SHOULD WE CHANGE OUR CRITERIA ON SPORTS BOOKS THAT ADVERTISE HERE?

THE SHRINK · Mar 12, 2004

Given the plethora of sports books who have gone under over the years, I am asking for some feedback as to how we can make our list the very safest in the industry...

Something that has been brought up quite often is to only allow sports books that have been in business for 3-5 years to appear on this site...

The only problem I see with that is that at one time, WWTS, WSEX, and PINNACLE were in their infancy and look where they are now...

Also, this site has to make money to operate and pay expenses, so will this cut deeply into the revenues?

All suggestions are certainly welcome...

Thanks in advance,

THE SHRINK

Sodium Pentethol V · Mar 12, 2004

Don't be ridiculous.

Anyone that holds you responsible for themselves being stiffed are assholes, no matter what changes you make, those folks will still be assholes.

Dante · Mar 12, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Something that has been brought up quite often is to only allow sports books that have been in business for 3-5 years to appear on this site...

The only problem I see with that is that at one time, WWTS, WSEX, and PINNACLE were in their infancy and look where they are now...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ken, Just my humble opinion but this might be the only way to do it...unless there is a middle ground which lately I have not seen....

RPM · Mar 12, 2004

shrink,

you have a lot of pull with the books that advertise here. maybe you could set up an agreement with new books that advertise to require them to have some type of verifyable escrow account for at least post up funds. any book that is new, and well funded should be able to do something like that.

RPM · Mar 12, 2004

also,

you could only require it for say the first year. after that, they should have shown they will be sticking around.

bigbet1234 · Mar 12, 2004

dont take this wrong, but every month or so, you come in here trying to figure a way out to stop the players from getting screwed.

in reality it is impossible. it is the players who have to take responsiblilty and do their homework on the book before depsoiting. and then that is not enough.

gambling offshore is a risk, and if you take the risk and get screwed, it's no ones fault but your own.

Jazz · Mar 12, 2004

In my case, completely irrelevant, since I realize your current advertising and recommendations on books are not connected to anything under your control. Therefore, I see any such recommendation on a non-established book as valid as any advertising on late-night TV for psychics - entertaining but meaningless, because of the past failures of books here and at other forums. If people choose to place weight on such recommendations, they only have themselves to blame, not the Rx.

However, if you're actually interested in attempting to have a meaningful correlation between your advertisers and the reflection upon the Rx as far as confidence goes for players seeking to open accounts at books advertising here (for if no one signs up through the Rx, then there's no point for a book to advertise here), the only way I can see that is to guarantee some part of the balance of a player's account IF they sign up through an Rx program, similar to programs already being established at a few other forums.

No one's twisting your arm to do it, but if you're seeking to increase advertising revenue and convince players to sign up at new or relatively new books with little track record other than they are 'great guys', I personally don't see how you're going to do it now unless there is some kind of guarantee for the player that their funds are not going to disappear into the belly of the beast.

p.s. It may well be that the large majority of people who sign-up through the Rx never bothers to read the forums and doesn't know what's going on, and if that's true then I really wouldn't worry too much if the sheep are beating down the doors to get sheared - no economic sense in that.

JudgeWapner · Mar 12, 2004

I think it is one thing to let a book advertise on a site,another to give them glowing reviews before they have proven worthy of such praise.Example-Pan Am.

TEASERGURU · Mar 12, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Sodium Pentethol V:
Don't be ridiculous.

Anyone that holds you responsible for themselves being stiffed are assholes, no matter what changes you make, those folks will still be assholes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
G POST!!!!

