerolls" - promos clearly targeted at recreational players / net depositors could stay

2. Don't give a rev share affilate account to everyone
• rooms need to work on CPA with small affiliates
• otherwise, it's too easy to give under-the-table rakeback for shady, small affiliates

3. Change player valuation
• affiliates should mainly be paid for generation of net deposits, not rake
• CPA > rake share (as a simple change)
• "net deposit share" would be an option, but is hard to realise


One problem is that skins on a network have the same problem as affiliates on a room. Thus, getting rid of affiliates would not solve the problem. A winning poker player should aim for a competitive poker market where many different parties (affiliates, skins, big stand alones) try to be the best at doing the right thing (acquiring genuine new players).

Good points there, thank you for clearing that out.
The conclusion, and you silently admit that too, that in theory a lot of changes could lead to that "right thing", but they won't ever become reality.

To solve the issues for various skins on one network, you're basically forced to switch the payment from rake to net deposits (or at least mix it), but obviously, that won't happen anytime soon.

So again, the winning poker player, right now, would be better off if no affiliates would exist, until the rooms incorporate a "net deposit share".

I'm not trying to provoke you here, in fact I'm very glad that at least one of the affiliates has the guts to answer these questions. Again, prior to reading this thread, I had no idea about the system and I gladly admit to any flaws in my thought process.

But still, you cost me money :/

Hey wellju,

we - i.e. PokerStrategy.com - only cost you money if you think that we don't do a good (cost-efficient) job to popularise poker, create genuine new players and also net deposits.

I myself believe we do a pretty good job with it - and we're probably the only affiliate that actually urges poker operators to do the above things (would we do that if they hurt us? ).

Today, we're close to 4 million members and hundreds of thousands got the free $50 bankroll offer - the utmost majority of them never played poker before and probably wouldn't have without an initial free money offer and basic education (explain the game, bring you in contact with other players in the forums etc.pp.).

Don't know from where you are, so I just guess United States: there of course, poker is so popular that it's probably hard to imagine it's completely different in other countries. In some key markets such as German and Russia (who are as countries both big net-losers and comprise ~20% of the worldwide poker market), we did a very good job at making poker popular, more accepted and turning people who had many doubts about online poker before to become poker aficionados.

Of course you're free to believe otherwise and it doesn't really matter - but I always feel the urge to explain those things, as it hurts a little if players say PokerStrategy.com would be bad for them / online poker in general

Best,
Lutz

I just decided to make sick bumb cause this thread is dead (which is not good imo). I was just curoius what's your opinion about the rake.
thread:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/19...l/rake-897403/

Here you can see how the problem looks from players perspective. It would be nice to know what do you think cause I think it is do related with that topic.
Regards,
Frank

Rake is a very interesting topic, because both players and operators often fail to understand that the two perspectives are both correct and can be merged into a good solution for both sides.

Players have to realise that rake is necessary because...
• software, servers, customer service and - above all - advertisment cost a lot of money
• without ads, not a lot of new players will start playing poker compared to now - and finally, the successful winning player lives from the masses of recreational players as much as Shaq O'Neal lives from the millions of NBA fans
• poker operators need to earn money

Operators on the other hand need to understand that...
• their revenues can be even higher with a low relative rake - as much more hands are being played on a low rake basis
• too high rake changes poker from being a challenging game of strategy to a lottery - which is bad for the image of it as a competitive sports


So if we look at today's market, I think it's not an accident that PokerStars & Full Tilt have in average low rakes compared to their competitors. I even like to think it's a part of their success.

And probably, micro / low stakes rake should be even lower, as there is not a huge downside for the operator: micro stakes players don't cash out a lot anyways.


But looking at the main post of the thread you link - this guy belongs to the big group of players that don't understand. He believes that without rake, he would still have a similar edge - even if there would be close to no marketing.

Even if one does not believe the basic logic of this - why then is in today's transparent environment no super-low rake poker room successful?


From a psychological mindset, I would not even see rake as a "necessary evil" - and not even as a thing I as a winning player pay.

You could also see it the other way around: a poker room pays you as a winning player for filling his tables, providing success stories and making more games run. You contribute to the environment as a winning player - just as Shaq O'Neal creates more fans and increases merchandise & pay TV sales.

