QUESTION FOR STIFFED PLAYERS???

[REALITY]

Originally posted by Yakov Jerkov:


Let me see, a bettor GAMBLES by "trusting" his money with one bookie who it turns out can't pay. For that privilege, he gets to send an equal amount of "lost" money to another "reputable" shop whom he now has to "trust" again, and in return for that "trust" the bettor has to GIVE 10x sports action in order to have even a chance to find out if his or her newfound "trust" was worth the risk?

This is Bait and Switch at its very best.

JERKOV,

"REPUTABLE STORES" HERE REFERING TO THE GIANTS OF THE INDUSTRY SUCH AS C.R.I.S.,OLYMPIC,OR WWTS.

NOT UNCLE FRED'S HONEST BOOK ...

REALITY

[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: REALITY ]

[kelley]

It's a fair offer, I would take it from any major book.

[Tom0Co]

While I can understand why someone would go for the deal as a chance to get their money back, I would say no.

There are far too many undercapitalized and inexperienced sportsbooks operating. I believe “the plan” would set a dangerous precedent whereby plans of this nature would start to become the norm rather than a rare bail-out situation. While there are many honorable and trustworthy books there is an even greater number that are not. The bail-out plan could lead to collusion among those books and even books under the same ownership to tie up post up money.

Additionally if bettors become over-reliant that “someone” will ultimately bail-out a bad book, they will become more lax when choosing a book and most likely go for bigger bonuses than reputation. The credible sportsbooks in effect will helping the no-names stay and remain in business and in effect hurt their own business.

It’s a tough pill to swallow, but overall I think it’s a bad idea in the long-term.

[REALITY]

Originally posted by Tom0Co:


The credible sportsbooks in effect will helping the no-names stay and remain in business and in effect hurt their own business.

It’s a tough pill to swallow, but overall I think it’s a bad idea in the long-term.

IN THIS PLAN THEY WILL NOT BE HELPING THEM STAY IN BUSINESS.

THE WHITE KNIGHT WILL BE EITHER BE ACQUIRING THE TROUBLED COMPANY IN TOTAL OR WILL JUST BE ACQUIRING THE CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS.

THESE ACCOUNTS BECOME THE SOLE PROPERTY OF THE BOOK WHO HAS REFUNDED THE ACCOUNTS.

REALITY

[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: REALITY ]

[Tom0Co]

I understand that Reality, however it will help those that are still operating, yet to go under. It also keeps NEW startups in business as "someone" will bail them out.

The other part, while I agree it is better to have the offer than not to have it, the "white knight" doesn't figure to lose anything and probably has nothing but gain potential.

In your example if I have to match the $10,000 account balance and play both 10X, taking the standard (11/10) 4.545% hold results in the following:

$20,000 x 10 = $200,000 x 4.545% = 11,090.

In short if I'm an average bettor, agreeing to the deal costs me $1,090. I'd be better off posting up the $10K with someone else and probably get a bonus on top of it and wouldn't be required to play my post-up 10X.

IMO, not that great a deal, and overall a bad precedent.

[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: Tom0Co ]

[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: Tom0Co ]

[Tom0Co]

[nevermind I'll stick to the above]

This is what happens when I DON'T drink my lunch on days ending in a y.

[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: Tom0Co ]

[REALITY]

Originally posted by Tom0Co:
I understand that Reality, however it will help those that are still operating, yet to go under. It also keeps NEW startups in business as "someone" will bail them out.

The other part, while I agree it is better to have the offer than not to have it, the "white knight" doesn't figure to lose anything and probably has nothing but gain potential.

HE HAS EVERYTHING TO LOSE.

IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS WITHOUT A MATCHING DEPOSIT IF THE PLAYER GOES BUST THE PLAYER MOST LIKELY WILL NEVER POST UP AGAIN.

IF HE POSTS A MATCHING BALANCE AT LEAST THE BOOK HAS A SHOT AT EARNING WHAT HE IS RISKING AND THE PLAYER AND BOOK MAY DEVELOP A RELATIONSHIP.

In your example if I have to match the $10,000 account balance and play both 10X, taking the standard (11/10) 4.545% hold results in the following:

$20,000 x 10 = $200,000 x 4.545% = 11,090.

In short if I'm an average bettor, agreeing to the deal costs me $1,090. I'd be better off posting up the $10K with someone else and probably get a bonus on top of it and wouldn't be required to play my post-up 10X.

AS FOR THE 4.54% THAT'S IN 11/10 SPORTS AND IS A THEORETICAL HOLD IF A BOOK WERE TO BALANCE HIS DECISION ON EVERY GAME AND NUMBERS DIDN'T LAND,WHICH THEY DO.

IN BASEBALL IT'S 2.38% WITH A TRUE DIME LINE.

AGAIN A THEORETICAL HOLD IF YOU COULD BALANCE EVERY DECISION AND IF THE DOG WINS.

ADDITIONALLY THIS 2.38% IS BASED ON A MEDIAN MOVE OF 5 CENTS WHEN YOU HAVE REACHED YOUR HOUSE HOLD FIGURE.

WHEN THE POKERS AND KOSHERS PLAY THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MEDIAN MOVE OF 5 CENT.