Dante · Mar 12, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Judge Wapner:
I think it is one thing to let a book advertise on a site,another to give them glowing reviews before they have proven worthy of such praise.Example-Pan Am.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

extremely good point Judge

wilheim · Mar 12, 2004

Appraising the financial status of a prospective advertiser is never simple. When a brand new sportsbook (unaffiliated with any established book) opens, and wants to advertise at the Rx. or any similar type of site, a honeymoon period insues. Everthing looks great, banners are hung, promotions, and reasons why people should post-up at the new book are numerous. All this is fine, as long as there is some sort of caveat attached to all recommendations stating that the sportsbook is brand new. Use an asterisk to identify recommended books that have less than say 1 full year of smooth problem free operation. Naturally small inane claims like the software sucks, or CSD clerks speak poor English are not serious enough to disqualify the book from a problem free rating. Slow pay, or not honoring bets are the type of things that are red flags signifying potential serious problems. In other words keep "new" advertisers on a type of probation for at least a year. Yes we do recommend "BrandNewBets.com" but as you can see by the * that they are still operating during their recently opened probation period. After the year is up without any real problems, the * can come down. I belive it is important for the sake of newbies especially, to explain in very easy to understand layman's terms what the risks are when posting up funds at a new book.

wil.

WildBill · Mar 12, 2004

Ken,

Unless you know a book is shady or in danger, I would say you should accept them. All this should have taught everyone a lesson that no matter who is involved or what their reputation is, if you aren't calling the shots you can't control what happens to them. I would say though that you should most definitely include some disclaimer pointing this fact out and tell anyone that wants to advertise that you plan to be a lot more neutral and non-committal about giving some glowing reference for them. They are merely advertisers on a site; they can't expect you to do much more for them other than give them a lot of exposure in one place many regular gamblers come to.

Fishhead · Mar 12, 2004

Wilheim & Wild Bill,

DITTO

slots · Mar 12, 2004

The 'Top Sportsbooks' section should be the best period....3 years MIN service to even be considered.

Then take whatever advertising you want.

TheMDKid · Mar 12, 2004

My recommendations, similar to Jazz's here, were spelled out in painstaking detail in this thread from exactly one month ago ... insurance plan. Despite several attempts to get you to respond, Shrink, you declined. I have to think, therefore, that you are not really serious when you claim that you want to make your recommendations the "safest in the industry." I dare you to prove me wrong.

wilheim · Mar 12, 2004

MD Kid - Insurance plans are fine, and most welcome. The problem is who is insuring the insurer? You mention several web-sites beside this one. Lets say any one including MW ends up insuring several thousand accounts at one particular book. When that book goes down for any number of reasons, including political instabilty anywhere in the world, who guarantees that the insurer will be able to pay. It is easy to make assuances, but paying off when a major diaster occurs is the only way to proove those assurances are backed with resolve to do the right thing.

wil.

TheMDKid · Mar 12, 2004

Wil,
As Lakerfan stated in the 2nd to last post of that thread, MW paid when disaster occurred to them. It CAN work. As far as insuring the insurer - No one needs to insure the insurer if 2 things are done.

1. Only recommend and accept advertising from those books that are truly AAAA rated.

2. Don't insure any book for an amount more than RX can afford to pay. Even if it is only for the first $200 or so of each account. Re-read the thread to see why this amount is sufficient.

wilheim · Mar 12, 2004

MD Kid - one problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>1. Only recommend and accept advertising from those books that are truly AAAA rated.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who decides who is AAAA, and why would such a well thought of book need insurace to begin with? The object of this thread I believe is to come up with ideas on how to take the risk out of posting up hard cash at risky or unproven advertiser books, correct?

wil.

RobFunk · Mar 12, 2004

shrink everyone is typing all this lengthy text and stuff

if you do the 3-5 thing you wont have the exciting new books. aces was around and look what happened. panam looked new and powerful and look what happened. but panam new pays and aces whatever stiffs.

so why change it?! whatchu going to do chico?!?!?!? HAAUHH?!? CHU GOING TO LEMET DIS TO JUS TOP 5 SPORTBOOK REVIEW HUH?!?! DATS WHAT I THOUGHT CHICO! CHUR MAMA SAID IT TO!! (shakes head slowly) chu dont want to be buzzsaws bitch. . .(sounds tired) no chico. . not dat

areeff · Mar 12, 2004

MD Kid is right... Good points. I think the shrink should constantly talking to his advertisors to see how they stand and getting a feel from them. Even if they lie at least a keen business guy like him can get a good feel for a good liar.

And once again panthenol is an idiot bringing down the RX with his useless comments.