Affiliates don't need to mean "funds taken out from the poker ecology", I am precisely starting my own affiliate startup because I feel there is a lack of promotion at certain markets. So I hope my efforts to bring traffic to the poker ecology are compensated.

No, you are hoping to be compensated, sites are hoping you bring traffic.

affiliates and poker stables are the cancer of the poker ecosystem

While it must be nice for people like you to cling to your passionate and uninformed beliefs, the reality tends to be quite different.

Affiliates are essentially a form of marketing for a site. They get a commission based sales force out there to recruit players. Without that there would be fewer players, and fewer players means less game choices. Now you should also understand this - many networks will cutoff affiliates who simply bring in players who take money out of the system, so doing that (as an affiliate) has risk associated with it. As well, affiliates will often times be able to help players resolve issues with sites.

As for stables - well, one can debate that as well. I certainly have issues with some of the larger stables in Brazil which openly ghost their players. Unfortunately, Stars seems to just accept this, because it is hardly hard to see in action or investigate.

That is certainly not a good look for stables, but stables also allow many players to keep playing that would not have the bankroll to do so. More players playing = more games starting and more game selection.

Now, I say all of this knowing there is 0% chance you will think anything other than your simplistic slogan that brings you some cathartic relief when you spew it, but often times things are a bit more complex than a simple slogan. In the USA many years ago a state put a huge tax on yachts because the rich who buy them could afford a huge tax. Problem was the yacht industry collapsed to near 0 and the ones impacted were the workers who built them and the people who sold them and the people who provided the materials for them. Oops. Sometimes simple "rich people bad - make them pay more" does not work out the way one expects. Similarly your assessment lacks any depth, but depth will not be available for you to purchase at Walmart, so odds are you will be stuck with your thinking process.

All the best.

sorry for break down your nice fairytale but the average rec doesnt need the affilate to go to a new site, the average rec process is losing to a site thinks they cheat on him and just change room randomly to which room he saw on tv or to a twich channel at his own and thats his vicious circle, regs are the ones they need the affilate to get better deals and other regs dont have the same good deals which is unfair, also its at least redicoulous saying affilates help to fix problems with sites , its not in their hand to do anything they may just fast the process just this, i think a post in 2+2 may be more effective. Now about stables you think its a fair game somebody playing his own money with so much stress and another one playing stables money calm and make moves like check shove turn with flush draw to take his ev which is something he never do if he plays his own money and from all this takes advantage a third person who is not playing the game. I hope you realize that this two and also that many rooms dont give same rakeback to all players makes an unfair game, so dont tell affilates are helpfull if you have a problem and they promote, that are indifferent in relaionship with what problems they create, i m not against someone teached by someone but not playing money its not his , its like in football man city psg and chelsea use money that they are not them just oil money thats not fair at all

I again appreciate you trying to share your thought process, and you definitely show your level of expertise when doing just that.

As to a rando creating an account on their own - they definitely can do that and sites prefer that because then the player makes less in benefits and the sites make everything from them instead of sharing some of that extra money with the affiliates and players, so the sites really love people like you that push for everyone to create accounts in the way that makes them the fewest benefits and allows them the lower amount of resources to fight any issue that might come up in the future.

In your mental world the casual rec who created their first couple accounts will never learn that there are better ways for them to do just that, but in reality when they discover these ways (even while still being a relative rec) - they find their experience is better and then they bring in new players as well. Many players created their bankrolls through affiliate based freerolls and incentives, and those were players who likely would not be a part of the poker economy otherwise.

Your assessment of how stables works is of course laughable, and shows why you have a pretty low cap on what you can achieve in this industry.

In the end you sound petty and bitter about this industry, so it is probably not the best one for you to participate in, as it seems to just bring you misery, but that is your problem. Perhaps venting as you do with no real logic or experience makes you feel better - a form of tilt release for you, in which case consider starting a blog here where you can post all of your thoughts on this industry or anything else.

You remind me of a variant of the people who use to boast how they never took a deposit bonus in the old days as if that was an accomplishment when all it demonstrated was that their ego and lack of industry awareness prevented them from tapping into thousands of dollars of easy to obtain money each month.

