How does iPoker network work?

    • canniballsy
      canniballsy
      Bronze
      Joined: 22.04.2012 Posts: 119
      Hello
      I see a lot of Poker companies have iPoker Networks. How does iPoker network work? Are all the Poker Companies sharing the same players through iPoker Network? Say I am playing on Betfair, will I be playing poker with some one from William Hill? Now William Hill does not allow players from Bangladesh(I am from Bdesh) but Betfair does, will betfair allow me to play someone from WH? It is really confusing.
  • 24 replies
    • Lazza61
      Lazza61
      Headadmin
      Headadmin
      Joined: 23.03.2011 Posts: 9,255
      Hey canniballsy,

      That's pretty much how it works. If you log in through Betfair, you could be playing against players from about 30 other different skins.

      For instance if i joined your table, I could be joining through Titan, NetBet or Winner.

      Cheers

      Laz
    • canniballsy
      canniballsy
      Bronze
      Joined: 22.04.2012 Posts: 119
      Thanks Lazza
    • Agiz19
      Agiz19
      Bronze
      Joined: 19.03.2007 Posts: 1,097
      It works, but sadly like a broken watch :coolface:
    • tonypmm
      tonypmm
      Silver
      Joined: 11.01.2009 Posts: 3,853
      Dear Pokerstrategy staff!

      I don't want to start a new thread quite yet about the new rake allocation method favouring acquisition of recreational players called 'source-based rake' to be implemented on iPoker on January 1st, 2015 - I'll leave the privilege of posting an official news thread to you - but I'm sure you've already known about it for quite long, and now, when it's become official (the forum rules prohibit me from giving a link, but the concept is easily searchable), could you please explain how the upcoming method is going to work?

      As far as I've understood:

      • player rewards won't be affected directly (the method of calculation of player points will remain weighted contributed in cash games and proportional to the fee in tournaments), which makes it similar to MPN's 'True Value rake';

      • a room will be assigned revenue from its player entering a cash game or SnG only if s/he buys into it with 'their own' deposit/bonus money (i.e. not by money won from other players), and that money will remain 'tagged' to that room until it is collected as rake or fee, regardless of those players who win it from each other in the process (or maybe the rooms of the regs who have 'converted' the money into rake will get something, but a smaller share of it than the room of the original depositor);

      • in MTTs and Twister, revenues will be calculated in the usual old way, i.e. all fees paid there by players of a certain room will be deemed revenue of that room, while cash games and non-Twister SnGs will be subject to the new method;

      • as a result, the focus of promotions will switch towards net depositors, while rewards offered to high volume players will be lowered (indirectly).


      Please correct me if I'm way off somewhere. Speaking of, are you going to keep rates for SPs awarded for MTT and Twister play at the same level, or maybe even boost them to encourage high volume players to convert to these formats from cash and non-Twister SnGs? ;)

      Thanks!
    • JoeNote
      JoeNote
      Headadmin
      Headadmin
      Joined: 21.02.2007 Posts: 568
      Hi tonypmm,

      Let me answer your specific question about PokerStrategy.com first, before trying to explain the new system.

      Speaking of, are you going to keep rates for SPs awarded for MTT and Twister play at the same level, or maybe even boost them to encourage high volume players to convert to these formats from cash and non-Twister SnGs?
      We don't plan any changes in regards to how SPs are awarded. Since the new rake allocation model is not rolled out to a player level, PokerStrategy.com also sticks to not treating players differently based on what they play. We continue to give X SPs for every $ or € regardless of what or how much you play - that's also what we did when MPN made the changes and we do the same for iPoker.



      You are referring to an article and a thread on 2+2 forum in which a discussion about the new system has started. While much information is correct, there is one important fact that is completely missing:

      The new player valuation is based on a combination of gross rake & fee (as today) and the new system called "source based rake".

      This means that no player is considered "worthless" or even "negative" for iPoker rooms or affiliates. The simplest way to explain how the system works is the following:

      • Rake and tournament fees are collected in the same way as today
      • A portion of the collected rake/tournament fees is assigned to the player who was involved in the hand or SNG (same as today)
      • The remainder is assigned to the player who initially brought the money into the system (=source of the money)

      The new rake allocation doesn't affect players directly as they will continue to receive the same amount of VIP points for every € rake they generate.

