I don't know how it started, but I compare bonuses to JC Penney saying on Saturday, 50% off all merchandise. Now you know if they said this, there would be 7000 people there that day. But if there was no sale advertised, there would be only 800 people there. So promotions always bring in the people... Just like a sportsbook, if no sportsbook ever gave free money, who the hell then would be silly enough to send some deadbeat 4 dimes that you don't even know, 6000 miles away. But when you put in free cash, people will send money for that risk. But the rollover is what cancels off the bonus for the books, which becomes a fair deal for both parties.. In the long run, if a book plays it right, and doesn't offer too many opinionated lines and book properly, they still should win, even with a 15% cash and a 5x rollover..
I will say this till I die, instead of bonuses, books should have betting points (like air miles). Just like some major department stores have here in Canada, you get free cash when you spend ONLY. If I buy something for 200 bucks, i get back 10% in credit, so that means I have a free 20 bucks in credit. That's how it should have been. This way, you want a bonus, you can have it, but give us the action first. This now eliminates all bonus whores and especially eliminates all multiple acct holders, as having 39 accts or 1 acct will have no advantage anymore. We will never hear again in these forums about some guy who bet with 3 names from same IP..
You want free cash, give us action... will be the books new motto. No poster will ever be considered a scammer again and books will do much much better now, as no one can now just play with a book, finish the exact 5x rollover, cash out and take their money and go to the next book, and be considered a bonus whore...
I think this will solve the whole bonus stuff offshore and everyone will be happy and everyone will still get free cash. I think 1% kickback is fair. If a players gives a book 300k in action, shouldn't it be fair that the book gives him 3k in bonuses, seeing he's a loyal customer...
This will end all the bonus problems offshore...
I will say this till I die, instead of bonuses, books should have betting points (like air miles). Just like some major department stores have here in Canada, you get free cash when you spend ONLY. If I buy something for 200 bucks, i get back 10% in credit, so that means I have a free 20 bucks in credit. That's how it should have been. This way, you want a bonus, you can have it, but give us the action first. This now eliminates all bonus whores and especially eliminates all multiple acct holders, as having 39 accts or 1 acct will have no advantage anymore. We will never hear again in these forums about some guy who bet with 3 names from same IP..
You want free cash, give us action... will be the books new motto. No poster will ever be considered a scammer again and books will do much much better now, as no one can now just play with a book, finish the exact 5x rollover, cash out and take their money and go to the next book, and be considered a bonus whore...
I think this will solve the whole bonus stuff offshore and everyone will be happy and everyone will still get free cash. I think 1% kickback is fair. If a players gives a book 300k in action, shouldn't it be fair that the book gives him 3k in bonuses, seeing he's a loyal customer...
This will end all the bonus problems offshore...
I don't know when it began, but it sure escalated with everybody trying to top everybody else.
It's probably too late for the all books to cut back, since some will keep the bonuses to attract customers.
The books should certainly decline to give bonuses to the sharp/wiseguy players. No offense, but you represent a high enough risk anyway. Where are the sharps going to go? They're not recreational bettors and they need their outs. If you cut off bonuses to the sharps, they'll still play (or swarm in, overwhelm some other shop, and not get paid).
It's probably too late for the all books to cut back, since some will keep the bonuses to attract customers.
The books should certainly decline to give bonuses to the sharp/wiseguy players. No offense, but you represent a high enough risk anyway. Where are the sharps going to go? They're not recreational bettors and they need their outs. If you cut off bonuses to the sharps, they'll still play (or swarm in, overwhelm some other shop, and not get paid).
Sick-
Never thought I'd find myself agreeing with you, but....
The bonuses should be based upon level of play, not deposits. It can be like the Discover Card cash-back on purchases. This simplifies a lot. Also, since the bonus is based upon action, the amount given back is directly related to the hold percentage.
So, if you give back %1 of the lay, you reduce the book's hold % from 4.5% to 3.5%.
The problem is that it still costs the same to pay the clerks/phone/rent/electricity. Cutting into the bottom line it always risky.
Never thought I'd find myself agreeing with you, but....
The bonuses should be based upon level of play, not deposits. It can be like the Discover Card cash-back on purchases. This simplifies a lot. Also, since the bonus is based upon action, the amount given back is directly related to the hold percentage.
So, if you give back %1 of the lay, you reduce the book's hold % from 4.5% to 3.5%.
The problem is that it still costs the same to pay the clerks/phone/rent/electricity. Cutting into the bottom line it always risky.
Java, your opinion is very wise. I admire it, that could actually be the future for bonus programs....