All the best.

again you see the tree and you dont see the forrest but i think you technically avoid to answer to any of those problematic unfair enviroment issues i talked about cause you maybe are someone whose getting value from the stables acccepted system or the affilated accepted system. believe me i m not miserable with whats happening, i accept it and i m continue make a living from poker last 8 years and feel blessed for that, althought the industry is not super fair in many aspects and thats all i want to share. if you feel like poker system is a paradise and it works perfectly keep your thoughts but for me you are suspect for being someone who takes advantage from this unfair system (in some points) who tries to promote it.

Your "problematic issues" are just you babbling incoherently, but let me try to answer them though I know any answers will have no value or meaning to you.

I know I have helped resolve all sorts of issues for players over the years (due to my experience with just about everything at this point), and that saved them a ton of time and often got them money they never thought they would get.

In contrast, the vast majority of posts on 2+2 complaining about something usually go nowhere because the OPs (usually with few posts like you) babble on incoherently (like you) and never present all the information in a calm, professional manner. Usually some information that would not make their case look good is left out as well.

Maybe 5% or so of posts like the type you suggest have a genuine issue to them (and that might be a high estimate) and the interesting thing is that they post here and usually get good advice to resolve their issue (and at times direct help) from those who are affiliates that know how to better handle the situation.

Well, your check shove turn whatever makes no sense other than you being upset about something. As to whether it is fair that some people play with their own money and others play with a backers money (which comes with its own variety of pressure) - it is of course fair. Anyone can apply for a backing deal if it is something that would be of value to them.

Your bitterness over a backer making money is just you not getting how the world works in general. All sorts of industries and businesses exist with a similar model where someone brings their "EV" and shares it with a backer or a partner who provides them with something they need. That could be investment capital (ie: a stake) or access to information (ie: coaching) or something else. Welcome to basic business, and again if you want to be that dude who refuses to think about these things - no problem, that makes you weak competition to those that do that process.

Again, you seem quite bitter with how basic business operates, so you may want to find a way to live your life without having to do any business with anyone at any time. You are likely giving up a ton of value making your living they way you are doing, but as I said - I expect you take pride in it just like the people did years ago who never took tens of thousands of free money.

All the best.

ok cant keep argue with you anymore, i feel we have many miles distance in understanding what is fair and whats not, i dont want to pretend the hero i know the world is not a fair place to leave and i m ready to adjust on it if i need staking in the future, i m a realistic guy but at the some point i m someone who can admit what is generally moral and whats not from my point of view. keep in mind i m someone who can get accepted in every stable with my results i m not someone who loses and cry. just trying to tell my truth from my point of view sorry if i was a bit aggro in first post that was a mistake but you also make comments like miserable which you attack to me personally at the same time that i make general comments and not personal. Piece

We have more than miles distance, but that is because I have a lot of experience in this industry in many capacities and you are just a player who puts significant limitations on himself with how you assess and approach this industry, and that assessment is separate from your skills in playing poker.



You claim you are taking a "moral" approach and are thus the hero, when it has nothing to do with morality at all. You are choosing an inefficient, limited approach in this industry due to your own belief system, just like the people who morally refused a ton of money from the sites in the past.

Hey, I like when people like you take such an inefficient -EV approach, because that adds value to me in the end, but morality is just your way of rationalizing it. You are not a hero. You are not a villain. You are an amateur with how you approach this industry, and that is a separate assessment to your ability as a poker player. Maybe you are a donk, maybe you are world class. No idea on that one other than you claim you have made your living for a while, so you probably can win a bit and likely live in a country that helps (relatively low cost of living, which is another example of a perfectly fair advantage).



Don't be so sure. Some stables accept just about anyone and go with the bulk approach, knowing a good chunk will be low cost duds, but many stables take time to make sure a potential player would be a good fit and that a business relationship would benefit both sides. If I interviewed you I would know within a minute that even doing a deal with you would make no sense, so one would never get done, and I say that having interviewed many people pretty much like you. Some did fine after, most did not much and would have benefited a lot from a staking deal if they were ready to do business like that in a professional manner.

You can certainly test your theory and apply to a bunch of stables and see what you get offered. That would be interesting to see the results, and you can do that as a form of investigative reporting.

I actually understand your point of view, but your initial post was that stables and affiliates were the cancer of the industry, so not sure why you would expect to be hugged after that. If you want to discuss the topic (which is a topic where different views are valid) in a professional manner then create a thread and do so with an open mind.

