Criticism of SBR

[jjgold]

Johnny Casinos have dislcaimers and everything else to warn gamblers also, so do Cig companies. I feel trapped here.

[SBR_John]

They have warnings because they are regulated and they are compelled to.

The offshore industry would do itself a favor by coming up with a strong warning that every site posts.

SBR probably has the most complete warning posted on the home page of any gaming related site I know of. And as I said, if anyone has a suggestion on what more we could do we would certainly like to hear it.

[Dark Horse]

Basically what I am saying is SBR has the highest % of compulsive gamblers due the hard core nature of the site (live lines, top flight stats, forum, top flight ratings). It is like crack cocaine.

You need to talk to Elmer about this, while it's still not too late.

[HeinousAnus]

There are so many interesting points that have been made here that I would like to reply to but my post would be too long. So sorry I am being unresponsive but I have read everything and tried to take it on board.

SBR_John - The thing about the home page is that nobody ever reads those warnings. If go to a porn site and there is a warning, I just click 'Enter' straight away - I don't read anything (and I am not just talking about the home page).

If I install software from some software company, I never bother to read the Licencing Agreement, I just click 'I Agree'.

I think the best way I can sum up my view is to point to the rating guide. What do the ratings really mean? It says:

"D- to D+ Poor, some risk to players funds. Poor customer service, etc"

Some risk to players funds!!!!!! What a joke! Who wrote that? No really - who wrote that?

The implication SBR is making is that anything above D means there is no risk to players funds. Which is *precisely* what the bookies want us to think.

"A- to A+ Elite, top 1% of all Sportsbooks, Guaranteed safety & quality"

Elite = yep that's true,
top 1% of all sportbooks = accurate comment,
guaranteed safety? = complete and utter nonsense.

"Statistics conclusively prove that nearly all gamblers will lose money over the long term."

(Apart from the home page that I, personally, completely ignored), the SBR appears to be acting somewhat like a bookies shill.

We come here because we want to know how to keep our funds safe - that is our number one concern. SBR says 'Safety!' when it should be saying 'Danger!'. It is letting us down.

[Dark Horse]

A fool and his money are soon parted, anus. On this forum you will find a high percentage of sharp players who have no interest in your moaning and playing victim.

SBR is looking out for us like no other organization. If you don't like it, stay away. Take responsiblity for your own life, instead of blaming others for your shortcomings.

[jjgold]

SBR has cost me at least $35,000 the last 14 months by prying me to gamble, throwing bait in front of me, teasing me, ect.

[Dark Horse]

There are two types of people. Those who identify their own flaws and try to improve on them. And those who blame others for their shortcomings. One of these is dynamic, the other is pretty much dead in the water.

Never too late...

[Yoshi]

SBR has cost me at least $35,000 the last 14 months by prying me to gamble, throwing bait in front of me, teasing me, ect.

How much did they pay you back for spamming the forum?
100 bucks a month?

[HeinousAnus]

dark horse - yeah the ratings really only make sense if you are in the small group of people that you describe. You seem to have assumed that I am losing cash hand over fist for some reason - you said: "instead of blaming others for your shortcomings".

Personally the ratings make perfect sense to me. Pinnacle is zero risk as far as I am concerned. Maybe I should edit it where I said 'sbr is letting us down'.

The thing is SBR is up and coming. The industry is exploding (I think) and people have a real need to know where they can bet without getting completely ripped off by some dodgy operation like [insert F rated bookie here].

That need is there for sharps and regular bettors alike.

Because of this we can safely assume that the SBR will be viewed by a large number of people who do not have specialist sports knowledge, or some secret mathematical system or whatever.

For these people the ratings are deceptive. SBR needs to clarify what it means when it says 'completely safe'.

[Lucas]

HA!

Although i see the psychology trap that you describe, it has no sense to blame SBR for the trap. It is not their problem that majority of people live in illusion that something here is with "no risk".

Would you be satisfied if the rating were B+...G-? I am afraid it is too late for this change. A+ is the best in SBR subjective view. Not God itself.

Yes, you made some points in the "guaranteed safety", i like it... that is the part of psychology trap. Of course it is a marketing gimmick, but that is a part of the game all over the world. People who could not read between the lines should vanish in evolution process.

You are free to establish your own rating service. With a skull flash animation as invitation. Try it Everybody who reads between the lines needs sometimes a little inconsistent illusion of the safety, although he knows/feels that it is not 100%. I like to sleep good with having money at A+ after the whole day risking. I like the illusion. And illusion of safety makes a good bussiness. I like the Southpark scene where policemen was fired and therefore riot overcomed the town.

That is reality - we all belive in safety/order, so we have quite good safety/order. That is not only bookies problem IMO.

(do not take me seriously please, it was a joke, i have not slept for days, and after months I was walking thru wood, saw nice birds and magic mushrooms...)

