High Roller Negative Carryover at Buffalo Partners

[AussieDave]

(I'd have added this to the Buffalo Partners forum but there isn't one)

Stranger than fiction, I've been hit with a High Roller NCO (-$63,195.13) in the first month, Buffalo Partners has commenced. This player has been playing at jackpotcity mobile since 2012.

I have a few observations:

• Previous net gaming losses (casino profit) for this player are not taken into account.
• If 100 low rollers win $631.95 each, that's a total of $63,195.13 which the casino pays-out.
• What's the difference between the low-roller total payout (casino loss) to the single high-roller (casino loss), now corralled into negative carryover.

IMO the programs who have these High Roller NCO policies, want the cake and to eat it too. And like always, it's the affiliates who end up getting burnt.

To the best of my recollection, I never got hit with a High Roller NCO at Referback!

 

[CaseyM]

How was everyone elses first month with Buffalo?

 

[3joker]

That was quick. Seems like Buffalo is more Wagershare than Referback. Was it a merger or a take over?

 

[AussieDave]

Seems like Buffalo is more Wagershare than Referback. Was it a merger or a take over?

I've been given divergent information. But going on what I've posted here, what's happened to my high-roller, my bet, Wagershare is running the show now!

Doesn't really matter cause I've yanked Buffalo Partners from all my sites now.
Just really upsetting, given, I had a bespoke agreement in place since 2011, which included promoting these casino exclusively on 1 of my sites.

Goes to prove loyalty and trust amount to sweet FA at Buffalo Partners.

 

[inspiration]

I had a high roller for 3 days this month been losing winning losing total deposits 180k net gaming 60k (player is locked for 6 months cuz of a gambling problem I am told).

Can be a turn for the good as I will get paid, if he would have won I would not.

Almost if not all MG casino programs have this rule also FA and Referback also did (has)

from the archive.org / Referback site T&C :

High-Roller Policy

1. In any given month, if an individual player generates a negative net win of at least $10,000 ('high-roller'), and the aggregate net win in that month for the casino-brand for that affiliate is negative $2,000 or greater, then the high-roller policy will apply.
2. If the above criteria is met (see clause 11.7.1) then the negative net win generated by the high-roller will be carried forward and offset against future net win generated by that high-roller.
3. The negative balance carried forward cannot be set-off against other players net win.
4. The negative balance carried forward cannot be greater than the total aggregate negative net win for the affiliate, for that month.
5. The negative balance of a high-roller will be reduced by future positive net win that they generate in subsequent months. A negative balance will not be increased by future negative net win unless the high-roller meets the qualifying criteria in subsequent months (see clause 11.7.1).
6. Affiliates who have qualifying high-rollers on their account will be notified at the beginning of the following month.

 

[pdjoe]

I would never be okay with any program holding my earnings for 6 months, never.

 

[inspiration]

I would never be okay with any program holding my earnings for 6 months, never.

If you are referring to my post : the players account is locked, my commission is not on hold.

 

[pdjoe]

Gotcha,

I thought you meant your commissions were were locked up for 6 months in case the player had a gambling problem. Sorry!

 

[AussieDave]

from the archive.org / Referback site T&C :

High-Roller Policy

That might be relevant to you but not me. You must have missed this:

I had a bespoke agreement in place since 2011, which included promoting these casino exclusively on 1 of my sites.

Almost if not all MG casino programs have this rule

I have two (2) affiliate account at Buffalo, which transfered from Referback. The one associated to this high-roller-clause is the bespoke agreement. And it's an account I've had with Referback since 2001 or there abouts. That's a long time ago. Can't remembers a high-roller-clause back then, though the bespoke agreement makes these high roller clauses a moot point.

And further more just because a program has a T&C high roller clause(s), doesn't make it legit, fair or right!

 

[AussieDave]

(player is locked for 6 months cuz of a gambling problem I am told).

If the player has identified themselves with a gambling problem, the account is automatically locked for life. That rule is dictated to them by eCOGRA. Though, I also believe it's company policy.

More than likely a company policy to ensure any player with a gambling problem never players again, to safe guard the casino's ass against chargebacks or being sued.

 

[bonustreak]

Actually doing quite well there surprisingly! We did have 1 high roller this month but they are playing it back... Have 3 good players that are mapped over from wagershare that have been with us playing since 2006, was shocked they
came over. Looks like all our money being earned are off the wagershare brands and not as much with the old referback brands, that is a disappointment though..

 

[Perc]

I don't mind high roller policies, as long as they fence the player off and it doesn't affect your other players (most programs with these policies do fence the player).

Without that fencing, you could have one player win $100k and another lose $100k in a month, and you get nothing.

• Previous net gaming losses (casino profit) for this player are not taken into account.

Well no, you've already been paid your cut for them. They've also paid their employees, license fees, maids, butlers, chauffeurs, escorts, etc. with those losses.

• If 100 low rollers win $631.95 each, that's a total of $63,195.13 which the casino pays-out.
• What's the difference between the low-roller total payout (casino loss) to the single high-roller (casino loss), now corralled into negative carryover.

That's part of the risk/reward that comes with not having NCO. The odds are that all 100 low rollers won't come back the next month and lose their profit from the last month without making more deposits, so that is an acceptable risk for the program, while not having NCO makes them a more desirable program to affiliates.

Let's say you only have one player, and he deposited $1k and built his balance up to $100k by the end of the month without making a withdrawal... If the program has no NCO and no high roller policy, and that player loses it all the next month, they would have to pay you a % of $100k instead of $1k. Where is that money supposed to come from?

I think it's a perfectly acceptable policy to have, and beats having to deal with NCO across the board. It would be tough for a program to survive if they were paying out large amounts of money that came from nothing, they would likely have to start shaving or end up broke, and that's no good for anyone. The house edge allows the casino to keep paying winners over time, but it won't cover paying out to affiliates like that.