Rivalwide Progressive Issue - Rogue Poll.

[Guard Dog]

I am the AM for This is Vegas, part of the 400affiliates group. I would like to point out that this doesn't seem to be restricted just to Rival software. I have an affiliate that is asking right now all of his programs so we can find out some more. I've been told some of them have already replied saying they don't have a clue while others have replied stating that contributions are deducted from affiliate earnings. These are from a respected Microgaming and RealtimeGaming casino group.

As soon as I get more information I will let you know.

Lina Jonsson

Hi Lina,

The problem here is twofold (IMO:

1. The commissions calculation now being enforced is retroactive and was not even communicated to affiliates prior to it's enactment.

2. The progressive calculation appears to be on 'wagering', which can then well-overrun deposit amounts for other players. (Meaning: The negative amount applied to the affiliate's account can be many times higher than the deposit amount from the same player)

 

[Peter-Jan]

My analysis: A real revshare includes sharing in cost (and revenue) of progressives, at the same % as your revhare deal.

Key question IMO: How big (in % of wagers) are total progressives being paid out?

If affiliates are charged 2% of wagers for progressives than progressives paid out better be 2% / (weighted average revshare commission % across affiliate base), i.e. somewhere around 4-5% I guess?

In other words, if progressives = 2% of wagers and affiliates pay the entire bill, this is not in line with the revshare agreements we have a very big issue.

Secondary issue: If all affiliates are all charged the same % (regardless of whether this is 100% or the fair overall %), than small affiliates are subsidizing the big affiliates because they pay this fee based on wagers but earn less revshare per wager.

Rating advice:
- Not being warned about changes = Retro-active T&C change
- Keeping this term = Predatory T&C
- Not being warned + keeping = ROGUE

 

[KasinoKing]

I'm not really bothered, as long as they treat their players fairly.
What percentage of players play progressives anyway? I know I don't!

Their bonuses are mostly crap anyway - surprised they even have any players!
Especially ThisIsn'tVegas - total waste of web-space!

KK

 

[JSM_Jaxon]

Hi everyone,

Sorry for the delayed response as I was waiting for a lot of info and discussion to take place prior to making my initial statement.

I would like to start by saying that this is not a 400affiliates specific issue and that ALL white label Rival casinos are processed and supported by the same Rival group that we are. All calculations and procedure implementation is controlled by Rival. Individual programs are all different and handle their customers and affiliates differently (management), but the support and processing is all the same. ALL White Labels use the same payout table for Affiliate Commissions, which is minused progressive adjustments. Regal/Superior are incorrect in saying they do not do this. This has been confirmed by a source within Rival. Although the programs have a way to change the settings in regards to progressive deductions, I have been informed that none of the other programs have changed these settings. At current, we are in discussions with Rival to implement a system to allow operators to change the setting on a mass scale and not the current individual manual “override” that it requires currently.

The adjustment to the ANW calculation has been the same since the introduction of progressives and this is NOT a retroactive change. As you all know, progressive slots are funded by a percentage of wagers made to the jackpot. It is the same for online casinos as it is for land based casinos. Affiliate commissions have always been based on ANW (adjusted net worth) of a player multiplied by the affiliates revenue share percentage. When Rival introduced progressives, the calculation was amended to include progressive deductions as part of the ANW (dep – chargebacks –cashouts – Progressive adjustments). As previously stated, the progressive adjustment is a percentage (5-7%) of all wagers that are made to the slot. This adjustment is a deduction that BOTH the casino and affiliate SHARE based on the affiliates rev-share.

Casinos and their affiliates are partners and we incur the same effects from all situations, whether good or bad. Our affiliates essentially have a 35% stake in the casinos and in the “real world”, when you are partners with someone and have a stake in the company, you would incur a percentage of the fees and operating cost based on your stake just as you earn profits. When progressive were introduced from Rival, the braintrust behind the scenes was looking at the “big picture” and what is appealing to what our casinos/affiliates thrive upon; our players. Players like to play progressives due to the nature of the jackpots and if the progressives bring in more traffic to your site/our casinos, then that is a positive thing. Another important thing to note is that these contributions to the pot that have been deducted from both of us, benefit neither the casino nor Rival monetarily. These are contributions that go directly to the player and no one ever sees any benefit from these contributions but them.