[HeinousAnus]

If it is a marketing gimmick then what is it doing in a watchdog that is allegedly trying to protect us?

"People who could not read between the lines should vanish in evolution process." That isn't right, surely.

It seems like when mechanics say 'well if you don't know the difference between a spark plug and an ignition coil then you deserve to get overcharged'.

I like Southpark too.

[Willie Bee]

"People who could not read between the lines should vanish in evolution process." That isn't right, surely.

I'd agree. Not being able to always read through the lines shouldn't be grounds for being 86'ed from the species.

But people who can't take responsibility for their own actions shouldn't expect the rest of society to just bend over for them when they walk into a room. People who burn themselves with hot coffee shouldn't be able to sue the person or entity who served the coffee. And people who can't control their own obsessions and lose everything they own in the process only show their gutless, spineless, female jellyfish side when they go around pointing fingers and blaming someone else.

[freebie]

SBR has cost me at least $35,000 the last 14 months by prying me to gamble, throwing bait in front of me, teasing me, ect.

How has SBR cost you 35 dimes?
You went and pick those games on your own and no one told you to pickem.

You're losing everything and now you're blaming on SBR?

[Lucas]

I do not know if they try to "protect us". They do their bussiness, which is info and sometimes pulling us from holes. And they are the best (probably, i have no wholistic info). And if you are not totally stupid you can walk with them. They give you info and sometimes they can help you from hole. That is all and that is enough for me.

"People who could not read between the lines should vanish in evolution process." Sorry i wanted to write: "People who could not read between the lines will vanish in evolution process."... or they will learn.

As Mr. Farnsworth said: "Goodbyeee cruel world, gooodbyee cruel lamp"

[thezbar]

money management 101 ///Actually that total is 70 dimes.The 35 dimes that are gone,plus the 35 dimes you will have to aquire to replace the orginal 35 dimes+ time and effort > all to get to square one.

[HeinousAnus]

thezbar - it's 35k. 35k to get away from square 1 and then you lose that you are back at square one and if you go and earn another 35k then you are back at square 2. Okay now I am confused.

Lucas - as far as I can see the whole point of the SBR is protecting us from fraudsters. We want to know our funds will be safe so we come here.

freebie - what we are talking is a subtle promotion of the bookies by not being clear about the dangers. The idea is that people come here, read how A+ rated bookies are completely safe and have all these positive remarks and they get lulled into a false sense of security. It's like banning cigarette advertising. Noone told people to start smoking. The advertisers just created a positive image in their minds associating cigarettes with good times or sexy women or whatever. People are responsible for their own actions, but there is a subtle push on people to get addicted.

Willie Bee - yeah I agree about the coffee. But it's a bit different maybe. Everyone knows coffee scolds. It's isn't so obvious why "nearly all gamblers will lose money over the long term." You have to think about the Price Percentage and probability and stuff like that.

[Dark Horse]

Heinous, you fail to see that gambling is not the problem. Not even losing is the problem. The problem is bad money management. Anybody who bets 2% of existing bankroll per game can never go broke.

The question you should be asking is why people aren't taught good money management, or why they don't stick with it.

[sjelveh]

Heinous, you fail to see that gambling is not the problem. Not even losing is the problem. The problem is bad money management. Anybody who bets 2% of existing bankroll per game can never go broke.

The question you should be asking is why people aren't taught good money management, or why they don't stick with it.

I have the answer because good money management is boring and most people bet for the rush not to make money and that’s why gambling is dangerous, but this topic is pretty stupid we are all adults make your decisions and live with them.

[Willie Bee]

Willie Bee - yeah I agree about the coffee. But it's a bit different maybe. Everyone knows coffee scolds. It's isn't so obvious why "nearly all gamblers will lose money over the long term." You have to think about the Price Percentage and probability and stuff like that.

Yes, spilling coffee on yourself and placing a wager are indeed two disassociated events, unless you spill coffee on yourself because of the action involved in making the wager

However, blaming someone else after you spill hot coffee on yourself and blaming someone else after your wager comes in as a loser, those two events are connected in that the individual is displaying a complete lack of taking responsibility for their own actions.

SBR didn't drag anyone in here kicking and screaming only to get them addicted to gambling. There aren't a bazillion billboards as you drive around town with the SBR website on them wooing you to, "Be a gambler, it's safe." You don't see TV ads showing Bill Dozer lounging by a pool while several gals displaying their ample bosoms serve him cocktails while the voice-over rants and raves, "If you hang out at SBR, this could be you."

