A SIMPLE QUESTION: what qualifies a book for "recommended" status

[drunkguy]

We now know the DL on Gamblers Ave. Only 2 out of 12 months they turned a profit, and their handle is smaller than my local's. They were obviously down the shitter months ago. Yet they were "recommended". Does a recommendation mean you just have to be able to pay the banner fee, or does anyone actually check them out?

If not, a recommendation means nothing. I can pay a goddamn banner fee and become recommended if that's the case.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 1.) January - Handle 312k - LOSS 23k
2.) February - Handle 324k - WIN 4k
3.) March - Handle 656k - LOSS 40k
4.) April - Handle 498k - LOSS 4.5k
5.) May - Handle 371k - LOSS 10k
6.) June - Handle 378k - WIN 8k
7.) July - Handle 558k - LOSS 19k
8.) August - Handle 719k - LOSS 9k
9.) September - Handle 1mm - LOSS 8k
10.) October - Handle 1.2mm - LOSS 50k <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[drunkguy]

No ONE has anything to say about this?

 

[PatrickMcIrish]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by drunkguy:
No ONE has anything to say about this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Are you really surprised Drunk there is not a long list of answers? LOL. You asked this at 100AM EST and it's a question in which probably no answer we can give will satisfy anyone. Especially this time of the year with what is going on. Let me give the simple answer on what qualifies a book for "recommended" status at the RX - Shrink. He makes the final determination in the end. How or what methods he uses is something only he can answer for sure. I will tell you this though very few books (if any) are going to open up their books to these sites and even if they did there is no way for what they provided to be verified. Tough business. You end up almost forced to take people at their word sometimes, even people you trust can let you down. Then when you make the wrong move it hurts a lot of people. Anyway maybe Ken will share what goes into his thought process next week when he gets back. Wish I had more than this to share with you.

 

[PatrickMcIrish]

Before I hit the sack let me add this as well. To me there is no such thing as a pure watchdog site, said that as a poster and still say it today. The moment you take a dollar from the group of whom you are to report on you have lost your objectivity. Maybe that is why SBR fights to the bitter death that he doesn't accept advertising money when the whole world knows that he does. Anyway to complicate matters when dealing with closed books and an unregulated industry for the most part, bookies by nature are trained at an early age to take care of business quietly. If they do not want you to know something you won't find it out, trust me on that. Especially if your name is Shrink. What you "find out" is exactly what they want you to know.

I still think there is obviously a better way then what is going on now at the sites but it's a lot easier when you can wait and see what happens before you make a decision. You have to make money to stay open but more importantly you have to try an reduce as much risk as you can for the players. It ain't easy. Dante has suggested in the back we come up with a committee of sorts to look at some viable options. We haven't finalized anything yet but hopefully we will tie in some book people and posters to kick some stuff around. Though not overly optimistic I don't see what it can hurt. Bottom line is you can make the best decisions in the world but you can not judge what is in someone's heart. If they decide to beat you out of your money they are going to do it. You can dig to find out XXX has been in business 22 years and has a solid rep, in year 23 he may go bad. I've seen it all before. Also in the old days these old timers would sell a kidney to keep from slow paying you. Some of these new age bookies would cut your kidney out to keep from paying you. It's changing and not for the best in my opinion. There was more honor in the old days amongst bookies, now it's seen as a way to make a quick buck. I am exhausted and probably rambling so will stop here for now.....

 

[ChuckSims]

Ad dues paid on time.

 

[PatrickMcIrish]

LOL. Think they pay it all up front but still not bad.

 

[Buzzsaw]

I think the problem the Rx has (MW too) is that they will take the money (recommend a book) if they don't know the book is a crook. If they do, they won't take the money like NASA and those types are turned down.

I'm not knocking this site but simply stating fact as I see the business model here. The recommended list here may at times correlate with the top books list or may not, depends on who is buying ad space at the time.

I once lobbied for a one year waiting period here. It would save almost every failure. Out of the recent failures WagerParadise, Homebets, GamblersAvenue and possibly soon to be Sportstrivia, a one year wait rule would of saved the Rx in all of those. Going back further it eliminates NAB, GrandMasters, Pro5.

Out of the dozen or so failures here the one year rule would of saved the players and the Rx in all but 2 maybe 3 cases.

Food for thought (again)

 

[nets2k2]

heheh dont forget Goliath sports. Heck a few weeks would have done it for them, didnt even need a full year.


This site is a STARTING POINT for crooks. All they need to do is open up a sportsbook, give Shrink their fake name, talk on the phone with him for a couple of minutes, tell him they have very deep pockets, so deep they are willing to pay premium fee to be on this site. They signup, pay their fees, get a nice glowing message from the shrink how they are the next best sportsbook on the rise. Their owners are very good people and have very very deep pockets. Shrink would trust them with 100dimes. They are offering a great new signup bonus for the posters at the Rx. They then get a bunch of new signups and postup money and months down the road, they close up shop.

Then we wait for the next crook to come on board.