All the best.

man the problem in our converastion is deeper and you pretend like you dont undertand, i m honest with myself about what is truely fair and trying to have an leftist opinion about things in generall and at the some time i m a realistic man about what kind of world i m living and if i need i ll do what i ll have to do for my good, in the other side you are a super capital friendly guy who forgets anything moral thoughts and continue his path with no any issues, also i have to say i laught a lot with your statement that a stable may not take a player with great results in general(dont talk especially for myself i talk in general) because they ll have second thoughts about other thinks, thats completely unrealistic expect they think the guy is a scam i m completely sure

I get that you want to be the hero doing what you believe is the moral approach, but you are making up a definition of morality to suit your needs and approach, just like the people who proudly passed on a ton of money years ago did at that time. I still remember many of them saying things like "I never need the free money from the sites to win, so I don't take it" or " I never want to deposit to a site, because that shows I never have to deposit." This was at a time when one could deposit, get the bonus, stretch for a minute then cash out that deposit with no issue. Maybe it was not as moral to them, but I always thought $50-$1,000 for a 1-2 minutes work was fine.

Somewhat ironic that you create this moral construct for yourself in an industry and game that you make your livelihood taking money directly from others, without questioning the morality of that choice. What value do you add as you take money from people to pay your bills? You produce no product, and the only service you provide is sitting at the tables (which helps games run). How are you any different than people doing the same thing within a stable.

In the end you use whatever approach you want, and if it happens to be a deeply -EV and inefficient one that makes you feel happy - well that is a trade-off for you, and I am happy that you and others like you offer up your EV in that manner, just as you are happy when you see a known donk sit at one of your tables.

All the best.

you cant understand that you compare completely different things? fair try but you compare morally someone who plays poker with same terms with all other players and brings the same value as footballes actors etc to the society which is entertainment with guys that are trying to bring to this enviroment different terms in rakeback between players and different backups in bankrolls which are not them (this is fraud in football thats why Financial fair play appears if you know about football terms) and also lower stress factors with all those backups. i ll tell you one last time i m not the fool you describe i know in what world i leave for example a communist doesnt burn his money in a capitalist world he just adapt on it but always there are some limitation and some thoughts about whats the limits unless you are someone without this issues in your mind.be sure if i think it will beter for m ev to be on a stable i ll do if i been accepted but i prefer a world without stables thats what i try to say. i quit the converstation thats last quote from me, have a good day man, piece and love.

I am comparing the morality of one poker player playing poker against another poker player playing the same game of poker. I do not have a moral issue with either. You want to be a hero in your mind, so your way of playing is fine, while other ways are not fine or moral according to you, even when they break no rules. They break your personal morality code rules, however those are basically meaningless.





Basically you want to play against weaker players, which is understandable given the industry, but the morality construct you created is just for your own emotional needs, nothing more.

All the best.

[QUOTE=Monteroy;57077612]I am comparing the morality of one poker player playing poker against another poker player playing the same game of poker. I do not have a moral issue with either. You want to be a hero in your mind, so your way of playing is fine, while other ways are not fine or moral according to you, even when they break no rules. They break your personal morality code rules, however those are basically meaningless.


i told you before i m not trying to pretend a hero i m not something special just telling my opinion honestly and i told i would do anything to survive in the system cause i m not a sucker to dont get the benefits that others gets but thats different from what is right to do for the common good and to get a fair enviroment for all regs recs. sorry for waking you up in the reality but the rules are not stacked forever cause the world changes and also the rules changes too, before 15 years maybe someone uses a gto bot if he discover it in those days it would be not against the rules to use it so i suppose you would be one his biggest supporters to use it cause its legal, also in football to have a sugar daddy for president was ok before some years who inject the club with oil money that is not clubs money was legal but not any more theorytically, so whats legal in the present doesnt mean its right and your argument about lawfulness hope you understand now that is for the trash bin

First rule of getting people to pay more than they should:
"Don't tell them how much it costs. Tell them how much they'll save"

So, yes: if people knew what the deal was this would work differently. But obviously they don't.
Certainly the losing players wouldn't be playing poker if they could distinguish a good deal from a bad one.

When you're trying to attract someone to your business you most definitely don't taget the 'smart crowd' - no matter what your business is.

Really? Every marketing bonus I've ever seen, going back 20 years in the industry had some form of play requirement to cash out the bonus.

There may have been some CPA deals offered that allowed a relatively quick cashout, but if that were abused, the affiliate had to make up the abuse.


OTOH, some sites, such as Party offered lifetime 100% rakeback when they launched about 2001 or so. At the same time 2002 or so,, Vikrant Bhagrava, from Party railed during affiliate conferences against offering rakeback through affiliates because it skewed the game itself.