This particular thread about whether to rogue 400Affiliates alone was based on incorrect facts. It is important to note that we are NOT the only group within Rival to share progressive deductions with our partners. How could we be when Rival is the governing body for invoicing and payments that all white labels subscribe to? This a deduction that affects all Rival based casinos and I would urge you to ask questions to other software providers and casinos as well. There are other very reputable casino groups that have identical deductions to what we currently have with no mention anywhere at all about affiliates paying progressive deductions -- some of these casinos have gained accreditation on some affiliate sites with very stringent admission policies in place.

All this is to say, we are on your side as your partners and we (our casino management and affiliate teams) are collaboratively working with other Rival casino operators and Rival to make sure that the progressive/affiliate structure is one that is pleasing to both affiliates and casino. Rival is a very accommodating bunch so we’re sure we’ll have something more to tell you shortly. We will continue to sort through all of the concerns and disagreements that have been put forth to find a solution that will satisfy our affiliates.

Regards,

Jaxon

 

[Peter-Jan]

In principle yes I agree that it makes sense that affs pay their % on progressives. (Maybe better start calling it gross profitshare though.) You need monthly contributions for that as progressive wins are so big that A. With negative carry over affs would close their accounts and B. Without neg carry over this would be a huge financial risk added for the programs. So far so good.

That said, for each individual affiliate the deductions are (% of progressive contributions) * (HIS/HER revshare) right? Or do all affiliates, regardless of their rev share deal, pay the same % contribution (namely the average)?

Do other software vendors have this progressive deductions too? Because now that we're on the topic we might as well address the low player value Rival generates (so I read and hear everywhere)...

 

[inspiration]

Thanks for the update Mr.Jaxon really appreciated. I always get a quick reply and support by 400 affiliates, kudos to that !

Got payment on 9th that is fast too. ;D

When I select the commission report progress. adj. have always been there

'Real Players' : Players that made their first deposit during the report period.
'All Players': The total of all players that have signed up for Fun or Real accounts during the report period.
Click on any of the highlighted column titles to see the values displayed in a chart.
Click on a campaign name to get campaign and banner details.
Click on any player count to get a Player Summary for that campaign.
'ANW': Deposits - Cashouts - Chargebacks - Progressive Adjustments.

Ofcourse it is something I would like to be more fair especially when players who play progressives deposit small amounts but costing us a fortune.

BTW 400aff is a not a rogue program IMO.

 

[slotplayer]

Do other software vendors have this progressive deductions too? Because now that we're on the topic we might as well address the low player value Rival generates (so I read and hear everywhere)...

Red Returns, and I'm now wondering if Brightshare has it.

 

[bonustreak]

Thanks for the post Jaxon

 

[JSM_Jaxon]

That said, for each individual affiliate the deductions are (% of progressive contributions) * (HIS/HER revshare) right? Or do all affiliates, regardless of their rev share deal, pay the same % contribution (namely the average)?

Do other software vendors have this progressive deductions too? Because now that we're on the topic we might as well address the low player value Rival generates (so I read and hear everywhere)...

Hi Peter-Jan,

For each individual affiliate, the deductions will never be the same from month to month and all affiliates will see different deductions. This is determined by the amount wagered by their tagged players and the affiliate rev share %. The calculation for the way deductions are currently set in the Rival system is (affiliates tagged players progressive wagering * 5-7%(dependent on progressive games played) * % of Rev Share). 5-7% is the amount of each wager that is deducted from each bet to keep the pot constantly growing. Each of our four progressive games deducts a varying %.

From what I understand from Rival and our own casino management, this is a normal policy in the industry and Rival’s progressive system is identical to one of the other software “giants”. We have confirmed with a number of operators, some as I mentioned accredited on some very big forums, that have identical policies in place. Overall in the industry, it is not abnormal to see progressive deductions.

Regards,

Jaxon

 

[WCD Admin]

2. The progressive calculation appears to be on 'wagering', which can then well-overrun deposit amounts for other players. (Meaning: The negative amount applied to the affiliate's account can be many times higher than the deposit amount from the same player)

Can someone refute or deny this? I'll admit I'm a bit confused. I follow what everyone is saying but my head revolts when asked to do the math for myself ;D

If what I understand is correct it's still theft (regardless of who else is doing it). If you take a negative commission on the total loss of the players funds you should not need glasses to see that you're taking money from the affiliate. That's not the way land based casinos do it if I'm correct.

