New Terms at Fulltilt - your players have only 60 days to deposit

[PPP]

If Full Tilt would have said 180 days originally, this thread would be 1/10th the size it is. Some people would bitch, but when everyone looked at their stats it would be much less of an impact.

180 days is already a semi-standard for dropping non-producers.
180 days is already about the average life of a player (according to Party Poker's stockholder statements).

They could gain a lot of goodwill with that one change, even if a small minority would consider it still unacceptable.

[mypokercorner]

First, thanks for speaking to them and to report back. Regardign the 60 issue, I agree that a 2005 PMP becoming a RMP 3 years later is probably not because of the affiliates site, thus I am not opposed to setting a time limit. If the PMP saw a FT ad 3 years later and realizes he has an old account there and reactivates it or whatever, I would understand not getting credit for the transaction. As you say, it becomes a debate on timing, and what is acceptable. I'll just speak for myself and say that I can live with a policy that limits that conversion timeframe, but it would have to be for a year. Anything less then that will not draw any interest on my part to be a FT affiliate. It is perfectly resonable to assume that a PMP may be active for many many months before he/she decides to finaly deposit. This can be due to various factors such as skill level and success rate at play money tables, personal finacial situations, etc. I think a one year timeframe is a reasonable compromise between affiliates and FT and under this model, credit is given where credit is due in the vast majority of cases.

Regarding the other issues (rakeback), I guess more clarifications are required at this point. They may have said that the rakeback has nothing to do with the 60 days, but indirectly it does since the 60 days has to do with income, and rakeback reduces FT's income. It's to compensate. But it is quite possible that the decision wasn't directly aimed as a solution to the rakeback issue, but rather based on financials as a whole, which encompases additional elements than just rakeback. Clearly, they need to rethink the workings of their rakeback system.

As for AMs, I've never personally had the pleasure of dealing with Jessica or Nell, but as I stated before I am sure that this has nothing to do with them. I hope they understand that while some negative comments may have been directed at them, they were the result of very frustrated clients. This has been minimal, and again I think the vast majority understands their position as well and hold no grudges against them at all.

[corpfan1]

Unfortunately the CANNOT change the 60 days to a different amount as they are now only gaining the "technology" to enforce the terms...

It will be another 3 years before they can attain the technology to "change" the terms...

[stiankr]

Originally Posted by corpfan1

Unfortunately the CANNOT change the 60 days to a different amount as they are now only gaining the "technology" to enforce the terms...

It will be another 3 years before they can attain the technology to "change" the terms...

LOL, no reply at all would be better than giving us that.

[scrawnybob]

hi Jeremy

great that you have got a dialogue going with them

I had some feedback from AM and as said before I firmly believe its not in our interests to beat up on the AM's because this is not of their making and they will IMHO respond far better to polite frustration than a hissy fit and ranting.

IMHO my biggest concern is still the rakeback situation - that isnt to say that I'm happy with the 60 day / any day restriction but

primarily with a community based site we cannot be expected to compromise our "fair and honest reputation" if we are trying to push players through to deposit in 60 days if we know that they would be getting offered 27% inhouse / supported rakeback deal on day 61 if we didnt push them through

the only solution to this I can see is giving us a CPA deal and then it's their problem - but that still doesnt solve the 60 day thing - and I'd rather have a fair % partnership (better than 20% / 8% would be nice)

I as a small % affiliate with FT I have spent alot recently funding buy-ins (and freerolls) on an ongoing basis - with the full knowledge that players WILL convert way after 60 days

So to me whilst I expect the room to try and convert them I'm also trying to be proactive and get and keep players in real money games by running buy-ins every month etc

that was a long term plan to invest to accumulate - with these changes it makes that kind of look like a big waste of money as a long term strategy doesnt suit working to a cutoff date

anyway - great that you are pushing our corner and I've also been assured that all the points put forward by affiliates will be presented by the AM's to the management

cheers scrawnybob

[realitybytes]

Surely this is an april fools!

Read the wording it just isnt right and the image along with it!

[Ritch111]

Now that we can get in, I just felt the pain of the future.

Sign Up Date		First Deposit Date
08/17/2006		02/23/2008
03/02/2007		02/23/2008

Just happened 4 days ago. 60 days is a joke.

[realitybytes]

Yes for those of us with a big backlog of players built up will lose alot of money if this is for real.

I get a figure of roughly 60% of my total depositing players a month over 60 days. That is a a big loss for me if this is no joke.

[corpfan1]

Why does anyone think this is a joke?

Cmon people.

[Holis]

Already started removing them and giving PKR and Pokerstars the ft spots.

Problem having 50+ sites is updating when these types of situations arise (also the Absolute url change is a PITA, giving some of those spots to others too)