D2bets said:
I agree with D2. It's too broad a restriction, I'm confident a guy like Hollywood's Will ( Walk of Life) would walk on that if he hadn't already. It seems completely unenforceable also. If I worked for SBR how does owner know if I have an account at any of hundreds of confidential books ?
I do somewhat see the arguement for the other side, but it will reduce the quality of people that work there, IMO.
Of course the desire is to eliminate conflict of interest, but what is the cost to having praisable hands on reviews of sportbooks?
And how effectively can this actually be policed?
This reminds me of some kind of lame reach back to the old days with the 'we dont accept money from any sportsbook' policy. When now, SBR in fact has their hands in on a ton of different industry aspects. I mean, they just posted yesterday they have an odds site with stat fox, for crying out loud.
I'm not saying SBR's reviews are not reputable, but this statement just seems off the wall to me.
Not everyone trusts movie and book reviews, but I'd at least like to hear from the guy that actually read or saw the thing and not just an interview with the guy who wrote it or 'the making of'.
And how effectively can this actually be policed?
This reminds me of some kind of lame reach back to the old days with the 'we dont accept money from any sportsbook' policy. When now, SBR in fact has their hands in on a ton of different industry aspects. I mean, they just posted yesterday they have an odds site with stat fox, for crying out loud.
I'm not saying SBR's reviews are not reputable, but this statement just seems off the wall to me.
Not everyone trusts movie and book reviews, but I'd at least like to hear from the guy that actually read or saw the thing and not just an interview with the guy who wrote it or 'the making of'.
I dunno, I think it's an interesting policy. SBR, as they stated, is still going to have accounts, they just don't want individual employees to do so. I can see how a staffer may tend to bias (especially in a dispute) if they have funds in an account and are worried about negative publicity and the subsequent rush on withdrawals. I mean, how many people with money at Royal were wishing the bad press lately would go away for the sake of their account holdings?
All in all, it's probably the appearance of impropriety that SBR wishes to avoid rather than a real conflict of interest. From all that I have heard and read of them, they sound like the most reputable in the biz.
All in all, it's probably the appearance of impropriety that SBR wishes to avoid rather than a real conflict of interest. From all that I have heard and read of them, they sound like the most reputable in the biz.