Best,
Lutz

Still don't you think that the rake is simply to big?? The hole thread here is about affiliates/parasite/rakeback. Just look it from player perspective. Let's say that there are 6 players that play nl25sh and there is no skill difference. After less than 1k hands there would be no money left cause casino would charge all of the money into rake.
Recreational player wants to play for entertainment. If his winrate is -20bb and tke rake take another 12-15 (i am talking about micro stakes) he is just loosing too much.
This is why people are looking for illegal deals (like 50%+ rakeback) cause even for many regs it is just too much. If the rake was lower We wouldn't have to+ fish would stay longer (he/she would have more fun while playing, more reason to play, simply more fun). There wouldn't be so many rakeback affiliate that help slightly winning players not to lose their money (cause they would be losers without it).Rake is one of the reason why limit holdem games are almost dead already.
Don't you think that lowering rake (or at least cap in micro stakes game) would make games significantly better (with more recreational player??).
One of the argument that people made in the thread I linked here they compared poker rooms to blizard. They charge 30$/ a month and their costs are even bigger than poker rooms. They created much more complicated product they advertise but they charge much less. So it is possible but poker rooms don't see any reason to do this. They will just rake games " to the death" instead.
Best,
Frank

We have to make a difference between rake and who gets the rake.

A problem today is that a lot of the rake goes into the pockets of people who don't contribute to online poker and the long-term winnings of good players. That's those affiliates (and also skins on large networks) I would also call parasitic.

An affiliate has to create value for the players and the poker operators - and many don't, as they just lead a price war with aggressive semi-legal or under-the-table deals promos to attract high rakers without bringing a genuine new player to the industry.


Second topic is lowering the rake. I think - especially if there would be no (or way less) parasitic skins/affiliates, many things would be better. The operators and non-parasitic skins/affiliates would have more earnings to do marketing and indeed lower the rake.

But this lowering of the rake would probably be significant only on the lower limits. I think what PokerStars charges today on say NL100 is not so much, if you consider what huge marketing machinery they have to pay to keep recreational players joining the games.

So you cannot compare that to Blizzard, as they have a completely different business model. At WoW, you cannot win money directly. So you don't need loads of money deposited by other players that are able to lose it.

The problem is that you assume all the fishes/recreational players would still be there with lower rake. I don't think so. If I cannot convince you, this is the isolated point of our discussion

Lutz

Hi there all,

I've recently found out about rakeback and all this while wondered why do I get these funds transfer (not a big sum) from pokerstrategy every weekend. I got my fulltilt account started via pokerstrategy and have read this thread.

Can I go about asking how much rakeback am I getting?

Thank you in advance.

Should be 27% of your Net rake (after all deductions)

The rate tends to be fixed at that rate for all players and affiliates.

Kind regards

Us

Hey Prad Bitt,

as "Us" aka Karim rightly stated, you're receiving rakeback as you created your account through PokerStrategy.com.

Actually I think especially considering the discussions about "rake is too high", the advantages of weekly flat rakeback come to the light: it's really a proportional, linear rake reduction - and thus way better especially for low-volume players than tiered VIP systems.

But it's of course also a matter of taste

Lutz

To be honest, i can't really see why under the table deals with much higher rakeback is such a problem. Higher rakeback keeps more money in the poker ecology, and more players are able to make a profit or breakeven, which in turn will lead to a much larger player base.

i am a gold member - at what level am I eligible for flat weekly rakeback in pokerstrategy? what % will I get?

Hey disputable,

this depends from the poker room, thus might be fully independent from your stats at PokerStrategy.com.

You receive flat rakeback at the following rooms:
- 30% at 24h Poker
- 30% at Poker Heaven (from €100 monthly rake)
- 30% at PKR
- 33% at Cake Poker
- 30% at Unibet


For an overview, see:
http://www.pokerstrategy.com/online-poker-rooms/

You can also see an overview of our additional promos here:
http://www.pokerstrategy.com/promotions/

Best,
Lutz

Thanks for this useless "poker strategy". It's more a formula that leads to poker rooms wanting to fix games so there is less cashouts. Why would a winning player tell a poker room that they should get some more fish and lower the rake, oh and by the way, sorry for cashing out? Wasted my time.

Why would you as a winning player care?

The short answer on that:

Because long-term, the interests of poker rooms and winning players are aligned:

• maximising liquidity
• maximising inflow of new players
• maximising popularity of poker
• ...

And the way the poker industry markets, invests, and sets variables such as "rake height" or "affiliate policies" signficanlty influences these things.

saw pokerstrategy fund prize money for a SC2 tournament. Wasn't a small amount either.
Guess they are trying to find fresh players. Not sure what they are about but def going to do research on them.