Risk currently low at most sports books

[CharlieMaxwell 0]

A recent post by RX moderator Fishhead discussed the need to be vigilant about balances bettors are holding in any offshore sports book this time of year.

While I agree completely that one should never expose much of their bankroll to any particular operation, I have heard this is actually one of the safer times of the year to have a balance at a book in Costa Rica.

Read Wild Bill's entire story by going to the RX home page at www.therx.com

Charlie

 

[PO69 0]

DAMNIT Charlie!

What a waste all of your posts truly are. Why not just post the article here?

 

[TheGeneral+ 0]

Thank you Charlie and Bill.

Very good advice in the this article. All posters should read this. Never use any book as a bank. And focus on the last sentence as well. It just justifies that the vast majority of posts about books going broke are not correct like we have seen. No matter what, do not over fund any account offshore. Practice safety and keep your funds spread around if you must have big balances.

 

[CharlieMaxwell 0]

Dear Playersonly,

We are trying to keep our page views on the home page at a level where advertisers will be happy with their results. The home page drives traffic to the posting forum and vice-versa.

If we simply cut and pasted all the articles there would not be a home page and no advertising dollars. No ad dollars means no posting forum!

If you don't want to read the article, that is ok. Nobody is forcing you to do anything you don't want to do.

If you don't like a TV show, simply turn the channel. Same idea here.

Charlie

 

[PO69 0]

OK well I didnt know that.
You could just ask all of us to periodically check the front page! And I do want to read the article, I just wanted you to post it here, but now i see why you dont

 

[CharlieMaxwell 0]

Players,

Thanks for understanding. We always want to keep our advertisers happy!!!!

Charlie

 

[Scooter1 0]

A few days ago I started a thread headed "The Rx's new home page is a disaster".
Many posters agreed with me.
Management (typically) declined to comment.

I just clicked on Charlie Maxwell's link to the home page and timed it. It took 52 seconds for the home page to load. (I have dial up modem, as do many others).

So thanks anyway, Charlie. I'd rather not waste my time, when 98% of the other websites would take about 5 seconds. Your former homepage would've taken about 5 seconds also.

Secondly - Since I was there, I read "Wild Bill"'s article.
Typically, the article was filled with commonplaces and extremely ordinary information, such as could be found in a giveaway airline magazine.

To sum up the info which I recall (I'm not going back to the article to take notes and waste another 52 seconds for it to load - so excuse the paraphrasing)-

1)Sometimes it can be hard to tell if a book
is in trouble.

2)Neteller and Pinnacle, although they may seem safe, are probably not as safe as a real bank.

3)Always try to be aware, so that you can spot when a book is in trouble.

I look forward to Wild Bill's next insightful article, where I've been told he'll discuss safety tips such as-
1) It's usually good to tie your shoelaces.

2)Brush your teeth daily and you will help avoid cavities.

3) Try to watch where you're walking. If there is an open manhole in front of you, this may prevent you from falling in. Sometimes at least.

I truly find this guy's "articles" worthless.

[This message was edited by Scooter1 on June 09, 2004 at 02:10 AM.]

 

[Scooter1 0]

I understand Charlie Maxwell's explanation of why every Wild Bill article is heralded, but it just makes it that much more absurd - trumpeting the arrival of another non-event.

I'd also be glad to have Charlie Maxwell or anyone else state one thing of value they found in the article.

AcesGold failed at the end of football. I think we all realize already that if a book has a bad football season or is taking a position during football and losing, at a time when they are booking higher limits than on most other sports, and have more customers than at most other times of the year, that this can be devastating.

This is not a new concept.

[This message was edited by Scooter1 on June 09, 2004 at 03:23 AM.]

 

[dogs24 0]

I agree with this business about not keeping too much money in an offshore...

but WHAT exactly constitutes "too much" money?

The standards at the big boys like Pinny and Canbet obviously differ from smaller, but reliable outs like VIP and Allworld.

Is there a formula one can follow to get a general idea of how much is TOO much to keep in a book? I.e, 10x their max wager?

Any help much obliged.

 

[Buzzsaw 0]

dogs,
I've always found tha keeping at least a weeks worth of cash, if I lose every play, in the books & at the ready works well.

Scooter,
Now that was a funny read. You were tough on the home team but they could certainly improve if they take your post seriously, which they should.

 

[TheGeneral+ 0]

Scooter1,

Everything you stated in the other thread was noted then and this info has been now.

Thanks

 

[THE SHRINK 0]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charlie Maxwell:
A recent post by RX moderator Fishhead discussed the need to be vigilant about balances bettors are holding in any offshore sports book this time of year.

While I agree completely that one should never expose much of their bankroll to any particular operation, I have heard this is actually one of the safer times of the year to have a balance at a book in Costa Rica.

Read Wild Bill's entire story by going to the RX home page at http://www.therx.com

Charlie<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect Charlie, I strongly disagree...

THE SHRINK

 

[peskypup 0]

I don't know why anyone would want to confuse Neteller with a bank.

Neteller has a small market cap. and is quoted on the UK AIM market which is strictly for widows & orphans and NOT repeat NOT to be confused with NASDAQ which is much more mature - there are no Microsofts on AIM.

UK banks are very tightly regulated with regard to capital adequacy ever since the secondary bank collapse in 1974. Even so, second liners still go bust as with BCCI in the early 90s.

Neteller has no such capital adequacy regulators to satisfy as far as I know. I conclude that it is therefore less safe than a second line UK bank.

I don't use it as a bank, and like to know which book my funds are going to before I withdraw to Neteller.

For the time being Neteller is safish due to the high rake off fees and therefore high margins. This is also Neteller's weakness as it could easily be undercut by a better capitalised entrant to the market. Then it would see numerous desertions from customers sick of being ripped off.

 

[Tatiana 0]

my boyfriend tells me the article is wrong and the front page is slow as molasis even with high speed.

 

[wilheim 0]

Tatiana not to be to picky, but it's molasses. You know - Slow as molasses. No big thing though. Not sure why the homepage is slow for some and not for others, but will ask the Rx. techs. Thanks.


wil.

 

[Jdogg 0]

I dunno what you guys are talking about. I'm on standard dsl through empower comm and the connection is fine here.

Dial up sux anyway.