      From the perspective of an iPoker room or affiliate things look slightly different, because their income is based on the new player valuation instead of gross rake and fees. To keep explanation as simple as possible you can generalize what it means for different player segments as follows:

      Big winners
      This player group will earn iPoker rooms and affiliates less money in the future, because they will "use" the money of players of whom they won it to buy-in to SNGs or to make bets in cash games. Since there is still a portion of the rake and fees assigned to them these players are still worth something to iPoker rooms and affiliates.

      Break-evenish guys incl. small winners and losers
      This player group will not be affected as much as the one above. Due sometimes winning/sometimes losing own money these players will tag own money to themselves. This money will be allocated back to this player group through "source based rake", as soon as other players use those funds to play poker. This segment will be on average be worth the same as today (ofc with some deviation on individual player level).

      Recreational players / big losing players
      This player segment will become worth much more for iPoker rooms than today, because the amount of rake and fees generated by those players is relatively small, while this segment is losing much money to both segments above. These funds will generate revenue for iPoker rooms and their affiliates going forward.


      as a result, the focus of promotions will switch towards net depositors, while rewards offered to high volume players will be lowered (indirectly).
      The new system is designed to make iPoker rooms focus on bringing in new players and new deposits. It is obvious that this leads to re-allocation of promotion budgets and it is very unlikely to see huge amounts of money spent on e.g. rake races or top levels of the VIP systems, in the light of the above. Rewards for grinders won't drop to zero, because they are still worth something for the iPoker room.

      With more money spent on new player acquisition, cross-marketing or re-activation the poker liquidity pool will benefit and games are supposed to get softer due to having more recreational players. In the end this new money will benefit also the grinders who might see lower rakeback, but hopefully can make up for this by actually winning from the games.


      in MTTs and Twister, revenues will be calculated in the usual old way, i.e. all fees paid there by players of a certain room will be deemed revenue of that room, while cash games and non-Twister SnGs will be subject to the new method;
      This information is also not 100% correct in the 2+2 thread:

      • Correct is that MTTs will not be part of the new rake allocation method
      • Twister is part of the new system as far as buy-in and tournament fee is concerned. Only the "jackpot contribution" and therefore all jackpot prizes are excluded.

      Example:
      For a 1€ Twister SNG the buy-in is split as follows:

      • 0.67€ is going into the prizepool (part of the new system)
      • 0.07€ is the tournament fee that iPoker collects (part of the new system)
      • 0.26€ is going to fund the jackpot (not part of the new system)

      In any case the winner of this Twister SNG gets 2.01€. This money still belongs to the initial depositors. When it is used again a portion of the rake & fees will be allocated to the initial depositor.

      In case the player wins the 1000€ Twister jackpot the remainder of 997.99€ (=1000€ - 2.01€) won't belong to anyone and is treated as if this money is a deposit. If the player continues to play and rake & fees are generated out of this money, the value is assigned to this player.

      I hope I was able to answer your questions and the long post was helpful to understand the changes.

      Cheers,

      Joerg
    • rompas
      rompas
      Moderator
      Moderator
      Joined: 12.02.2014 Posts: 2,396
      reading this news and have a hard time now see how it will affect me as player, but looks like probably some changes will come from the skins regarding reward systems, but we will see
    • tonypmm
      tonypmm
      Silver
      Joined: 11.01.2009 Posts: 3,853
      Hi rompas! As this system was decided upon back in July, many rooms have already started tailoring their promotion lineups to it (as seen in depositor freeroll series), but are doing it mildly so far, so I don't expect the change to be that drastic, especially because, as JoeNote has said above, breakeven and slightly losing players will be valued about as highly as before, and they have been the core of the iPoker regulars' pool anyway.

      Hi JoeNote! Many thanks for the detailed answer, it's now the most accurate public description of the system, and I'm glad that it were Pokerstrategy who have given it!

      There's however a small but important detail about Twister that's yet unclear to me, namely, out of whose money the jackpot component of the buy-in is considered to be spent.

      Assume that I win €1 from another player (say, Bob) and then use this euro to buy into the cheapest Twister. Which of the following is the case?

      1. The whole €1 is considered spent out of Bob's deposit and hence Bob's room is assigned €0.07 in revenue (my whole fee). (I mean, if the proportion between the methods is x% old model and (100-x)% SBR, then my room gets x%*€0.07 and Bob's one gets (100-x)%*€0.07).

