Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0x12 | Hacker News Reader

Thanks for the correction, I missed the earlier announcement.

Affiliates being a standard or not has nothing to do with it, anyhody that takes money out of the deposits will accellerate the process, and affiliates took a substantial portion.

Typically if you deposit $100 a large fraction of that is immediately paid out to the affiliate. You then enter the game and if the total rake on your account ends up being smaller than what is left in your account after the affiliate has been paid then you were a net loss to the company.

Without an affiliate that would be much harder to achieve.

That said, I believe that the players are stupid enough to play until they are bust so that's mostly theoretical, so I agree that they were quite possibly sustainable but it would need some inside figures to be sure.

View on HN

Affiliates as an industry standard demonstrate that you can run a profitable business with affiliates. In fact, there are affiliates for lots of businesses outside of online gaming nowadays. If businesses couldn't make money while affiliates existed, then affiliates would not exist.

Affiliates do not automatically get a chunk of deposits. Usually there are two options. They get paid a small lump sum for each new player, say $25-50. Or they get paid a % of the monthly generated rake (MGR) minus fees racked up by players.

I've survived for several years based on other players' willingness to play until they bust. But you can look at Las Vegas, Atlantic City, etc. for evidence of the sustainability of gaming.

Edit due to not being able to reply: The rake sucks a lot for everyone. It turns small winners into small losers, or keeps consistent winners from being huge winners. It makes it so everyone gets less play for their dollar.

I know Pokertableratings has done some [very incomplete] tracking on player losses, but they don't have a record of every hand played.

> they get paid a small lump sum for each new player, say $25-50

That's a small lump sum, but with a $100 initial deposit that's 25% to 50%. If that were the only deposit ever made and everybody asked for their money back after folding their first hand they'd be bankrupt immediately.

So the cumulative rake must be pretty high for that to work, unless the stickyness is huge and most people do multiple deposits.

Do you have any figures with respect to total rake vs payout over a sizable sample of deposits? That would be interesting.

The new players have to generate so many "points" which are based on the stakes they're playing and the amount of hands.

They'll basically need to generate the $25-50 in rake before the affiliate can get the bonus.

Affiliates (no longer?) don't get paid based on a straight up deposit, but instead need to have their signups play through to earn a certain amount of FTP points, which are correlated to rake paid. The CPA rates start at ~$75 and go up for those who drive volume. Rakeback affiliates make only 3% of gross rake.

See http://www.pokeraffiliatesolutions.com/full-tilt-affiliate-p... for more

Reply on news.ycombinator.com