I myself have to be careful about what I get involved in along this wonderful course known as life on earth. There's a little fat guy inside me that can make things easy for me to get addicted to certain things. I've fought these addictions my whole life, and been fortunate enough to beat them, most recently stopping my ciggy habit after 35+ years puffing the damn cancer sticks. It's been three years, 10 months, 14 days and about 17 hours since I last had a smoke, but who's counting

Since I stopped smoking, there's a recurring nightmare I have where I'm laying in a hospital bed while a doctor stands over me shaking his head and saying, "If you'd only quit one day earlier..." Now, who is to blame for my cigarette habit, Philip Morris or my own stupidity?

[Dark Horse]

I have the answer because good money management is boring and most people bet for the rush not to make money and that’s why gambling is dangerous, but this topic is pretty stupid we are all adults make your decisions and live with them.

There is nothing boring about betting 2% of a good size bankroll. Preferably, you start out with a big enough bankroll.

(Unless you're learning the basic lessons, in which case it is better to play small and cut down on the learning fees.)

[TLD]

Now, who is to blame for my cigarette habit, Philip Morris or my own stupidity?

Both.

That’s my main pet peeve with these “personal responsibility” debates. It’s as if the only options are that people are 100% responsible for their lot in life or 0% responsible. That’s silly.

When a person lies dying painfully of some avoidable smoking-related disease, it’s not a matter of he should blame others instead of himself. Innumerable people—himself, tobacco farmers, tobacco company executives, advertisers, lobbyists, government officials, his parents, celebrity role models, etc., etc.—said and did things over the last several decades that resulted in this avoidable suffering, and all bear varying degrees of responsibility.

It’s a convenient fiction for certain libertarians that as long as you don’t literally coerce a person you are in no way responsible for what happens to him, but real life is not so simple. Yes we need to be “responsible” for the effects our choices have on ourselves, but a morally mature human being also monitors the influence his choices have on others and accepts some degree of responsibility for that as well.

[Willie Bee]

Correct-omundo, TLD. No doubt my own smoking habit was influenced by others, from my father to Humphrey Bogart to the old ads that ran ad nauseum on TV when I was growing up to simply wanting to look cool like a few of the other 6th-graders who were firing up.

But in the end, I am the one who ultimately has to step up and take responsibility for ALL of my actions.

Good post, TLD Not that I'm using the clinking beer mugs as a sign I encourage drinking. Would love to stay and chat, but my wife has my martini glass chilling at home right now

[Dark Horse]

Cigarettes are unhealthy. Gambling is not.

Unless you realize that only you are responsible for your choices in life, or buying into a concept (whatever that may be, cigarettes, gambling, etc), you are giving your power away. It is empowering to take that power back! Don't give it away by blaming others, because others can't solve your problems for you, nor can they explore new territories for you.

There is nothing wrong with placing others first. But the idea is to help them; not blame them.

[HAPPY BOY]

well I suspected it but reading the last couple of post Iam 100% sure Anus is JJ's ghost.

[TLD]

Unless you realize that only you are responsible for your choices in life, or buying into a concept (whatever that may be, cigarettes, gambling, etc), you are giving your power away. It is empowering to take that power back! Don't give it away by blaming others, because others can't solve your problems for you, nor can they explore new territories for you.

I actually agree with this in large part, and think it’s well stated.

I think, though, that this is better seen as a kind of motivationally useful thing to tell oneself than as something that is literally true. So it’s more like one of those self-help affirmations or strategies.

Because I too try to approach life roughly like that. Intellectually I’m aware that countless things influence my choices, and countless things influence the consequences of my choices. But at the time I’m actually making the choices, I make believe that it’s 100% me.

So when I’m deciding whether to smoke or not, I don’t say, “Well, really any choice I make will be a product of so many factors beyond my control anyway,” I just approach it as if I have 100% autonomy and it’s all up to me and only me. I know on an intellectual level that that’s not true, but I think there’s a kind of “self-fulfilling prophecy” factor at work psychologically, and by pretending we have total choice we do indeed maximize whatever less than total choice is available to us. Which I think is where the “empowerment” comes in.

To me, the danger comes when we forget that that’s just a useful motivational fiction and treat it instead as if it were literally true. So, for instance, if I have an opportunity to take a job advertising cigarettes, it would be wrong for me to say, “Why not? Anybody who smokes, it’s their own fault, not mine. I won’t be putting a gun to their head with my advertisements. It’s all their responsibility.”

As a rule of thumb, it’s empowering for me to pretend I’m 100% responsible for my choices. But it’s wrong for me—or legal, social, or economic systems—to forget that that’s a useful fiction and instead treat it as a fact that people don’t influence each other and all of our choices are made from some impermeable shell and therefore are solely each individual’s responsibility.

[Dark Horse]

Many good points. Environment is stronger than will power. So it is important to surround ourselves with those we want to be like. If you want to be an artist, mix with artists. If you want to be a writer, mix with writers, if you want to learn about gambling mix with gamblers, etc. And naturally, the reverse is true too. If you don't want to be a gambler, don't mix with gamblers. These are all choices, however. We decide. Nobody is putting a gun to our head.

