SHIFT SOME RISK TO THE SPORTS BETTOR!!!!!!!!!!!

[CharlieMaxwell]

Part two of Wild Bill's three-part column on his plan to protect the sports bettor against sports books that go out of business is now on the RX home page at www.theprescription.com

[This message was edited by The General on November 25, 2003 at 05:31 PM.]

 

[TheGeneral+]

Thanks Charlie

 

[CharlieMaxwell]

Part 3 will be available later this week!

 

[JeffB]

I don't get this. Shift some risk TO the bettor? The bettor is the one who is having his money stolen. How can you have any more risk? So when I lost money at Aces and Camelot, I should write a check to the books over and above my losses?

 

[JoeyC]

JeffB:

Why did you to bet with Camelot vs say a WWTS type store, in the first place?

Clearly, you had to assume there was more of a risk factor involved, with your selection.

JC

 

[CharlieMaxwell]

Joey C - You are correct in asking that question. I think that is one of the points in Wild Bill's story.

 

[SrMuny]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey C:
JeffB:

Why did you to bet with Camelot vs say a WWTS type store, in the first place?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me guess.............BONUS?

 

[JeffB]

Because they were highly touted by the Rx as safe. I didn't play there for bonus, but for lower vig. Ditto for Aces. They were held in the same esteem as CRIS or WWTS is right now. And that is not the point. You can't shift any risk to the post up players because they already assume all the risk!

Of course with Camelot I assumed I was incurring more default risk than with Olympic. But I took that risk. That is the point. The bettors already take all the risk.

 

[Dante]

What I have learned is to ONLY play with the rocks of the industry. OR a book that has been there for over 3 yrs with no problems is a possiblity also.


but that is MY opinion after all the books going up this season. I am not going to even play where there is a bonus offered of 10% I had said 20% but I think 10% is the MAX I will see as being safe

 

[mvbski]

I dont get this post,we send our money in good faith expecting to be paid for bets that we win,and the books will sometimes say you have no bet on a winner because of this or that,and its always on a winner.then when we ask for a withdrawl and we get every excuse in the world.and you say we should except some risk ?

 

[JoeyC]

JeffB:

Understand what you're saying 100%.

Players do assume 100% of the risks now associated with sending any book their $$, in which safety of funds has to be weighed against bonuses or other incentives a book may offer.

BTW, I also $ to Aces, but didn't get stuck, as the bets were losers.

 

[CharlieMaxwell]

MVBSKI- Did you read Wild Bill's article on the home page?

Charlie

 

[mvbski]

yes I read it, why should the player expect risk

 

[Skyweasel]

too much when the guy hasn't posted part 3 yet, so I held back from writing a detailed reply. But in a nutshell, I have to agree with the other posters; players already take most of the risk here. What WildBill is proposing seems like an elaborate offshore bureacracy; a form of self-regulation that is unlikely to be adopted. While insurance is a nice idea, it essentially would amount to an additional tax on winnings. Players already pay between 2.5 and 4.5% vig on their total handle, making the game extremely tough to beat. Between vig, paying for picks, and insurance, the average schmoe would never win a nickel.

The reality is that this is a young industry and still 'shaking out', just like autos, phones, ISP's, etc. have historically done. First there are thousands of businesses, and eventually there are a few, mostly solid players. The difference here is that the players are to some extent not just customers, but "investors" via their postup, and thus they are exposed to risk which customers who buy autos, ISP service, etc., aren't necessarily in for.

I find it likely that books will reject this insurance notion; a bad book of course might see it as another potential profit center or a way to keep the ponzi scheme going; a good book will say "We don't need it, we're as solid as the day is long".

Recently I posted elsewhere on this forum that your best bet offshore is to stay informed and don't treat the Rx or others as "watchdogs", they are informational only. Don't rely on anyone else to think for you or choose for you, or even to 'insure' you; do as much investigating as you can when you choose a book and play it cautious. If you are chasing bonus rainbows and get burned, you have only yourself to blame.

Shifting risk via insurance is mainly a game that benefits insurers (ever been in one of their plush offices? They have to do something with all that spare cash of yours they are sitting upon). I don't see this plan happening but I will read part 3 anyway

 

[CharlieMaxwell]

Skyweasel - Thanks for your imput. That is all What we are trying to do editorialy at the RX is to suggest things and make people think. Different opinions make life interesting. At least Wild Bill is suggesting ways to make things better. Part 3 will be on the home page during the Thanksgiving weekend.

Charlie

 

[WildBill]

Maybe this is just misleading, but the reality is right now you are taking on 100% of the risk in the case of a book going under. My suggestion is make bettors only risk 10-30% instead. I think it is far more advisable to tell everyone involved that nothing is 100% safe. Under my plan the best books would be a 10% risk, not exactly a big haircut on your funds. I am sure most people that had money in GA or Aces Gold would have gladly taken 70-90% of their money without having to go elsewhere and get on a rollover program and those that don't mind rollovers possibly would have had a chance at 100% of their money with rollovers. Is that really that terrible a scenario?

One of the things that I didn't write about that bothers me is the nature of information when things go bad. Those "in the know" get their money out quickly, those that aren't in the know get screwed. Is that a fair way to work things out? Often the rank and file employees get screwed too, while the insiders rarely leave the mess broke. This whole process is intended to bring fairness to all who must take a loss. In the end when the current workouts of "I'm broke someone come save" me are played out, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth of those that we need to build trust in the system.