SBR.COM ACCUSATIONS ?

skirmish · Jul 10, 2003

Question to Buzzsaw / John Walker ? .

After reading various posts about Sportsbook Review and the service it offers its readers as a NONE profit making watchdog site .

I would ask that you go on record and state that the following accusations that were made by other well known posters are untrue .

On your website you state that you do NOT accept Sportsbook advertising ok fine , my question to you would be .

Do you make any financial gains from any of the Sportsbooks Listed on your website by any of the following methods ? .

1. Charging for URL links.
2. Referral fees for click throughs.
3. Putting players that signup through his site on a sheet

The reason I am asking this question is because you did in fact avoid answering it with a direct denial when it was previously asked .

If your watchdog site is completely un-biased then you should have no problem in addressing the issue in questions here .

Thank You .

drunk · Jul 10, 2003

Of course he makes money. And of course he gets a piece of players he refers. Nobody gets in this business out of the goodness of there Heart. If a book is highlighted on his site with a click through, of course the books pay a fee for that. But on the one thing I will agree with him on is that it is none of your guys business what he gets or doesn't get. Nobody does anything for free.

Buzzsaw · Jul 10, 2003

We make millions and millions, in fact we are all zillion airs.

SBR has two goals:
1. Have a recommended list that is truly, and unquestionably the best in the industry.

2. Have the industry's most complete Bad list to warn players of scams and bad books.

Books can not buy there way on or off any SBR list. There are no ad contracts with any books. The theory is referral. SBR gets paid for referring players. That way we can choose which books are on the list because all books will pay for referrals just like when you refer a friend. Are you an advertiser when you refer a friend? Well, maybe?

It’s a better model for the players, I think. For example, Royal, according to Peep, paid $100k+ to be on the Rx. Royal paid nothing when they were on the SBR Recommended List but did pay about $100 per referral. It’s easy to take Royal off the SBR list and let the visitors to SBR join another book. That’s what I like about the model as opposed to the Rx’s where they have to fall on their sword with each advertiser.

Anyway great discussion, thanks for the free publicity and we’ll see you all in Curacao next week but first it’s off to the Everglades where some 10 lb largemouth I hope are waiting for me.

BTW, The Sportsbook Review Report radio show is expanding to 22 cities this year. Have to run to do some studio work now. I look forward to make lots of new friends talking about the scambooks out there.

Hopefully this thread can work up some good bashing (keep it coming to the top)

damiandunlap · Jul 10, 2003

buzzsaw , u have not paid your naccp dues

altice · Jul 10, 2003

All I know is buzzsaw in one day helped me more than the prescription ever has regarding sportsbooks.

[This message was edited by altice on July 10, 2003 at 11:40 AM.]

lander · Jul 10, 2003

I didn't know Buzzsaw was the SBR owner ...

no wonder he's such a cynical bastartd when it comes to Ken & Pat's policies

Silly agendas.

DickyW · Jul 10, 2003

Damian
Whats up bro! what exacty is the NACCP?

Jazz · Jul 10, 2003

Did he mean the NAACP? Because the NACCP is the National Association of Child Care Professionals

http://www.naccp.org/

altice · Jul 10, 2003

I thought it was the name of a Russian hockey team.

skirmish · Jul 10, 2003

Mr Buzzsaw :

So basically what you are saying here is that Sports Book Review does make revenue from their preferred list of Sportsbooks even though Sportsbooks can not advertise there ?.

Would this then not mean that Sportsbook Review is biased and not being completely honest to its readers ? .

Due to the fact that if a book does not agree to pay fees for click throughs or open a sheet that generates income for Sportsbook Review the book would never make it onto the preferred list is that correct ?.

Does this not raise questions of ethics when Sportsbook Review portrays its self as only being a watch dog site whose sole purpose is to inform players of Sports books who have issues ?.

StoneCold+ · Jul 10, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by skirmish:
Does this not raise questions of ethics when Sportsbook Review portrays its self as only being a watch dog site whose sole purpose is to inform players of Sports books who have issues ?.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NOPE

Halifax · Jul 10, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by skirmish:

Does this not raise questions of ethics when Sportsbook Review portrays its self as only being a watch dog site whose sole purpose is to inform players of Sports books who have issues ?.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NOPE

altice · Jul 10, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by skirmish:

Does this not raise questions of ethics when Sportsbook Review portrays its self as only being a watch dog site whose sole purpose is to inform players of Sports books who have issues ?.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOPE<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ditto.

DickyW · Jul 10, 2003

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by skirmish:

Does this not raise questions of ethics when Sportsbook Review portrays its self as only being a watch dog site whose sole purpose is to inform players of Sports books who have issues ?.

To your knowlege has SBR ever deceived players into posting up with a book that was unsafe?

Can you prove SBR left a questionable book on it's reccomended list in exchange for money?

If you answer is no & no I would answer your question with a NOPE

skirmish · Jul 10, 2003

Thanks for the input Stone , Hali and Altice .

So you all think that any book on Sportsbook Reviews recommended list would be removed instantly if there were any questions asked about their integrity , even though by doing this Sportsbook Review would lose its referral income ?.

Or do you think that Sportsbook Review may ignore the issues in question to continue to generate income when convenient ? .

Buzzsaw · Jul 10, 2003

skirmish,
I don't think so. There are currently books even in the top 10 that pay zero, nothing, nada, not a cent to be there. I wish they would but thats the negative of the model. It's like Olympic gets a free ride but what can you do? They are a top 10 book so they are there.

altice · Jul 10, 2003

Skirmish,

I think a lot of what you said is entirely possible and you raise valid points. It has happened at these type of sites like the prescription that claimed to be watchdog sites and no longer proclaim this. Maybe it could happen there. But I trust SBR about 1000 times more than this site when it comes to sportsbooks dealing and whatever dealings that I have had with him have been extremely helpful and professional ( he actually returns my emails LOL). Also, it is probably the site I give the most credibility regarding sportsbooks and I am sure that can change. Bet2Gamble sounds pretty promising as well but I don't read that site enough. I think you have to make your own judgement calls based on the information out there. That's what I try to do and I hope I am right. Good luck Skirmish.

Dicky,

Thanks for the tip on Monday by the way. I really appreciated that. Have you figured out if you are going to be at Arlington yet?

skirmish · Jul 10, 2003

Dicky :
The answer would be NOPE .
However my reasoning here is all about how Sportsbook Review portrays its self as being NONE biased .

They portray themselves as being so clean cut and quote " not accepting advertising " this is true they do not directly .

However when you are generating income from your preferred list by other means , in my opinion this could then affect your judgement if and when an issue arises with one of the books on the said preferred list .

DickyW · Jul 10, 2003

Skirmish
point taken
GL

acw · Jul 10, 2003

For example, Royal, according to Peep, paid $100k+ to be on the Rx.
Assuming that it is true, which I doubt, would it not be better for a book to pay that much never ever being mentioned on the Prescription both positive and negative?