Do away with all bonuses

Agree with a few others, the bonuses have very very little to do with a book going down. It's the coke habit or the tendency to gamble huge amounts of money from the prinicpals involved that are the problems. All these guys who fail do other things foolishly, though easy to point to it's not the bonus that is breaking the camels back.

The appearance of them being the culprit may be related to that when the roof comes tumbling down they will send out ads for huge matching bonuses and $50 on $50 post-ups etc...... The fact is though the real damage was done long before.

 

To expound on this more (and ignore the GROAN from the forum /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) let me offer up this personal experience as a long time poker player. When younger and not so long in the tooth I played poker almost every night. There was a private game every night of the week I could go to. As time went on these private games got more and more professional. Where as we used to go and there'd be a grocery store meat tray laid out for dinner, later on we were eating catered food. We smoked they kept our brand of cigarette in the back. We drank they kept our favorite booze in the cabinet. They also had a sandwich girl/cook and professional dealers.

Many wondered how in the hell could the games do this and survive? My partner was very adamant about it. No matter how many times I would show him in a very simple fashion how they could afford it, he was buying none of it. After a year or so one of the 10 local games finally did go down. The lady who was in charge of that one LOVED TO PLAY poker! And boy oh boy was she an awful player. When she got in the game and she always did, she played every hand. Rumor had it the last hand she sat out was the pilot show for Gilligan's Island. It was her gambling losses and other personal habits that broke her, not the fact the food was better, they supplied cigarettes or offered any bonuses. Her hand was in the till and she blew the rake money playing every night is what killed her.

Point is don't look for an easy answer or alibi. Wasn't the bonus money. Or contests a place runs. Or anything else that simple. It was the men behind the book that blew it. 'Nuff said.

 

[vinividivinci]

With all respect to those who disagree, there does seem to be a correlation between large bonuses and book failures. I believe several books have offered large bonuses in hopes of generating cash flow, hoping to hang on long enough right the ship.

In any event, each gambler needs to do his own due diligence (and take responsibility) when selecting a sportsbook. Play with fire, you just might get burned.


VVV

 

I think the top 6 or 7 shops can eliminate the bonus.

The second tier of say 25 shops will always keep a bonus to compete against the top shops, and because they cater more to square post up business.

Then comes the 150 or so junk shops.. They will offer whatever to attract whatever, because without outrageous bonus incentives, why else would a player go there.

Those junk shops are the problem.

They always have and will be the problem. Junk being defined as either less than 2 years in business and or being financially unsound.

I think that 1/2 the shops on the Don Best screen have financial problems.


JC

 

>>>With all respect to those who disagree, there does seem to be a correlation between large bonuses and book failures. I believe several books have offered large bonuses in hopes of generating cash flow, hoping to hang on long enough right the ship.<<<

That my friend is true.

My point is that these bonuses aren't the cause of their problems, simply a solution, at least in their minds. You are correct on the cash flow stuff. However a reasonable bonus program will not bring down a well run book folks.....

Sort of like charity, we're looking at the symptoms not the cause.

 

Good post JC. I agree.

The books that probably don't need to offer the bonuses are almost the only one's who can afford to offer them in the first place. Hope that makes sense.....

/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

 

[ericdixon]

Is not used enough by books, it is a great idea!

The more you play the more you get back, however the one strict variable should be action on losses only!

Problems: Many players do not understand it and 2) the books get lazy and do not keep up with it!

 

Your view of bonuses (the culprit of abuse, harmful to industry, and a “bad” marketing tactic) has a familiar ring, in that it sounds similar to the arguments of those banishing the television industry from allowing tobacco manufactures from advertising their product...cigarettes.

Simple Game /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

 

[TheSkipper]

Unfortunately,

GREED is the ultimate problem in terms of this subject.

Both sides are equally guilty.

[This message was edited by Just Another Bored Bookie on 10-20-02 at 06:43 PM.]

 

[DavidMatthews]

Bonuses are good. Businesses that are run properly can offer bonuses. Businesses that are not run properly will fail whether they offer bonuses or not.

Good business can put value on a customer. I have heard of Internet casinos saying one depositing member is worth about $600 lifetime. If they spend $200 in advertising to get that customer, and they give the customer a $100 bonus (which is also a marketing expense) then they have profited $300 on that customer.

Peep is right. As a customer you evaluate the risks and rewards. People I know that have lost big with Aces and other places have done well enough in bonuses and such to offset those losses, so they take them in stride because they assessed that risk beforehand.