      2. Only €0.74 (the 'pure buy-in' + the fee) is considered spent out of Bob's deposit, but the jackpot component €0.26 is considered spent out of my own money despite the positive virtual balance (VB), hence Bob's room gets 0.74*(100-x)%*€0.07=(100-x)%*€0.0518 and my room gets x%*€0.07+0.26*(100-x)%*€0.07=x%*€0.07+(100-x)%*€0.0182.

      3. Anything significantly different (please explain if possible).

      Though I assume from your explanation ('0.26€ is going to fund the jackpot (not part of the new system)') that case 2 is going to take place, massive promotion of Twister is +EV for an iPoker room (and, by extension, for its affiliates) in any case.

      In case 2, the balance between the old model and the new SBR one becomes more weighted towards the old one, more money is absorbed by my room immediately, though the conversion speed of deposited money becomes lower in Twister than in other SnGs and cash.

      In case 1, a positive VB accumulated in other SnG/cash games is likely to get 'laundered' quickly by playing Twister because, for every €1 of other players' deposits spent on buy-ins, only a bit more than €0.67 (depending on the ITM, but usually less than €0.80) returns to the VB as money won 'from other players', i.e. from the minimum (non-jackpot) prize pool, the rest of the money that is won back (gross) comes from the jackpot pool and is tagged to the player himself. Hence those winners who play Twister in addition to their main cash/SnG games will often have consistently negative VBs and be more valuable than those who play neither Twister nor MTTs.

      I hope that makes sense.
    • JoeNote
      JoeNote
      Headadmin
      Headadmin
      Joined: 21.02.2007 Posts: 568
      Hi tonypmm,

      I am happy that my post was helpful to better understand the system. You are raising an interesting question and also bringing up the term "virtual balance". I think this needs a further explanation about what this means, why such a balance exists and how money is entering or leaving the virtual balance.

      What is the virtual balance?
      • Every player has an actual balance (=money in poker account) and a virtual balance, which is only relevant for the system to keep track of who is the initial depositor of the money a player is playing with.
      • The virtual balance consists of other players' money and own money.
      • Within the players' virtual balance the money is sorted following a simple logic e.g. "use oldest money first" and whenever a bet is made the system takes the money that is next in line.
      • The virtual balance can't become negative (just because you are mentioning this scenario in your post).

      How is money entering or leaving the virtual balance?
      • If a player makes a bet the system looks up if this player's virtual balance is big enough to cover the bet. If yes, then the system is using the next money in line from the virtual balance. If not, then the system is using as much money from the virtual balance and the remainder is tagged to the player who made the bet.
      • As a result each currency unit that is used within poker has a tag (initial depositor + time stamp when money was first used)
      • Now that two or more players are playing a pot money is removed from the virtual balances
      • Once one player wins the pot, rake is deducted and the remaining amount is moved into the virtual balance of the player who won the hand. Each currency unit is sorted into the winners virtual balance (according to time stamp).
      • This happens every hand, etc... so that money is constantly moving between players' virtual balances.

      Your Twister example...
      Let's assume the following happened before you decided to play the 1€ Twister SNG:
      • You created a new poker account and made a deposit of 10€
      Your actual balance is now 10€, but your virtual balance is still 0€, because you didn't use your deposit yet.
      • Now you join a NL10 HU cash game against Bob and you post the BB
      Now your actual balance is still 10€ and the system looks up to whom the 0.10€ belong. Because your virtual balance was empty the system knows these 0.10€ belong to you
      • Bob is raising to 1€, you raise to 3€ and Bob folds
      Now your actual balance is 11€, while your virtual balance is 4€ (Bob's 1€ plus the 3€ you bet during this hand which were not covered by your virtual balance)

      • You decide to buy-in to a 1€ Twister tournament
      Now your actual balance is 10€ again, while your virtual balance is 3.26€ (=4€ - 0.67€ - 0.07€ fee)
      • Your iPoker room gets now x% * 0.07€, while Bob's card room gets (1-x)% * 0.07€ [with 0 <= x <= 1]
      • You are super lucky and the Twister tournament turns into a 1,000€ one
      • You win it and 2.01€ (=3 * 0.67€ tagged to Bob + other players) are added to your virtual balance
      Now your actual balance is 1,010€ and your virtual balance is 5.27€ consisting of Bob's, whomever's money and your 3€

      As you can see the jackpot contribution was never deducted from your virtual balance, hence any jackpot win comes clean to your balance and these funds could be tagged to yourself in the future.