 

[Dante]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nets2k2:
heheh dont forget Goliath sports. Heck a few weeks would have done it for them, didnt even need a full year.


This site is a STARTING POINT for crooks. All they need to do is open up a sportsbook, give Shrink their fake name, talk on the phone with him for a couple of minutes, tell him they have very deep pockets, so deep they are willing to pay premium fee to be on this site. They signup, pay their fees, get a nice glowing message from the shrink how they are the next best sportsbook on the rise. Their owners are very good people and have very very deep pockets. Shrink would trust them with 100dimes. They are offering a great new signup bonus for the posters at the Rx. They then get a bunch of new signups and postup money and months down the road, they close up shop.

Then we wait for the next crook to come on board.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


nets2k2 you do have some valid points they can fool the RX like that I believe it as well. I think goliath is one of them. Not sure what the exact factors are in recommended a book but i do believe they need to be revisited here...very good idea to relook at those factors this site uses. I think NEW books need to be on some sort of "temporary List" where they need to PROVE themselves for 6mos or so THEN go to the fully recommended status.

Even this way it is not fool proof but might weed out a few bad eggs IMO

 

[Jazz]

Buzzsaw: "I once lobbied for a one year waiting period here. It would save almost every failure. Out of the recent failures WagerParadise, Homebets, GamblersAvenue and possibly soon to be Sportstrivia, a one year wait rule would of saved the Rx in all of those. Going back further it eliminates NAB, GrandMasters, Pro5. Out of the dozen or so failures here the one year rule would of saved the players and the Rx in all but 2 maybe 3 cases. Food for thought (again)"

I wholeheartedly concur. But everyone here should at least think about applying this rule themselves with respect to any new book, though of course the bonus hounds will be baying at the door before the ink on the banner is dry. No need to be nasty about it with respect to anyone, simply refuse to play unless there is a track record. Some would say a book like betjamaica may get a pass on this due to their association with Spiro - I think you can exercise informed judgement in that kind of case.

 

[TTinCO]

The sad truth is that you can not really put much credit into the recommended list at MW or RX. Unless a book already has a history of screwing people, the sites will most likely take your advertising money.

I've lost track of how many advertisers here have vanished or folded in the last couple of months. This has to stop if anyone is going to take these forums seriously. I would think that the mods here would agree with me, since they inevitably are "forced" to more or less blindly shill for some of these books.

Let's start doing some REAL research before accepting a book as an advertiser. The sites also owe it to their posters & readers to keep on top of the advertising books to determine how well things are going during the time that they advertise. It's easier said than done, but it's time to start doing things to protect the people that come to these sites to decide who to send their money to.

[This message was edited by TTinCO on November 08, 2003 at 12:32 PM.]

 

[drunkguy]

thanks for the answers thus far guys. This is an issue that affects all of us. If "Joe Citizen" doesn't have trust in the offshore industry, they will take their money back to the locals. Off shores as we know them will disappear, becuase they sure as hell can't live off sharp money alone.

 

[ChuckSims]

I don't think a billion dollar business is going to disappear because a few posters get taken every year. There is no excuse for posters to lose money at "new" books. This is now the third year in a row that at least one new book has gone belly up after being "recommended" by the RX. You dummies quit sending money to these new books.

 

[TTinCO]

Chuck, I can't argue with that one bit.

I find it tough to have a lot of sympathy for those who got caught up in the GA mess. If you are playing at books without a track record, you should expect to get stiffed every once in a while.

My problem is that MW & RX both had GA on their recommended lists, and it doesn't appear that either site knew jack shit about them or their viability.

If nothing else, these sites owe it to the newbies to turn down the advertising money from unproven books. The regulars on the forums should know better, but that's an entirely different issue.

 

[PatrickMcIrish]

Out of the dozen or so failures here the one year rule would of saved the players and the Rx in all but 2 maybe 3 cases.

Food for thought (again)

-------------


Been saying that for a long time too Buzz, that's not like a new idea or anything. Make it 5 years and it cuts it down even more. Hell why not 10 years? Some of these ideas may work for a site like yours but the reality is these bigger sites have got to pay expenses. They are almost forced to gamble on some tweener books at times. Books need the exposure when they are just starting out the most and these sites are always starved for revenue. If a book has not screwed people over most owners are going to take the chance, hard not to if you are trying to stay open. It's easy to say take 100% safe books who have been open 10 years and will show all their books but the reality is far from that. Got to be a middle ground somewhere, new books are not going away and they will probably always be on these sites. You can count on that. Ideas need to be kicked around so the sites can stay operating AND cut down on shit books advertising on them.

Some solid points made, good thread Drunk. Nice to have a civil discussion on things that can possibly help us all one day.

 

[drunkguy]

Here's an idea: maybe new books SHOULD be held to higher standards...e.g., letting someone look at their numbers if they want to advertise. What is their handle? What are their profits?

Again, would be tough to verify if the books are being "cooked" or not, but at least this could be a starting point. If books didn't want to be scrutinized, they could still advertise, but not with "big" banners and not on the top books list. Just an idea.