In the beginning of Internet sportsbooks, when this all went online in a mainstream fashion, they didn't have bonuses. It was a perk to be able to have integrated software that took bets over the phone and on the net to the same account number. Not like the old SBG operation where you required 125 to 160 clerks between three departments to answer phones during the rushes cause the software was not written to be online yet. Internet was in diapers...
This mostly went online with WSEX and others but I remember the old Betmaker (GSC) being one of it's pioneers. Working as a CS agent for them we would sell people on good training, excellent CS attitude and native English. Not bonuses. A guy would ask for a bonus we'd say "sure, who did you refer to us? That is $50 cash for a $300 referral (hell it could be a 10K it was $50 bucks, period.)
It was a time of Credit Cards and other amenities and a time where the average player was/had not been stiffed elsewhere, had not scammed anyone and looked to this to be somewhat recreational. A guy would send us $300 on a thursday and play all weekend week after week and would sign over the Auth. Statement for the Credit Card charge and that was safe. Now a days that's not safe, for the player or the house. Customers also look only to bank a lot more now a days and therefore books that I won't name exist... Greed set in and spoiled the show but I still love it when 50 to 75 phones are blasting off and it is crunch time....IT'S A BET!!!
Good afternoon folks
In the beginning of Internet sportsbooks, when this all went online in a mainstream fashion, they didn't have bonuses. It was a perk to be able to have integrated software that took bets over the phone and on the net to the same account number. Not like the old SBG operation where you required 125 to 160 clerks between three departments to answer phones during the rushes cause the software was not written to be online yet. Internet was in diapers...
This mostly went online with WSEX and others but I remember the old Betmaker (GSC) being one of it's pioneers. Working as a CS agent for them we would sell people on good training, excellent CS attitude and native English. Not bonuses. A guy would ask for a bonus we'd say "sure, who did you refer to us? That is $50 cash for a $300 referral (hell it could be a 10K it was $50 bucks, period.)
It was a time of Credit Cards and other amenities and a time where the average player was/had not been stiffed elsewhere, had not scammed anyone and looked to this to be somewhat recreational. A guy would send us $300 on a thursday and play all weekend week after week and would sign over the Auth. Statement for the Credit Card charge and that was safe. Now a days that's not safe, for the player or the house. Customers also look only to bank a lot more now a days and therefore books that I won't name exist... Greed set in and spoiled the show but I still love it when 50 to 75 phones are blasting off and it is crunch time....IT'S A BET!!!
Good afternoon folks
Freddog-
Thanks for the compliment.
The genesis for the idea started when I used to consult for Casablanca (no longer affiliated with them). I had noticed that a lot of new players had a shelf life of 2-3 weeks at beginning of Football. Many new players would play 2-3 weeks and disappear (or reload under a different account to get signup bonuses).
I was looking for a way to keep the players out to 4 weeks. My original idea was a bonus program reimbursing of 10% of the players losses at the end of each month. This had two major features:
1) Encouraged players to stay until end of month. (Even players that had lost bankroll would have something to play at end of month and stay interested in book.) In particular, players feeling the book ia a jinx, still have hope at end of month.
2) Since the player can only lose maximum of 100% of deposit, giving back 10%, still means the book has kept 90% of deposit and only giving back small part of what book has won. This is better than book kicking in 10%-20% above players initial deposit.
The basic idea was sound, but needed some refinements:
1) A rule is needed that player must have some level of play (say 10 distinct bets a week). This might encourage players to place an extra bet or two. If you can increase the average number of bets a player makes, you may expand range of sports/bet types player likes.
2) Every player thinks he will be a winner. This is attitude makes it tougher to promote. Unfortunately, it's the losing players that you want to retain.
These considerations, among others, led to Casablanca's current cash-back program, which tries to reward winning and losing play on a weekly basis. This does not directly address the 2-3 week drop-off of players that a monthly reward program would.
In any bonus program, the book really needs to decide how much of their 4.5% holding they are willing to give up to attract customers. If the book can't connect the bonus program to a direct reduction of the 4.5%, then they shouldn't be giving away bonuses.
Also, they should restrict (or eliminated) bonuses further for the sharps/wiseguys.
Thanks for the compliment.
The genesis for the idea started when I used to consult for Casablanca (no longer affiliated with them). I had noticed that a lot of new players had a shelf life of 2-3 weeks at beginning of Football. Many new players would play 2-3 weeks and disappear (or reload under a different account to get signup bonuses).
I was looking for a way to keep the players out to 4 weeks. My original idea was a bonus program reimbursing of 10% of the players losses at the end of each month. This had two major features:
1) Encouraged players to stay until end of month. (Even players that had lost bankroll would have something to play at end of month and stay interested in book.) In particular, players feeling the book ia a jinx, still have hope at end of month.