      This is also how it works for MTTs. The MTT buy-in + fee is deducted from your actual balance, but not from your virtual balance.

      I know that this sounds very complicated, but I hope it answers the question.
    • uhaveair
      uhaveair
      Basic
      Joined: 13.11.2014 Posts: 6
      "
      • Bob is raising to 1€, you raise to 3€ and Bob folds
      Now your actual balance is 11€, while your virtual balance is 4€ (Bob's 1€ plus the 3€ you bet during this hand which were not covered by your virtual balance)
      "

      Wow, a bet/raise not called gets added to the VB. Really ?
      That's for cash games also?

      So if play NL100, BTN raises to 3€ I shove $100 from the BB
      -> my VB is €100 higher than before this massive overbet where I won €3 ?

      If so it's pretty easy to get high VB's (which seem's not to be good for the room/player) even if you are loser in the games.
    • tonypmm
      tonypmm
      Silver
      Joined: 11.01.2009 Posts: 3,853
      JoeNote, many thanks for providing a detailed answer, that's a definitive guide on the new system for players, it makes perfect sense to me now! I'm sorry if I've made you write more than you were planning to share at this early stage, but of course you would face such questions sooner or later...

      It's noteworthy that, from the cash/SnG player's perspective, their personal value to the room is a combination of their rake and their net pre-reward loss (if any), the same as in the formula prompted by Korn (Value = c * Rake + (1-c) * Net Loss) in his article 'The Secret Value of Winning Players' written back in January 2012, so Dominik can be regarded as the inventor of the formula (unless it was known even earlier). It turns out that the virtual balance concept is an internal technical detail that regulates revenue sharing among rooms and is of little interest to the player.

      The fact that SBR is 'blind' to jackpot contributions in Twister (treating these SnGs exactly like €0.67+0.07 non-JP winner-take-all 'Trinities') is giving some relief: if a player wins less often than €0.74/€2.01~36.8% in the long run, s/he generates SBR and has a negligibly low VB that doesn't grow steadily over time, there's no 'congestion' of others' funds in the VB (that's what I meant by a 'negative VB', sorry for the confusion). So a player who wins 35-36% of the time, even despite net withdrawing, will be more valued than a big (37%+) winner paying the same amount of fees.

      In all other SnGs and cash, if the revenue distribution were 100% SBR-based, any net withdrawer would generate no or even negative net SBR (I mean SBR minus rewards).

      That's what I meant saying that it's a bit more profitable for an iPoker room to have a mediocre reg play Twister (where s/he will win 35-36% of games and generate a bit of SBR) than cash or other types of SnGs. If the system were 100% SBR-based, a non-Twister SnG/cash player losing pre-cashback wouldn't be able to reach a mutually beneficial deal with a room, while a mediocre Twister player (winning 35-36% of them) would.

      In the mixed system where revenue = c * (usual rake) + (1-c) * (net loss), the room can't give the player more rewards than that, and as a weak player loses exactly -(net loss) before rewards, his/her total net profit is not more than c * usual rake + (1-2c) * (net loss), in fact somewhat less. A Twister player can theoretically get a bit more due to the fact that the system doesn't penalise his/her value hard enough for winning the jackpot component back a bit more often than the player pool on average.
    • tonypmm
      tonypmm
      Silver
      Joined: 11.01.2009 Posts: 3,853
      Originally posted by uhaveair
      "
      • Bob is raising to 1€, you raise to 3€ and Bob folds
      Now your actual balance is 11€, while your virtual balance is 4€ (Bob's 1€ plus the 3€ you bet during this hand which were not covered by your virtual balance)
      "

      Wow, a bet/raise not called gets added to the VB. Really ?
      That's for cash games also?

      So if play NL100, BTN raises to 3€ I shove $100 from the BB
      -> my VB is €100 higher than before this massive overbet where I won €3 ?

      If so it's pretty easy to get high VB's (which seem's not to be good for the room/player) even if you are loser in the games.
      Congratulations on the first post at Pokerstrategy! :)

      As far as I've understood it, one's own funds in the VB never grow consistently, they're just an indication of how much one actually brings into the game and bets at once (as opposed to letting the funds lie passively in the account).

      E.g. if I sit down to 16 tables of €0.25/0.50 NLHE, go all-in at all of them at the same time and double up at 8 of them, my VB will consist of ~€388 (=€400 minus ~€12 w.-contrib. rake) of my own money and ~€388 of others' money. The next €388 I lose will be those tagged to the other players. Then my own funds from the VB will start being wagered; only when I lose the next €388 (€776 total down from my highest point - i.e. when I reach my lifetime breakeven point), a bit of my actual funds will be copied into the VB again.

