Have any affiliates applied for a license yet?

I expect there will be filings shortly. The application process has not been formalized as yet. the specific forms will be available in 60 days or so.

However, i have spoken to the Gaming commission staff about the process and timing, and it is possible to file sooner.

Bumping an old but interesting thread.

Any updates with affiliate licensing?

Do we yet have any idea what to expect in terms of player rewards model? Rakeback points comps etc.

I don't think affiilate licensing will have any impact on player rewards / return.

In fact one of the advantages of a regulated market is that no unsanctioned third parties will be permitted to handle player funds or at least this kin of activity will be more strictly monitored.

Any license that was associated with this behavior would be putting it's license in jeopardy.

At least this is my understanding, nevertheless an interesting conversation.


Jamie

P.S. The best bet of a preview of player rewards in a regulated Nevada market is definitely somewhere like France or Italy.

Hello,

I am speaking at the Barcelona Affiliate Conference on October 12th. I plan to address some specific legal areas for affiliates, as well as for staking sites, interested in or active with the US market(s).

There will be an update on licensing for Nevada operators and, hopefully, licensed Nevada affiliates.

If you would like to meet or stop by, please let me know.

Also, I would appreciate an opportunity to discuss staking issues with any sites who engage in such a business.

Feel free to pm me in the interim with any questions or items you think would be interesting.

and who are you ?

cant you explain more here instead we have to go to Barca ?

would be nice to hear more

Must be short term memory loss...

You have had conversations with him before! In this thread in fact...
David Gzesh

http://www.igbaffiliate.com/events/b...rs/david-gzesh

Spend some of your affiliate money and book that flight to Barca!

David or RTR,
With the semi-recent news regarding background checks for affiliates, do you see the sub-affiliate model disappearing? Many posters/fear-mongers on PAS are claiming that small time affiliates or sub-affiliates will be pushed out of the equation by these regulations. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

David probably better qualified to comment but i dare say he will only have an opinion to, as it is very hard to be precise until someone tries to get a license.

We have no real view on this as things stand as it is early days but we are being realistic. This is not going to be a cheap experience. We heard the Las Vegas gaming board flew people over to meet the Paddy Power guys....at Paddy's expense they were told! So that must have been a $30k trip to start with as I doubt they fly coach. A license could easily cost upwards of $50k-$100k after all the checks and legal fees.

But i will add, affiliates are resilient buggers (second only to cockroaches) and if there's a way...they'll find it!

I've looked into the matter this past week. The NGC/GCB staff felt that a sub-affiliate model would not be permitted, and each affiliate needed to get licensed. (I expressed some disappointment at that interpetation of the current Regulations, as Independent Agents for B&M casinos are allowed to use a sub-affiliate model, with little more than their own license and a reporting of sub-affiliate relationships.)

Fortunately, the Gaming Commission sees online poker regulation as a sort of "work-in-progress" and I hope to raise the sub-affiliate model for some form of regulatory approval or at least approval of it as a matter of market/contract realtionships between operator licensees and licensed affiliates.

(I may know more on that specific topic, as well as the availability or not of rev share, CPA, rakeback models, et cetera, by the time of my BAC presentation on October 12.)

Not only are Affiliates resilient, the market is inexorable; if there is a way to bring together affiliate resources and emerging US licensed operators who understand their value, it will come about.

Nevada regulators have voiced concerns about and understand "liquidity, liquidity, liquidity". They are also interested in a successful launch of the industry. Regulatory concerns can be addressed; it seems time for an educational process on how affiliates address the need for liquidity and the interests of newly launching operator licensees coincide.)

(As for the BAC October 11-13, I think it is one of the great bargains available for Affiliates, I mean it is FREE for Affiliates to attend all the presentations and visit the Exhibit floor.)

Finally, the fees for a marketing affiliate license are not in the $50,000 range, more like $3,000 for application and an investigation deposit, plus $1,000 annually for a license. Because "investigation costs" may run over the $2,500 for non-US-based affiliate owners, the sub-affiliate model seems to suit the market best in my personal view.

I know that at least one affiliate is likely to be licensed this month, having gotten a prompt start on the process a couple of months ago.)

If Affiliate got licenced, this would mean they could refer players who lives in Nevada to this Pokerrooms who are licenced in Nevada

So lets say: only as an example, California opens their door ... than the affiliate needs to get a licence from there aswell ??

So if its state by state an affiliate needs 51 licences at the end ( i exaggerate it now )

"Look harder", (to quote Rafiki from the Lion King.)

You perhaps miss the forest for the trees.

Elaborate Gzesh, (sorry I stalk the boards and hardly post until as of recently), I don't understand how what Malta said doesn't make logical sense. Unless you are referring to the fact that something on a federal level will happen, and then, I guess it makes sense but the US is so ****ing stupid with their beaurocratic regulatory systems that are worse then the problem they end up trying to solve.

David, I keep hearing from current affiliates that they plan to apply for a NV license. I read the regs back in December so they are a bit foggy but I recall the rules for receiving what I think was an affiliate license (Class III) included not having been involved with US facing sites since Jan 1, 2007 or something like that. Affiliates would have the same rules as operators.

Presumably a site like Merge Gaming could not enter the NV online poker business. Wouldn't this also apply to affiliates that currently promote Merge Gaming and other US facing networks? If not, why do you feel that way? It seems NV thinks that anyone that gets a cut of the action is essentially an operator so affiliates would fall under the same rules as operators.

To take the last point first, roughly put, there was an exception under the Regulations that excluded Affiliates from having receipt of Rev Share trigger an operator type licensing process. Unfortunately, in revising the investigation structure about ten days ago, the Gaming Commission crossed out the exclusionary language.

A further proposed change the same general Regulation 5.240 is on the agenda for a meeting this Thursday by the Gaming Control Board, but not directly on topic.

Nevertheless, I submitted a public comment Friday to the effect that the August change unwisely would leave Nevada operator licensees and prospective affiliate licensees unable to adapt the market-proven Rev Share model or even the CPA model. Staff contacted me; since the comment was not on a specific agenda, it could be raised in the public comments portion of the meeting and would be provided to the Board members. I feel that was fine, because the issue should be settled, the discussion needed to be properly framed in context for Nevada regulators, and the market allowed to set terms fo affiliate-operator structures .... especially since B&M casino independent agents currently are permitted to get a rev share for referred players.

It is too general to be useful to simply state that "affiliates would have the same rules as operators". Analysis needs to be a bit more specific, especially as there are materially different regulatory needs for marketing affiliates, as opposed to those for operators who both run the games and handle the money. Since the market-based approach favored in Nevada seeks to minimize interference with markets, such dfferences may affect how each class is viewed with respect to a number of areas.

As for the "suitability" issue you raise first, I have heard two Commissioners directly discuss that even PokerStars itself could apply, with that hypothetical application to be considered on its merits. There are a number of good practical reasons for affiliates to apply, and for the industry to hand hand-in-hand to support access to experienced, qualified, proven marketers. There are also a number of ways to distinguish marketing affiliates from operators, in a regulatory context.

Nevada's approach to regulation is pretty practical. It is an ongoing "work-in-progress" and its regulators do not expect only virgins to apply. I can't really answer with certainty whether or not an affiliate currently providing marketing for a rev share from a US-serving site could be found suitable for licensing as a marketing affiliate following a class 3 investigation. I think an applicant's chances are better without that business history to disclose and address.

Thursday will be a watershed day. Stay tuned.