Wow, Dean used to be extremely careful telling half truths -- carefully implying that BACs reaction was Deans cause for removing the affiliate pay, but this time he put the word "after". That becomes a straight lie now.
Just as BAC got fucked, so will anyone who considers his new affiliate plan. The economics don't even make sense. It's (intentionally) not clear what "revenue" is defined as, but let's take the normal definition: "The net players loss". Imagine the extreme case, a gambler who loses a bitcoin in a single bet:
Gambler: -1 BTC
Investors: -0.999 BTC
Dean: +0.001 BTC
And now, Dean is promising the affiliate 0.3 BTC?! Unless the money comes out of investors (Where they'll get fucked by Dean's incompetence, the money just doesn't exist).
Just as BAC got fucked, so will anyone who considers his new affiliate plan. The economics don't even make sense. It's (intentionally) not clear what "revenue" is defined as, but let's take the normal definition: "The net players loss". Imagine the extreme case, a gambler who loses a bitcoin in a single bet:
Gambler: -1 BTC
Investors: -0.999 BTC
Dean: +0.001 BTC
And now, Dean is promising the affiliate 0.3 BTC?! Unless the money comes out of investors (Where they'll get fucked by Dean's incompetence, the money just doesn't exist).
Remember Dean's running higher-edge games now - roulette and lottery - and bankrolling them himself. Maybe he's making enough from those that he thinks he can afford to pay 30% referrals. The problem is that there's no apparently limit on the 30% referral, and since it appears to be +EV, it will attract a lot of action.
Wager a single bet @ 2x. Possibilities:
49.5% chance: +1
50.5% chance: +.3 (recoup in affiliate pay)
= EV of 0.795 ?!
49.5% chance: +1
50.5% chance: +.3 (recoup in affiliate pay)
= EV of 0.795 ?!
Math fail, but it's still +EV even if you get it right.
= EV of 0.1415 ?!
Edit: Fix stupid maths
Edit: Fix stupid maths
Yeah. Basically your edge is a little less than half of the 30% referral fee, at 14%