now this s*** cracks me up, RX ad...

[drunkguy]

I got a Don Best schedule from WWTS today...on the inside front cover is an ad for the RX...I wish I had a scanner at home to put this up, but here's a summary:

It's a psychiatrist's office:

guy on the couch: " Doc...I'm obsessed. I just want to make sure my money is safe with a trustworthy Offshore Sportsbook."

psychiatrist: "I see, I have THE PRESRIPTION for that"

The only thing missing from this ad is the crack whore in the corner saying "BetPanAM has the deepest pockets! BlueMarlin is great! Post up with Gambler's Ave!"

I ****ing laugh to myself..

"make sure my money is safe"

"trustworthy Offshore Sportsbook:

 

[Jazz]

I agree completely. Shrink has been saying he's been sorry about the Panam affair but there's nothing that can be done, which is fine, but then on the other hand they're actually ADVERTISING they can point you to a trustworthy sportsbook, in a Don Best schedule no less?

Pardon my dripping cynicism, but does anyone with an ounce of gray matter detect the potential conflict here? Assuming of course this ad actually exists? You can't have it both ways, begging off when a recommended book goes down and then using advertising promising 'trustworthy sportsbooks' to gain traffic. Or maybe you can.

p.s. Just make sure you recommend only Olympic and Pinnacle and I suppose you've got your ass covered.

 

[BillDozer]

Yeah, when you make these points the usual reply is its the nature of the beast or everyone is responsible for their own actions.

 

[drunkguy]

the timing of this is fukking impeccable

 

[drunkguy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BillDozer:
Yeah, when you make these points the usual reply is its the nature of the beast or everyone is responsible for their own actions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

just remeber that PanAm has "deep posktes" and the owners are "standup guys"

 

[SportSavant]

the argument is "They didnt know" this was a bad situation but they thought it was good...

the unfortunate thing is that the folks at the RX have no clue if for some reason or another that a book is safe...

REALITY = Anyone who pays them can get a banner up here...Money Talks...

I work for a large cell phone company & we have sold shitty Cellular Phones to customers as we trusted the manufacturers...(Oh but then again those phones were guaranteed)...

 

[Jazz]

Point is, don't go around when recommended books take a dirt nap saying you're sorry but hey, we're not responsible, and then put out an advertisement that directly implies 'hey, come on the couch with us, we'll show you books you can trust' - that's bullshit.

 

[BillDozer]

Right, and then tell the cow you lead to the slaughter you are sick of the bitching.

My all time favorite was when GA blew up and the next day there was an article saying be grateful for the bonus from Royal.

 

[SportSavant]

it is very true Jazz, however all I am saying is it likely happens in big business all over alswell...

RX SHOULD HAVE A BIG DISCLAIMER ON THE SITE SO THAT PEOPLE CAN BE AWARE THAT WHEN IT COMES TO OFFSHORE NOTHING IS 100% FOR SURE...

 

[Jazz]

I now assume, unless DG is having some late April Fool's Day fun, that this ad is genuine. If so, I also predict we'll soon hear the old 'hey, it's the marketing guys who put out that ad, we/I have no control over that, we/I don't own the place'. The beautiful aspect of that excuse, if made, is that no one will ever have to take responsibility either way.

 

[Jazz]

Sport: that's not the point. The point is the implicit falseness of the advertisement - the Rx has indeed had trustworthy books but also others who stripped people bare and took their jockstraps. I'm sorry but any advertisement like that, coming out now, is ridiculous. If they're so concerned with that disclaimer, where the hell was it in the ad? Nah - it's simply business as usual for misleading ads - but thankfully we're still allowed to lambaste them here so that newbies attracted by those ads (if any) might get some kind of counterbalancing info here in this forum.

 

[SportSavant]

Jazz...honestly...they dont give a flying fvck...the mods are getting paid to do this job...the site generates ad revenue & commissions, the could careless...but the watchdog tag helps them with that revenue as their are new cx's getting into the business every day who will blindly think everything is true

 

[drunkguy]

this is no april fools day joke. I will scan it in on Sunday when I am in the office

 

[TheGeneral+]

Posters here have been pardoning cynicism for some time over this issue. A handful of the crowd were victim and we accept the criticism. We encourage it, for we can only get better with tactful critics. Some are more tactful than others obviously. If this form of criticism helps in the aid of one being stolen from, then I applaud the forum for which it is allowed.

This ad has been in the book for some time. Seen it long ago.

Should it be removed? I think not. I would rather have those customers be able and come here, recognize the territory and make a self conscience decision with the info available here, which comes from critics and fans alike, about sportsbooks. Whether advertisers or not.

I wish all new players would find a forum like the Rx before they select a sportsbook from some men's magazine blindly.

The pain is felt by all of us.

I am assuming a daily crucifixion is a help in the situation.

 

[BillDozer]

This place could actually use some help right now.

(and no its not that time of the year and no its not part of the cycle)

 

[Jazz]

Not talking about the mods - they're employees. Talking about whoever the hell the owners are, and Shrink, but of course he doesn't own any part of this now.

I'm simply pointing out the fvcking tonnage of bullshit that the ad is covered with - the ad's sole message is 'trust us, we won't fvck you when we recommend a book', when the real ad should read 'hey, if you're really stupid enough to believe this ad, come on in and don't complain if you get ass-reamed by one of our trustworthy books, because you're a retard to imply we have any responsibility - we're just here to make advertising revenue, our ad is bullshit, we don't have responsibility for books gone bad, you do' - now THAT would be truth in advertising.

 

[BillDozer]

General (nice post),

But, do you honestly think that the % of quality here is much better than what others will stumble upon? (The books that went done are the type the newbies join) I don't.

Also, Its not like the effort is there and 6 books later we should look for improvement. Cedibility sinks then so will the quality of books. It was not like proven books were on board. It is not like books come down for slow paying even when they are in the top book list and the warning list on the same site!

 

[Jazz]

As I said, General, none of this is directed at the mods - it's directed at the people who count, which are the owners. Personally, if I did work for the Rx, I'd be honestly embarrassed by that ad, but there'd be nothing I could say other than what you did.

I will, however, state that it is LAUGHABLE that the ad is still running. And I hope those 'customers' are reading this, so they realize they'd better have their eyes wide-open when seeing any book recommendation here, especially for new books less than a year old.

later

 

[agreeen]

Well Said Jazz!!!

 

[RPM]

jazz,

im not embarassed by that ad at all. and i dont think i should be either. without question there have been some books that went down this year. for the most part, we were able to help people in some way when they did. work is still being done to help the panam players, and people are still reporting getting paid, albeit slowly. but slow is better than never.

so obviously the powers that be here are wrong about books sometimes. BUT THE RX IS STILL THE BEST SOURCE OF INFORMATION ABOUT OFFSHORE SPORTSBOOKS.

BAR NONE.