2) Since the player can only lose maximum of 100% of deposit, giving back 10%, still means the book has kept 90% of deposit and only giving back small part of what book has won. This is better than book kicking in 10%-20% above players initial deposit.
The basic idea was sound, but needed some refinements:
1) A rule is needed that player must have some level of play (say 10 distinct bets a week). This might encourage players to place an extra bet or two. If you can increase the average number of bets a player makes, you may expand range of sports/bet types player likes.
2) Every player thinks he will be a winner. This is attitude makes it tougher to promote. Unfortunately, it's the losing players that you want to retain.
These considerations, among others, led to Casablanca's current cash-back program, which tries to reward winning and losing play on a weekly basis. This does not directly address the 2-3 week drop-off of players that a monthly reward program would.
In any bonus program, the book really needs to decide how much of their 4.5% holding they are willing to give up to attract customers. If the book can't connect the bonus program to a direct reduction of the 4.5%, then they shouldn't be giving away bonuses.
Also, they should restrict (or eliminated) bonuses further for the sharps/wiseguys.
Javster,
Giving a player a kick back on the wins/losses to make him stay there is ok.. But it has to be wins/losses kickback, whereas if I win 3 dimes OR lose 3 dimes.. I get back say 150 bucks (5%)
But if you do it only on the losses, forget about it kid, because only people with balances in the red will continue, and everyone else in the black will just cash out and send that money elsewhere in the hopes of losing the next few bets and be deep in the red, instead of winning those next 2 bets with that book and still be in the black and not collect any kickbacks.
Do you follow me? It has to be on the wins/losses and the book will get action. But if it's only the losses, books will see all the players who are up cash out immediately and go elsewhere.
If I am up 20k with one book and only get money back on losses, why bother putting in a 1 dime bet for, when i can put with a book that i am even with, and if i lose that bet, i collect 5%..
Giving a player a kick back on the wins/losses to make him stay there is ok.. But it has to be wins/losses kickback, whereas if I win 3 dimes OR lose 3 dimes.. I get back say 150 bucks (5%)
But if you do it only on the losses, forget about it kid, because only people with balances in the red will continue, and everyone else in the black will just cash out and send that money elsewhere in the hopes of losing the next few bets and be deep in the red, instead of winning those next 2 bets with that book and still be in the black and not collect any kickbacks.
Do you follow me? It has to be on the wins/losses and the book will get action. But if it's only the losses, books will see all the players who are up cash out immediately and go elsewhere.
If I am up 20k with one book and only get money back on losses, why bother putting in a 1 dime bet for, when i can put with a book that i am even with, and if i lose that bet, i collect 5%..
Sick-
I understand. I was giving you the genesis of the idea. The original problem I was trying to solve was players that lost their deposits early in season, and you wanted to encourage them to feel appreciated and stay with the book longer.
I disagree that players in the black will leave, because they will feel they can beat the book. Why reward players for beating you? You do want to do something for your good/loyal customers, but the bonus programs are designed to keep the squares. If you give away too many bonuses to the winners, you can end up in the hole.
Finally, I think that the bonus programs are far too generous and have made too many books go under and stiff players. I'm not going to cry over a winner missing out on a bonus as long as the book stays solvent enough to pay all the winners.
I understand. I was giving you the genesis of the idea. The original problem I was trying to solve was players that lost their deposits early in season, and you wanted to encourage them to feel appreciated and stay with the book longer.
I disagree that players in the black will leave, because they will feel they can beat the book. Why reward players for beating you? You do want to do something for your good/loyal customers, but the bonus programs are designed to keep the squares. If you give away too many bonuses to the winners, you can end up in the hole.
Finally, I think that the bonus programs are far too generous and have made too many books go under and stiff players. I'm not going to cry over a winner missing out on a bonus as long as the book stays solvent enough to pay all the winners.
Java,
I will ask you a question and I will lay odds you will agree with me on this one. Lets say you are getting a 5% weekly kickback on the losses. The week ends Sunday.. It's Sunday morning now and you are up 12 dimes with this book. Wouldn't it be smart to withdraw 6 dimes from that book and send it to a new book, where your balance is 0 and now, if you lose 5 dimes to this new book on Sunday, you get 5% back of 5000. Whereas had you played at the book you were up 12 dimes with, you'd get zippo back, because now you'd only be up 7 dimes, instead of 12 dimes.
You see where I am getting at? If i had 10 books giving me 5% back on weekly losses, and the week ends Sunday with all, and on Sunday morning, lets say i am up 10 dimes with 5 books and down 10 dimes with the other 5 books, there'd be no use giving my action to the 5 books that I am up 10 dimes with, because I can just withdraw from all the books i am up and send it to new books, and start fresh at 0, and if i lose now on Sunday, i get kickbacks from all, rather than nothing. I would only withdraw from the books I am up with.