Eventually lifetime affiliate rakeback deals generally disappeared from the industry. Marketing shifed to deosit bonuases, which are a little different.

(Overall, a useful thread discussion, thanks to both sides.)

The second biggest leak was rewards, by a LONG shot, and the poker industry is plugging that by not paying winners more than their already winning s, and not paying for toxic traffic (and I mean 'toxic' as in "not even worth the liquidity" and "creates negative experience for other players").

The biggest "leak" is winners, and that's a leak you cannot plug but you can throttle. Some sites have realised this; it is ironic that the small clubs and app networks have realised this so quickly after last years boom... and the less ethical ones are already bouncing big winners.

And affiliates (who used to be a big "leak" but aren't really anymore) happily serve a purpose. These days no site with any sense pays for traffic it can't get elsewhere cheaper, so affiliates get paid when they actually work for it. The only real money site trying to ACTUALLY bring new players to poker is Stars, the rest are just trying to acquire or reactivate 'Stars players... the only exception to this is the new US states where the appetite for poker is subsiding as sports is the pathfinder to state gambling regulation.. and lots of the people involved in poker still working in gambling are telling their bosses not to pin their hopes on poker as an actual business venture. Both Stars and those trying to acquire their players are aware of the value (or otherwise) of affiliates for certain markets and channels.

Yeah, they had playthrough, but many back then were free bonuses (money added to your account), and that money could not be removed until you completed the playthrough (although a lot of the software then was buggy enough where there were ways it could be cleared without all the playthrough).

As an example - any room on the cryptologic network had several deposit bonuses each month, and let's say you had $400 in your account and then did a $200 deposit for a 100% bonus. You could immediately take out the $200 and after that you would have $600 available to play and $400 available to cash out.

These would stack and many times they would clear at the same time, and if you were doing the casino and you lost $200 then all the stacked bonuses would be considered cleared (we called those bug clears) and then you had hundreds of bonus money now available to cash out.

Party Poker had a different variant of this bug for many years where when you got a free play bonus (let's say $200) and sat at any table (poker or casino - not sports they were nasty at catching stuff like this for sports betting even then). If you were ever above $200 at the table and left it - then all money above the $200 became money you could cash out, and then you repeat the process all over again sitting with the $200. Once you lost the $200 then the bonus vanished. I think I made nearly $5,000 on one where I ran super hot before losing the $500 I got in one of their crazy Christmas promos. I don't think I ever actually cleared one of those Party free bonuses (and I received hundreds of them) with the wage requirement!

Needless to say on some months it was not hard to make 5 figures doing this, and at the time many regarded this type of behavior as not being moral (though since it was taking the poker room/casino money it was not as immoral for some reason). To me it was not morality, one was using the games offered, within the rules and software provided. It was predatory, which is an innate part of the industry, but it was not immoral, and those who avoided doing this at the time got praise from me - not because of their morality, but rather because they allowed me to make more money due to the -EV way they approached the industry.

Fast forward to today and it is much different. It is a mature/declining (aside from a Covid boost) industry rather than a growth one, and free money is not tossed around to players or affiliates like it was. Natural progression, so those that succeed have to adapt and maintain their edge. Stables and coaching are one way this can happen, and again it is not immoral in and by itself, it is just competitive, and those who disregard it are leaving EV on the table due to their need to be morally superior. That is the price they pay for their ego, and that has always existed in this industry in some form since the start.

Economy. It's Economy.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Lol poker pros take a lot from the eco system let’s ban them, pros bring little value to sites compare to affiliates

Why not ban the ones who don’t give action, like a good host does at a home game?

there is ZERO debate. stables are an absolute cancer on poker.
they suck tons of money out of the economy while providing zero action of any kind or adding anything positive to the poker ecology. a bunch of people playing on shared bankrolls (and let's be honest at times colluding) playing super tight, eeking out small profits who would not be able to play at all if not for stable funding or a total detriment.a bunch of extra players that nobody wants to play with is not making game selection better.

I'm not a fan of stables for a few reasons, however I don't think we can say they bring *nothing* positive: they do inflate prizepools. And inflated prizepools bring other players.

Also, a lot of the arguments against them are disingenuous. Case in point; nobody would complain about stables if they didn't play really well.

Why not just make it fair? I'm fairly sure that's what most people signing up would want/expect.