Your post is music to the sportsbooks' ears though. They would love for the public to believe that bonuses are bad, and therefore they no longer need to offer them.

When I went to Costa Rica, I played Omaha 8 or Better with a few people including one of the owners of one of the big books that is frequently praised on this website. He was one of the worst poker players I have ever seen and he couldn't stop drinking scotch and soda either. I made up my mind not to play there. Do not ask me which book or who it was because I will not say.

Like someone else said above, someone who likes gambling, drugs, and prostitutes will have no problem staying busy in Costa Rica. I think some (and I stress "some" and not "all") sportsbook owners and managers have gambling/drugs/sex problems that are subsidized by us customers. Bonus or no bonus, those places will fail.

David Matthews

 

[TheSkipper]

Guess that same logic can explain why Aces, Camelot, Alladins, Bullish ...etc were so successful huh? /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

When you play ALL you should EVER expect is to get paid! That is the BIGGEST bonus you should ever recieve.

BTW...you dont know a phucking thing about customer acquisition cost via marketing.

Try around a dime for a new player. That doesnt guarantee you a permanent player nor a nickel/dime guy. How about spending a dime to get a $10 internet guy??

Bonuses encourage customer rental! Not acquisition.

 

simple analogy;

when i get that 100 for depositing a dime, i will win that amount +some in wagering if im to be successful with that deposit anyhow. The bonus does not assist anything but luring customers, and all the shops do it, so where's the edge?

GeneralPete@Hotmail.Com

 

[DavidMatthews]

I am not quite sure what you're saying General. Are you asking where the edge is for the player or for the book?

Here's an analogy of bonus money:

You walk into a casino and sit at a blackjack table. You give the dealer $1,000 and the dealer gives you $1,100 in chips. Only thing is, the casino says you have to sit and play at the table with a $25 average bet for a couple hours.

That's basically what it amounts to.

By the way, I don't know many casinos that practice this. A casino I used to play in gave you $50 in chips for a $40 buy-in at the 7 card stud poker game each day to get the game started. I do know of friends that often get coupons in the mail saying come in with this coupon and we'll give you $100, no strings attached. That happens all the time.

David

 

[TheGeneral+]

This is an old topic from 2002 I dug up while searching my email on google

Obviously bonuses are ok for the good managed shops. It is a nice gesture for the player. I would still like to see more loyalty bonuses instead of cash bonuses. Incentive bonuses so to say. If you show good faith in wagering with a shop, then you get a bonus. The requirements would be upfront and the player receives bonus after meeting wagering requirements. The obstacle doesn't need be that hard, but a fair compromise of action.

How do posters feel 2½ years later?

Thanks

 

[sherman]

i love bonuses!

 

[nimue77]

Screw that, you are free to turn down a bonus - I love the loyalty points at cris for one - that way you get bonuses even if you win

I have said this for a long time. We don't need them. They are normally abused and wagered uncaringly anyhow. They hurt the industry. Marketing tactic that is bad IMO.

Do Away with them & we are in better shape i think.

GeneralPete@Hotmail.Com

 

[szlem]

I love bonuses too...

bonus hunting allowed me to create a decent bankroll - if you don't want to send too much of your hard-earned money offshore, I think there's no other option

 

[Groucho]

Bonuses to me are like finding money lying on the sidewalk. Caution and due diligence are always required, particularly when considering an unestablished book with a big bonus deal (which I would simply reject), but with just a small measure of common sense, bonuses can mean more money in the player's pocket.

If Skybook wants to give me a 50% bonus special on Thanksgiving, or DSI wants to give me a $600 freeplay on a 3K deposit, or WagerWeb wants to top up my deposit with some cash, I'm not going to decline any more than I would walk past a stack of bills lying on the sidewalk.

Personally I have had nothing bad and plenty of good come from bonuses. But when it comes to sports betting, I'm very money-oriented.

 

[Boddie]

Bonuse's dirty secret.

What everyone has failed to mention, is that only proven losers are awarded bonuses. If you win and try to cash out, you will never be welcomed back or labled a syndicate, or come here crying stiff.

Books cannot afford to offer bonuses period. Someone should lay the basic math out for all to see. Just because a shop has had a 20% reload on their site for 5 years just means that you must be a consistent loser for the time you reloaded with them.

Vegas casinos (I'm told) don't exceed 10% max on player comps. Do you doubt their expertise?

10% Bonuses= simply mean that you have chosen to deposit your money with a shop operating at 1/1. O% hold.

 

[kermit16]

Almost every business in the world offers a form of bonus if you really think about it.