      But it's unlikely that I'll bet a lot of stacks at all the same time. In reality, after I win the first all-in, my second all-in will be funded first by the funds from the VB that were won from the first opponent, then by my own VB funds. It's unlikely that a VB of a consistent loser will ever exceed a few stacks.

      And, as I've written above, understanding the VB inventory doesn't matter that much, the thing that matters is that the player's value to the room is c * rake + (1-c) * net loss (for winners, the net loss is not negative but set to zero).
    • Ramble
      Ramble
      Bronze
      Joined: 17.11.2008 Posts: 1,421
      Originally posted by JoeNote
      To keep explanation as simple as possible you can generalize what it means for different player segments as follows:

      Big winners
      This player group will earn iPoker rooms and affiliates less money in the future, because they will "use" the money of players of whom they won it to buy-in to SNGs or to make bets in cash games. Since there is still a portion of the rake and fees assigned to them these players are still worth something to iPoker rooms and affiliates.

      Break-evenish guys incl. small winners and losers
      This player group will not be affected as much as the one above. Due sometimes winning/sometimes losing own money these players will tag own money to themselves. This money will be allocated back to this player group through "source based rake", as soon as other players use those funds to play poker. This segment will be on average be worth the same as today (ofc with some deviation on individual player level).

      Recreational players / big losing players
      This player segment will become worth much more for iPoker rooms than today, because the amount of rake and fees generated by those players is relatively small, while this segment is losing much money to both segments above. These funds will generate revenue for iPoker rooms and their affiliates going forward.


      The new system is designed to make iPoker rooms focus on bringing in new players and new deposits. It is obvious that this leads to re-allocation of promotion budgets and it is very unlikely to see huge amounts of money spent on e.g. rake races or top levels of the VIP systems, in the light of the above. Rewards for grinders won't drop to zero, because they are still worth something for the iPoker room.

      With more money spent on new player acquisition, cross-marketing or re-activation the poker liquidity pool will benefit and games are supposed to get softer due to having more recreational players. In the end this new money will benefit also the grinders who might see lower rakeback, but hopefully can make up for this by actually winning from the games.
      This is the first I've heard of it - thanks for a good and detailed explanation. On the surface I think this is one of the more well thought out attempts at improving the poker economy.
    • JoeNote
      JoeNote
      Headadmin
      Headadmin
      Joined: 21.02.2007 Posts: 568
      Welcome to PokerStrategy.com!

      Originally posted by uhaveair
      "
      • Bob is raising to 1€, you raise to 3€ and Bob folds
      Now your actual balance is 11€, while your virtual balance is 4€ (Bob's 1€ plus the 3€ you bet during this hand which were not covered by your virtual balance)
      "

      Wow, a bet/raise not called gets added to the VB. Really ?
      That's for cash games also?

      So if play NL100, BTN raises to 3€ I shove $100 from the BB
      -> my VB is €100 higher than before this massive overbet where I won €3 ?
      Yes, this is correct. If your bet isn't covered by the virtual balance the system tags money to you. It doesn't matter whether you get called or not.

      Originally posted by uhaveair
      If so it's pretty easy to get high VB's (which seem's not to be good for the room/player) even if you are loser in the games.
      The VB don't become that big, because once you shoved 100€ your virtual balance is 103.5€ (BTN raise + SB + your bet). If you make a bet of e.g. 5€ in your next hand your VB covers the bet and no additional money is added to the VB (unless you win the hand).

      If you are a loser in the games you constantly tag new money, but once you lost a pot this money is moving to your opponent's VB and will be used by them. Whenever they use your money and rake/fee is collected a portion will be assigned to you and your iPoker room will see this as revenue. So this is not a bad thing for anyone.
    • uhaveair
      uhaveair
      Basic
      Joined: 13.11.2014 Posts: 6
      Anyways, what's really matters is that the rake calculation remains 'weight contributed' for each player and thus transparent !!

      If you would implement this like ongame did with Essence this would be suicidal.

      If the skins/affiliates decide to lower the rewards for the regs so be it. But at least it's pretty transparent for each player and one can decide to move to Pokerstars or not.
    • uhaveair
      uhaveair
      Basic
      Joined: 13.11.2014 Posts: 6
      one more thing regarding my NL100 example.