They take the % out of the coins IN, not amount wagered.

Thanks!

 

[WCD Admin]

Players like to play progressives due to the nature of the jackpots and if the progressives bring in more traffic to your site/our casinos, then that is a positive thing. Another important thing to note is that these contributions to the pot that have been deducted from both of us, benefit neither the casino nor Rival monetarily. These are contributions that go directly to the player and no one ever sees any benefit from these contributions but them.

Is it on amount wagered, or only counted on coins-in to the machine.

I had a player at Paradise 8 that deposited about $22,000. According to Jax, I was charged for $138,325.55 in progressive slot play by this player. 2% of this number is $2,766.51.

Question answered. Thanks Steve

 

[Guard Dog]

Great post Steve. I am being copied in on the conversations and I appreciate that fact.

It appears to me from everything I've read that 'amount wagered' on progressives is what affiliates are charged 2% on. I don't think that has been answered to as a fact, though, but it appears (in Steve's post) that is what happened to him.

Nicholas - that IS the response that we should be hearing from everyone. Well done and it's time for me to give Regal a bit of a boost.

 

[Guard Dog]

NOTE: Title changed to reflect more properly on the gravity of the situation and to not single out one program when all (except Regal Affiliates) are affecting this change.

 

[bonusgeek]

Hi Peter-Jan,

For each individual affiliate, the deductions will never be the same from month to month and all affiliates will see different deductions. This is determined by the amount wagered by their tagged players and the affiliate rev share %. The calculation for the way deductions are currently set in the Rival system is (affiliates tagged players progressive wagering * 5-7%(dependent on progressive games played) * % of Rev Share). 5-7% is the amount of each wager that is deducted from each bet to keep the pot constantly growing. Each of our four progressive games deducts a varying %.

From what I understand from Rival and our own casino management, this is a normal policy in the industry and Rival’s progressive system is identical to one of the other software “giants”. We have confirmed with a number of operators, some as I mentioned accredited on some very big forums, that have identical policies in place. Overall in the industry, it is not abnormal to see progressive deductions.

Regards,

Jaxon

Hi Jax, so would you be at liberty to tell us whether or not the entire 5-7% of these progressive contributions actually goes into the progressive jackpot pool or if there are kickbacks to the software itself.

I am trying to take the affiliate out of the equation for a minute and think about what happens when a player is not tagged to an affiliate. I have a hard time believing that the casinos themselves would agree to a policy where they could end up loser on a particular progressive player even though the player lost their entire bankroll. Yet this is what has been happening with affiliates this whole time. I might be wrong but I am guessing this isn't the way it works. My guess is there is a margin of profit built into this 5-7% number and this is what the casinos fall back on to fund the progressive pool in such a situation.

Regardless affiliates need to be out of the equation with progressive contributions completely. I don't see how you can use money to fund a progressive pool that isn't there. Meaning if a player deposits $100 and plays for weeks off this deposit on a progressive, then eventually that $100 is going to go into the progressive pool which means there is no more money to fund the pool. Yet Rival is pulling this money out of thin air and just decides to use genuinely earned affiliates commissions to do it? This is very infair. If they want the progressive pool to grow from fantasy money, let them use their own revenues to do it instead of ours.

Or they need to do it by coins in like someone else mentioned so affiliates can't go backwards on a player which negates genuinely earned commissions by us. The bottom line is something seriously wrong with a system where a player can lose their entire bankroll, yet the affiliate ends up loser on that player even though they didn't beat the house out of a single red cent.

 

[bonustreak]

Enough has been said my vote has changed! Rival itself needs to stop sneaking around and doing predatory stuff against affiliates I am sick of it. If this was a legit change they would have notified the operators(I am aware that operators were never even informed!) and the affiliates first of this change regarding the progressives. It is jacked up and I would have said go to hell of course but at least I had the chance to decide if I wanted to continue to promote certain casinos!

 

[JSM_Jaxon]

Hi Jax, so would you be at liberty to tell us whether or not the entire 5-7% of these progressive contributions actually goes into the progressive jackpot pool or if there are kickbacks to the software itself.

