SBR proposal for WATCHDOG MEETING

Buzzsaw · Jul 19, 2004

SBR would like to see player advocate sites, including SBR, develop a minimum standard to recommend or advertise a sportsbook. These sites could then form an alliance that adheres to a policy that safeguards players from unreasonable risks.

We will propose the following.

Only books that meet the following criteria will be allowed to advertise on any player advocate alliance website.

The advertised, recommended or otherwise promoted sportsbook will:

*1. Be on the Rx/Alliance top 60 sportsbook list.

2. Will have a minimum operating history of two years.

* A super list of the top 60 sportsbooks could be developed and voted on by posters of the Rx and alliance websites and updated semi-annually.

Any thoughts? This would reduce about 90% of the failures from player advocate sites. In time, players could reasonably trust any book listed on sites such as the Rx and others.

TheGeneral+ · Jul 19, 2004

I am very happy to see this. Top 60 & 2 yrs is a great start.

We should all be able to find what we need in a top 60 list.

drunkguy · Jul 19, 2004

Good idea, but seems somewhat tricky. The top 60 books are least likely to need advertising exposure. I have to imagine that a lot of the dollars pouring into the watchdog sites are from lesser books, and implementing such a clause will hit everyone where it hurs, the wallet.

With that said, as a player I am 100% for it.

BillDozer · Jul 19, 2004

It would make the advertising spots more valuable and should level itself out. Also, if a standard was set by more sites it would leave fewer options for underachieving books.

A spot next to Pinnacle and WWTS should be worth more than one in between Lay107 and majorbetting. Books who want that spot would now have another reason to set higher standards.

Buzzsaw · Jul 19, 2004

The top 60 list would be a challenge. General Pete would be the perfect person to organize a fair semi-annual election.

Player sites would make more money long term.

Here's a thinking out loud question; Does a player advocate site have any business taking ad money from a book that players did not even vote into the top 60?

Fishhead · Jul 19, 2004

Interesting concept in theory.

The 60 figure seems high to this observer.

This also could have all the makings of becoming more contraversial than picking the 65 NCAA basketball tournament teams.

Another thing, all the sites working in a somewhat united way together seems like a fairytale to me when hardly a week goes by when one is not taking shots at the other on even the smallest of issues.

Dante · Jul 19, 2004

GREAT idea Buzz IMHO

The part about they need to be in the industry at LEAST 2 yrs to even be considered is a MUST IMO

TheGeneral+ · Jul 19, 2004

Just speaking out loud here as well, but I believe that if there can be a system where the posters feedback is utilized, it will help the offshore community as a whole. The posters will feel more apart of the equation having a say in these matters. It would be nice to take a more team approach and have as many views shared as possible. It is a long road but it is good to be talking about it. Constructive communication is always a plus.

Buzzsaw · Jul 19, 2004

Maybe someone with a good memory knows but were any of the dozen or so forum books that have failed in the last couple of years in business more than 2 years?

Off the top of my head I can only think of AcesGold.

Just implementing the Two Year rule would eliminate nearly all failures. Still need the top 60 list to weed out the BetOnSports/SBG types.

Fishhead · Jul 19, 2004

2 YEAR rule is good, however I still think the chances of something like this happening are slim and none.

Java · Jul 19, 2004

Can a new book get into the top 60 without advertising?

What happens when books merge or get bought out?

Wasn't BetPanam a top 60 book (with owners that had been around for more than 2 years)?

Sounds like SBR want's to join an alliance to hang onto the RX coat tails.

lakerfan · Jul 19, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Maybe someone with a good memory knows but were any of the dozen or so forum books that have failed in the last couple of years in business more than 2 years? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blue Marlin

--

This 2 year rule would only eliminate World Sports Center from the list of RX book, right?

Fishhead · Jul 19, 2004

Yes Lakerfan

OMNIVOROUS FROG · Jul 19, 2004

As a player, who posts up, I would like to see an insurance/bail out plan, to get what funds I could if someone goes belly up. If that happens, you can have all of the top 60's you want, it will not stop them from collapsing. Sounds like a popularity contest. Just get me protection, not a very large request. Protect us from financial loss! Watchdog sites...Best Wishes...OF

stormy7777 · Jul 19, 2004

I agree with OF. I would like to add that the protection should protect all of the players, not just those with balances of say $1,000 or under or the squares.

Stormy

DriversEdSubstituteTeacher · Jul 19, 2004

Speaking for myself the so the called deposit protection for a few dimes is useless. I either lose my deposit or double it then withdraw the profit. I will keep playing a deposit for as long as I can keep it alive and able to earn money. If any protection plan doesn't protect winnings and not just a deposit it is worthless to me. Average deposit of 5 dimes will at any given time leave my balance at a book between 5 and 10 dimes. When it gets to 10 I ask for 5 etc.

stormy7777 · Jul 19, 2004

Agreed, thats why I said protect players balances.

I do the same (sort of). I start each month with 10 dimes in my outs, at the end of the month I withdraw anything over the 10 dimes in each out.

Stormy

WildBill · Jul 19, 2004

I personally don't like recommendations of sports books and don't know about the 2 year rule. I think you definitely can put up a disclaimer about the 2 year rule, but how are books ever going to get going if most avenues to advertise are closed off? What it will do is force them to work with touts, to go to dubious magazines, and just plain bad sources. I think a well funded book that has the resources and desire to advertise with a good source of customers should. Otherwise you might as well assume the books that join the 2 year club took somewhat dubious routes to get there.

Phaedrus · Jul 20, 2004

Spot on Bill.

The "two year rule," if adopted, would choke out newcomers to the field and essentially cartelise the advertising market for sportsbooks. Naturally, review sites and "watchdog" sites should be free to set whatever standards they like for their advertisers, but to basically force all new books to rely on word-of-mouth or dubious partners such as touts will likely put a damper on new players and innovations in the industry.

What happens if the guy running "Sportsbook X" (any major trusted book) breaks off and starts his own operation? Will he have to wait for two years before he can advertise, or since he "knows everybody and everybody knows him" will an exception be made? In all likelihood an exception will be made, and this is how an industry becomes a cartel.

Ideas like Peep's escrow plan are the best bet for protecting players from fraud and fiduciary irresponsibility by unproven books, and Ken, Major and the rest of the so-called "watchdogs" couldn't have taken a shit on that idea any faster without rupturing a colon.

Phaedrus

Dweeb · Jul 20, 2004

Hey WildBill

Saw your (rx front page) articles about what Americans could expect if they found a job in the offshore sports book industry. Interesting. If you are planning some similar future articles about Nevada sports books, do you want any thoughts from folks who work inside the counter in Las Vegas?

Thanks
Dweeb