      Let's assume I am a whale, heavily on drugs and decide to play some hands this night.

      I play NL100 6-max. I'm drunk and I tell to myself: No one steals my BB this night! Being a whale I am certainly the most welcome player type now but let's see:

      Every time the BTN raises to €3 I shove my €100 from the BB. I do this 20 times in a row. I win 20*€3.50 = €70. My VB is 20*€103.50 = €2,070 higher now.
      Then in the 21th hand the BTN picked up AA and calls. I loose €100 in this hand.
      Through this 21 hands I lost €30. My VB is still +€1,970 or something. While I am a whale my room gets punished due to the massive VB's.

      Ofc this is a extreme example. At NL100 it's pretty unlikely to happen a lot but at micro- or nanostakes it might happen.
    • JoeNote
      JoeNote
      Headadmin
      Headadmin
      Joined: 21.02.2007 Posts: 568
      Anyways, what's really matters is that the rake calculation remains 'weight contributed' for each player and thus transparent !!

      If you would implement this like ongame did with Essence this would be suicidal.

      As stated, every player continues to earn VIP points based on the weighted contributed, regardless of what the player value is in the end. It stays fully transparent, unlike Essence.


      one more thing regarding my NL100 example.

      Let's assume I am a whale, heavily on drugs and decide to play some hands this night.

      I play NL100 6-max. I'm drunk and I tell to myself: No one steals my BB this night! Being a whale I am certainly the most welcome player type now but let's see:Every time the BTN raises to €3 I shove my €100 from the BB. I do this 20 times in a row. I win 20*€3.50 = €70. My VB is 20*€103.50 = €2,070 higher now.Then in the 21th hand the BTN picked up AA and calls. I loose €100 in this hand.Through this 21 hands I lost €30. My VB is still +€1,970 or something. While I am a whale my room gets punished due to the massive VB's.

      Ofc this is a extreme example. At NL100 it's pretty unlikely to happen a lot but at micro- or nanostakes it might happen.

      In this case you probably have a bigger problem than what your virtual balance is :D

      And good news is that the virtual balance is nothing to be worried about - let's look at it in more detail:

      Assuming that your virtual balance is empty (makes the example simpler) at the point you start spewing:

      Hand #1:
      Virtual balance before the hand: 0€
      New own money tagged during the hand: 100€
      Potsize: 103.5€ (if everyone but BTN folded)
      Virtual balance after the hand: 103.5€

      Hand #2:
      Virtual balance before the hand: 103.5€
      New own money tagged during the hand: 0€ -> because your VB covers the bet of 103.5€
      Potsize: 107€ (if everyone but BTN folded)
      Virtual balance after the hand: 107€

      ...

      Hand #21:
      Virtual balance before the hand: 170€ (=100€ of your own money + 20* 3.50€)
      New own money tagged during the hand: 0€ -> because your VB covers the bet of 170€
      Potsize: Let's assume your opponent has 100€ and everyone else folded pre flop -> 200.50€
      Pot is raked with 3€
      Virtual balance after the hand: If you win -> 170€ + 100.5€ (opponents money + SB) - 3€ rake = 267.5€
      If you lose -> 70€ because the 100€ that you just lost are transferred over to the VB of the player who won the hand.
    • uhaveair
      uhaveair
      Basic
      Joined: 13.11.2014 Posts: 6
      Thanks for the good explanation! Now even a drunk whale like me get's it and I think I can play now this way :s_thumbsup:
    • nahh12
      nahh12
      Bronze
      Joined: 28.08.2014 Posts: 6
      Hey JoeNote,

      Thanks for the detailed explanation. How will this affect players who are losing before but winning after RB (VIP system, races, reload bonuses). And does the answer apply for both cash and SnGs?
    • uhaveair
      uhaveair
      Basic
      Joined: 13.11.2014 Posts: 6
      That's a really good point. Before JoeNote hopefully answers to this I would assume that the skins will refresh (lower) the VIP programs (50% at betfair for example will be history) and skip/lower flat rb deals also.
      And I cannot imagine that they make different programs for each group of players.
      Maybe big net depositors will get bonuses like deposit freerolls or something. But they definetly will not make a VIP program for slightly loosing ar margely winning or well winning players. That would be far too complicated and could change every month (depending on a players run good /run bad luck in a month)
    • 1
    • 2