I am trying to take the affiliate out of the equation for a minute and think about what happens when a player is not tagged to an affiliate. I have a hard time believing that the casinos themselves would agree to a policy where they could end up loser on a particular progressive player even though the player lost their entire bankroll. Yet this is what has been happening with affiliates this whole time. I might be wrong but I am guessing this isn't the way it works. My guess is there is a margin of profit built into this 5-7% number and this is what the casinos fall back on to fund the progressive pool in such a situation.

Regardless affiliates need to be out of the equation with progressive contributions completely. I don't see how you can use money to fund a progressive pool that isn't there. Meaning if a player deposits $100 and plays for weeks off this deposit on a progressive, then eventually that $100 is going to go into the progressive pool which means there is no more money to fund the pool. Yet Rival is pulling this money out of thin air and just decides to use genuinely earned affiliates commissions to do it? This is very infair. If they want the progressive pool to grow from fantasy money, let them use their own revenues to do it instead of ours.

Or they need to do it by coins in like someone else mentioned so affiliates can't go backwards on a player which negates genuinely earned commissions by us. The bottom line is something seriously wrong with a system where a player can lose their entire bankroll, yet the affiliate ends up loser on that player even though they didn't beat the house out of a single red cent.

Bonusgeek,

I can only explain this as I understand it as I'm not the programmer or the person(s) that set up this progressive system.

The 5-7% goes entirely to the pool and of that 5-7% the casinos are being deducted as well. Affiliates have been getting deducted and casinos have been getting the same deductions, but at a higher percentage than affiliates based on the affiliates rev-share (35% you, 65% us). Casino revenue as based on the same equation as affiliates and that is ANW. The progressive pool is coming from the casino's revenue since we are being deducted the for the same wagers, but it is coming from all the casinos, not just one. If a player wins the jackpot at a given casino, that casino is responsible for the replenishment of the seed amount of that progressive jackpot.

This whole issue has brought up a lot of questions from our affiliates, but it has also raised some concerns for the casinos and operators too. As I have said in other post, I will have more information once a decision is made by Rival and its operators regarding the progressive system.

Jaxon

 

[bonusgeek]

Bonusgeek,

I can only explain this as I understand it as I'm not the programmer or the person(s) that set up this progressive system.

The 5-7% goes entirely to the pool and of that 5-7% the casinos are being deducted as well. Affiliates have been getting deducted and casinos have been getting the same deductions, but at a higher percentage than affiliates based on the affiliates rev-share (35% you, 65% us). Casino revenue as based on the same equation as affiliates and that is ANW. The progressive pool is coming from the casino's revenue since we are being deducted the for the same wagers, but it is coming from all the casinos, not just one. If a player wins the jackpot at a given casino, that casino is responsible for the replenishment of the seed amount of that progressive jackpot.

This whole issue has brought up a lot of questions from our affiliates, but it has also raised some concerns for the casinos and operators too. As I have said in other post, I will have more information once a decision is made by Rival and its operators regarding the progressive system.

Jaxon

Thanks for your reply Jax. It looks like affiliates and casinos are sort of in the same boat with this then. Hopefully when Rival revamps the progressive system, it will be something affiliates and casinos are both happy with.

 

[lots0]

I would like to hear from someone at Rival before I make any decisions about blacklisting them. (added - I am talking about blacklisting RIVAL and not about blacklisting 400, I think that 400 is in the same boat as the affs in this matter.)

I do know one thing thou, Rival NEEDS to do some explaining to all of us and more important Rival needs to fix this as soon as possible.

I do believe that any further inaction on this issue by Rival would be cause to blacklist them.

 

[dendrite]

Can anyone tell me what the best tell-tale signs are that you have been affected by this progressive policy?

Perhaps one of the AMs would know?

Something that I have noticed at Rivals is an increase in 'odd' cash-out values. By that I mean, not round numbers, for example, rather than players cashing out $500, or $950 etc. like they used to, I'm seeing lots of cash-out values like $514.57, or $951.13 etc.

I am mostly seeing this with my bigger players, which I guess are the players most likely to be playing the jackpot games

So, could these odd values actually be an indicator of progressive contribution deductions, rather than actual cash-outs?

Or, is there a different, simple way to tell how badly we have been affected?

 

[Vladi]

It could be just that they are playing in another currency which is being converted back to $ in your affiliate account.