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)