Why bother giving your bets to the books you are up with going into the last day for the kickbacks? It would make no sense financially. Players will be always moving around their money with all the books that they are up with and send them to books they have a 0 balance with.
There will be a lot of money moving around if offshore becomes like this, and players with positive balances will not play there, as it would not make any sense to..
I will ask you a question and I will lay odds you will agree with me on this one. Lets say you are getting a 5% weekly kickback on the losses. The week ends Sunday.. It's Sunday morning now and you are up 12 dimes with this book. Wouldn't it be smart to withdraw 6 dimes from that book and send it to a new book, where your balance is 0 and now, if you lose 5 dimes to this new book on Sunday, you get 5% back of 5000. Whereas had you played at the book you were up 12 dimes with, you'd get zippo back, because now you'd only be up 7 dimes, instead of 12 dimes.
You see where I am getting at? If i had 10 books giving me 5% back on weekly losses, and the week ends Sunday with all, and on Sunday morning, lets say i am up 10 dimes with 5 books and down 10 dimes with the other 5 books, there'd be no use giving my action to the 5 books that I am up 10 dimes with, because I can just withdraw from all the books i am up and send it to new books, and start fresh at 0, and if i lose now on Sunday, i get kickbacks from all, rather than nothing. I would only withdraw from the books I am up with.
Why bother giving your bets to the books you are up with going into the last day for the kickbacks? It would make no sense financially. Players will be always moving around their money with all the books that they are up with and send them to books they have a 0 balance with.
There will be a lot of money moving around if offshore becomes like this, and players with positive balances will not play there, as it would not make any sense to..
the person responsible for changing the face of the bonus game was Toni the owner of 5 dimes. I worked with him for 3 years...and he proved that by playing books against each other giving 10% each for deposit you could make over $50,000 a year. He changed the bonus policy of many books....and revolutionized the idea of playing 3 times before recieving bonus....
Bonuses will never go away
Just as sales will never go away at stores, bonuses will never go away at sportsbooks.
The first offshores opened and they were a disaster. Just getting a bet in on the phone on your account was tough. They were trying hard, but many clerks could not speak English and computer use was all being taught. I remember at globalcasino, you could make bets well after games were over.
AS the industry grew, customer service got better and people stopped picking books by who had the best CS (WSEX had he best for a long time, then prob Cris).
As competition came, some started offering bonuses to sign up. It really made sense - here you were putting money with an untrusted company - they were making the interest. You could bet on credit with a bookie, etc. It made sense to give 10-20%.
Then as competition kept coming bonuses became ridiculous. Then as books folded they came back down some.
The best way to give a bonus would be to give back something each week like wagerweb. They give 1% back which is far less than their 5+% take.
Problem is most recreational gamblers read 20% up front as far more than 1% of their action. It is like sales that say 20% off and then an additional 20% and then an additional 20%. Most people think it is 60 when it is really about 40%...
Now what I do not understand is why books do not require a rollover to make the bonuses profitable. Most people do not look at the rollover, I look, but could care less what it is if the book is giving me 20%. If the book takes 5% per roll, why not require a 5X or 8X rollover on 20% bonuses and not worry about it... Of course people can still bet middles and come out ahead...
-Sean
Just as sales will never go away at stores, bonuses will never go away at sportsbooks.
The first offshores opened and they were a disaster. Just getting a bet in on the phone on your account was tough. They were trying hard, but many clerks could not speak English and computer use was all being taught. I remember at globalcasino, you could make bets well after games were over.
AS the industry grew, customer service got better and people stopped picking books by who had the best CS (WSEX had he best for a long time, then prob Cris).
As competition came, some started offering bonuses to sign up. It really made sense - here you were putting money with an untrusted company - they were making the interest. You could bet on credit with a bookie, etc. It made sense to give 10-20%.
Then as competition kept coming bonuses became ridiculous. Then as books folded they came back down some.
The best way to give a bonus would be to give back something each week like wagerweb. They give 1% back which is far less than their 5+% take.
Problem is most recreational gamblers read 20% up front as far more than 1% of their action. It is like sales that say 20% off and then an additional 20% and then an additional 20%. Most people think it is 60 when it is really about 40%...
Now what I do not understand is why books do not require a rollover to make the bonuses profitable. Most people do not look at the rollover, I look, but could care less what it is if the book is giving me 20%. If the book takes 5% per roll, why not require a 5X or 8X rollover on 20% bonuses and not worry about it... Of course people can still bet middles and come out ahead...
-Sean
