QUESTION FOR STIFFED PLAYERS???

[Heath]

IGNORE

[ 06-23-2001: Message edited by: Heath ]

[sportshobby]

I think Chestrockwell's response is more typical of the vast majority of players. I think most would refuse the offer.

[REALITY]

GENTLEMEN,

YOUR COMMENTS HAVE BEEN DULY NOTED.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR FEEDBACK.

REALITY

[Ronbets]

Originally posted by chestrockwells:
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.

Chest,

Your end-gate to a temporary set back is defying common sense. If my Intel stock goes belly up due to mismanagement do I completely exit from a joyful pastime of stock trading? Sell off my entire portfolio? Detours happen in life. You get over it, because if we used this "I quit" withdrawal approach.........I think life would be very boring. The bad guys won out.

[chestrockwells]

I'm sorry Ronbets, but if that were to happen to me, I would lose confidence not only in my ability to differentiate between the "solid" and not so solid books but also in the offshore industry. Besides, sports betting existed before offshore and it'll exist after offshore. Sooner or later internet betting will become legal here in the US. All the big players will be involved and apart from perhaps the players who want to put 10 dimes on a game.........all the small and medium size accounts will come back from offshore. Anybody that doesn't concede that is deluding themselves a bit. I mean if you just step back for a moment and look at this objectively, you realize that we take a serious leap of faith with offshore. If I lived in Nevada, I wouldn't even think about playing offshore.

[Ronbets]

Originally posted by chestrockwells:
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.

We're looking at this with a different mindset. I understand where you're coming from. I don't agree, but respect it.

[Unnamed Sources]

I think any professional player would take in a heartbeat if the new book is even reasonably solid. This player probably has at least 10 outs to begin with and thus was stiffed no more than about 20% of his bankroll by the bad book. So it is no problem for him to him to come up with the cash, and the rollover doesn't bother him since he has positive expectation on that action.

What would be the policy if the player already had an account at the new book? Would he be able to use his currently posted funds or would he have to send more?

I see that REALITY has only mentioned books like CRIS, Olympic and WWTS; but what if the player has already been banned (for being a wiseguy or whatever) by the new book? Do they have to take him on board again?

And in regards to the small player who cannot afford to match his 4000, I would suggest that he not have to post his entire stake all at once. He would essentially receive a 100% bonus on all deposits until his first withdrawal.

[Voodoo]

>>I think Chestrockwell's response is more typical of the vast majority of players. I think most would refuse the offer.<<

I'd have to disagree there. I'd jump at
the chance. Sounds like a win-win situation
for both parties as long as we're talking about an established book.

[REALITY]

Originally posted by Unnamed Sources:


What would be the policy if the player already had an account at the new book? Would he be able to use his currently posted funds or would he have to send more?

THIS WAS DISCUSSED.

THIS PLAYER WOULD GET A SEPERATE ACCOUNT AND WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THE MATCHING DEPOSIT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS OFFER.

I see that REALITY has only mentioned books like CRIS, Olympic and WWTS; but what if the player has already been banned (for being a wiseguy or whatever) by the new book? Do they have to take him on board again?

THE BOOKS THAT SOUGHT OUT MY OPINION IN REGARDS TO THIS ISSUE TAKE ON ALL COMERS.

THEY WOULD OF COURSE RESERVE THE RIGHT NOT TO TAKE ON A CERTAIN PLAYER IF FOR SOME REASON THEY WOULD NOT WANT HIS ACTION.

FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH THE BOOKS THAT HAD EXPRESSED SOME INTEREST IN THIS IDEA SEEMED TO HAVE COOLED TO IT BASED ON THE PLAYERS RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION AS POSED IN THIS THREAD.

REALITY

[raymond751]

i would do it in a second.sounds like win win to me.although the book offering would have to have a good reputation!!

[sportshobby]

Why don't the books just make this 100% bonus offer now, by itself? It could be made for any amount (up to a limit), and to any player. There's no need to tie it to a defunct sportsbook and the player's balance there.

[ 06-24-2001: Message edited by: sportshobby ]

[neilm]

Too bad the books have cooled on the idea because its a great offer many players, myself included, would take. The money's gone already so don't think about that. If you don't take this deal it won't show up in your mail one day out of the blue. Its a great bonus offer, plain and simple. The roll over is nothing, unless a guy who just hit a 15 team parlay is involved. I roll my balance(s) two or three times a week during the winter (when football, hockey and basketball are al running). The offer's a great deal and the book would earn many loyal customers if they offered it, made good on the payouts, and provided decent service.