Hi guys, this has been an exhausting ordeal as a highstakes gambler/affiliate/supporter of shuffle to watch.

I'm the whale Mandy (OP) referred (Simba) that's being talked about here. I'm going to give my take on the situation, and will try to be as fair as possible.


I agree shuffle as a business has a right to do as they please with regards to this situation / refusing action for a player, I dont think this is up for debate. They're allowed to KYC a user, and allowed to refuse her business

Few points that are indisputable, and i dont want to pull out receipts over this.

1. There is certainly a vendetta against her
2. She is certainly toxic in chat, but who cares, this is a casino not a elementary school



My bonuses were cut in the last month because I'm too expensive of a customer based on their models/my bonusing. I don't really mind that/didnt fight too hard -- because I genuinely feel at ease gambling on shuffle knowing I will always get paid out and withdrawals will be smooth, so it's a price i'm willing to pay for service/trust.

The problem I see from this situation and predatory KYC is that Shuffle cuts my bonusing because i'm being over bonused, but now 30% of theoretical revenue is not being paid out since the affiliate has their account shut down, so why isnt my bonusing improved to accomodate that.

So, while on the surface this looks like a compliance reason, i think it's moreso an excuse to extract value out of my theoretical play.


I think the only 2 possible solutions to prove this was done in terms of compliance and not greed is

1. My bonusing should be adjusted upwards to reflect the 30% commission that she would be getting (which i'll just give back to her)
2. Her account should be put into withdraw only mode like stake and many other sites have as solutions for professional affiliates - as playing is banned, not promoting - if this again is a compliance issue, a lump sum offer should be made for the value of her book, otherwise its theft.


I personally think the 2nd option is the more reasonable one, but think there's alot of ego at play here, so understand not wanting back down.
I think if neither of these options are accepted its quite evident what the intention was from the start.


FWIW: I think Shuffle has a strong team, and have a deep love for their VIP team, Sports team, Darcy and Jay but i think sometimes when emotions run high and ego's run poor decisions are made, I'm definitely guilty of being like this. I think perspective is key in situations like this



TL:DR
1. NO she doesnt have a RIGHT to be on shuffle
2. YES she has a RIGHT to affiliate earnings
3. YES they have a RIGHT to adhere to their licenses/compliance
4. YES they have a RIGHT to refuse business
5. NO they don't get to cut bonuses AND cut affiliate income and come out on top, thats rollbit 101.