ACCORDINGLY THERE IS NO 2.38% EARN IN DIME LINE BASEBALL.

IMO, not that great a deal, and overall a bad precedent.

[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: Tom0Co ]

[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: Tom0Co ]

TOMOCO,

TRUST ME.

IT'S VERY HARD TO FIND SOMEBODY TO BAIL OUT A COMPANY GOING UNDER.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD IS I HAVE BEEN APPROACHED BY POTENTIAL "WHITE KNIGHTS" FOR MY OPINION.

IN THE INTEREST OF BEING OPEN MINDED ON THIS SUBJECT I AM LOOKING FOR OPINIONS TO CHANGE MY MIND ON THIS SUBJECT.

I DONT LIKE SEEING PLAYERS GET STIFFED.

BAD FOR THE PLAYERS.

BAD FOR THE INDUSTRY.

IF THE TRUTH BE KNOWN I AGREE WITH YOU.

I BELIEVE ULTIMATELY THE NEGATIVES WILL OUTWEIGH THE POSITIVES HERE FOR THE POTENTIAL "WHITE KNIGHT".

I WAS MERELY TESTING THE WATERS FOR HOW A PLAN LIKE THIS WOULD BE RECEIVED BY THE PLAYERS.

FROM WHAT I HAVE SEEN SO FAR I AM INCLINED TO GO WITH MY ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION TO AVOID GETTING INVOLVED IN THESE SITUATIONS.

I BELIEVE A MAJOR BOOK WOULD GET MORE NEGATIVES THAN POSITIVES OUT OF INVOLVING THEMSELVES IN POTENTIAL BAIL OUT SITUATIONS...

REALITY

[underdog]

Reality,

thankyou for your efforts to help us stiffs.
10x plus 100% of what is owed seems a bit stiff but still better then nothing. Maybe 5x and 100% would be more workable. Either way, your efforts to help is most appreciative.

[Ronbets]

Originally posted by REALITY:


"REPUTABLE STORES" HERE REFERING TO THE GIANTS OF THE INDUSTRY SUCH AS C.R.I.S.,OLYMPIC,OR WWTS.

NOT UNCLE FRED'S HONEST BOOK ...

REALITY

[/QB]

With any of the stores listed above? Yes, in a heartbeat!!

[underdog]

I also agree with your comments that any time players are stiffed it leaves the industry with a black eye. Hopefully something can be worked out.

[Tom0Co]

HE HAS EVERYTHING TO LOSE.

With no deposit and number of times to play through, I agree. However I think there should be some middle ground, 100% deposit match with a 10X play of both balance and new deposit seems to favor the book.

IN BASEBALL IT'S 2.38% WITH A TRUE DIME LINE.

I agree with your baseball hold as well, however, most of the big boy shops that have the bucks to do a bail-out are dealing 20-cent lines and the hold drifts back closer to the 4.5%.

WHEN THE POKERS AND KOSHERS PLAY THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MEDIAN MOVE OF 5 CENT.

The syndicate plays really shouldn't matter, as they're going to play in ANY event.

However I agree that my numbers are in theory and not in REALITY

Tough spot, no one likes to see players get stiffed without recourse.

[REALITY]

Originally posted by Tom0Co:


However I agree that my numbers are in theory and not in REALITY

NICE PLAY ON WORDS...

Tough spot, no one likes to see players get stiffed without recourse.

I MAY POST FROM THIS SIDE OF THE COUNTER BUT I WAS A PLAYER FIRST.

THE WORST LAST MINUTE LOSS YOU COULD EVER IMAGINE DOSEN'T COME CLOSE TO GETTING STIFFED.

IT BRINGS A NEW MEANING TO THE PHRASE:

"THE THRILL OF VICTORY AND THE AGONY OF DEFEAT"

[sportshobby]

TomOCo really brought up some good points, some that concerned me also. First, you can rest assured that if this scenario worked there would be unethical books out there planning it from the beginning. Books A and B, both secretly owned by the same folks. Whichever book gets the most customer post-up funds goes "broke" by design. Then Book B offers this deal to take on the other's customers if they double their postup.

[MISTY]

"r"man,
IT MUST BE A COLD DAY IN NAGS HEAD, BECAUSE I WARMLY ENDORSE YOUR PROPOSAL. NO DOUBT THAT THIS IS A WIN-WIN PROP FOR BOTH PARTIES. misty

[ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: MISTY ]

[chestrockwells]

Ok, there are a couple of other issues here as well. The assumption here is that somehow a player posted up with a book that was either shaky to begin with, or became shaky and then went under. Then here comes one of the "giants" of the business to the potential rescue. Great scenario and we can sit here and logically come up with a what if response. But I know that if this happenned to me, I'd be very reluctant to send in more money. In the 4 years I've played offshore, I don't "believe" that I've played with UN-solid books. If any of them went under, I would definitely question whether the other ones were solid. So given that, why would I send them money? I know this may sound simplistic but we don't, or at least I don't, HAVE to gamble. And I certainly don't have to gamble this way. So if I got stiffed despite doing due diligence etc. etc. I'd write it off and pull all my money out of every book.