I realize there is a more subtle aspect to this. We do need to recognize the seeds that are 'planted' into our consciousness, and our success in doing so will depend on our degree of awakeness. Are we responsible for that awareness? In my book we are (even though it cannot be quickly changed).

We all make mistakes, so our success in life to a large extent depends on how quickly we recognize and correct those mistakes. If people choose to make the same mistake over and over, it will be harder for them to break that habit; but they created it, so they can undo it.

[sjelveh]

There is nothing boring about betting 2% of a good size bankroll. Preferably, you start out with a big enough bankroll.

(Unless you're learning the basic lessons, in which case it is better to play small and cut down on the learning fees.)

Don’t know about you but even if you had a 100000 bankroll that’s 2000 a game guess what I don’t have a 100000 bankroll but I have bet 2gs on a game before that’s a rush, that’s why most people gamble nothing to do with money. Sharps and most people on this site aren’t that kind of gambler in fact there not gamblers just really smart and get a good return on their investment. That’s not the average better the average guy who bets is like me wants a rush that’s why sports book stay in business. The problem I had with this posting is you shouldn’t blame others for your mistakes. That’s a really big problem today nobody wants to take responsibility for anything.

[jjgold]

Cigarettes dont put you in debt over 35,000

[tacomax]

You don't see TV ads showing Bill Dozer lounging by a pool while several gals displaying their ample bosoms serve him cocktails while the voice-over rants and raves, "If you hang out at SBR, this could be you."

You're wasted here, WB. You should an advertising executive.

[HeinousAnus]

TLD's post:
what
a
gem.

Now I can say yeah Dark Horse, Willie Bee. I completely agree. It's a matter of discipline. We have to be tough with ourselves or we won't succeed, and we could well end up getting hammered instead. The coffee analogy is good. We can't sue others for our shortcomings.

But that is for ourselves. When we look at others sometimes we have to different.

If someone gets angry and hurts us then we could decide that they had free will = there was no mitigating circumstances. Particularly we might deny our own role in causing their anger. We will think 'there was no reason for them to do that', and then we will get angry with them for being so unreasonable. And this can lead to more conflict.

But if we deny that they had free will and say that 'they're only being angry because they are being influenced by other factors e.g. a sick person who has a fever,
or someone who was abused and is now subconsciously reacting to that,
or some other factor,
then that can stop us getting upset with them, and defuses the conflict somewhat. E.g. you can't really get angry with a madman, he doesn't know what he is doing. (That is why it is healthy to say that the whole world is mad, I reckon.)

So basically it sometimes it is helpful to assert free will and sometimes it is helpful to assert environmental factors.

I think in this case we shouldn't blame SBR if we ourselves lose cash, we should assert our own free will and say it wasn't down to the SBR or external factors, like the bookies. That is the best way to empower ourselves like you are saying. It's taking responsibility for the situation.

But if others suffer because there is some manipulation / misinformation / or some other thing wrong with the site then we shouldn't assert that they had free will, free choice, and that they basically chose to suffer. Because then the site will never improve. We need to find out if there are things on the site that are wrong. That is the best way to empower the site, and maybe others as well.

[RageWizard]

I like the fact that there might be compulsive gamblers making more sports investments than they should, it helps me get a line that I want and if you did an analysis of the business. In the long run its kind of like horse racing where people bet against one another and the house takes a cut.

I just joined this forum this year but I have been investing in the NFL in particular for 7 years now, and I have to say that the information on the NFL is pretty good in this forum. The best advise I can give you is to treat it like a business and make a spread sheet of your plays. At the beginning of the investment season determine how much you can invest on a typical position and stick with it, because there will be times when you can lose if you tried and there will be times when you can't win to save your life.

Most sports investors get in trouble when they start thinking that they are due and start playing positions that they would normally stay away from like a proposition bet on how many times Peyton Manning will point to a defense player on third down in the first quater of a preseason game.

[Jay Edgar]

like a proposition bet on how many times Peyton Manning will point to a defense player on third down in the first quater of a preseason game.

I wanna see that prop,
so that I can play whatever Peyton2MarvinN06 says I should play.


This has turned into a pretty good and thoughful thread -- I had my doubts earlier. But when people find what should be taken seriously in a thread and proceed to discuss it with respect, that's what you get. My hunch is that it would have taken a much less respectful, much less useful turn at most any site comprising the so-called competition.

[Dark Horse]

Cigarettes dont put you in debt over 35,000

Actually, cigarettes can help get rid of all debt.

By flat out killing ya.

[Lucas]

...but OT...

let us be honest, we all, who invest, need average bettors with their stupid decisions and 20+ units plays and their slave, boring, bad paid jobs and their irrational hope. yes i verify it

if everyone invested 2% we would have a very hard life, but the same analogy is when i sit in a restaurant with a girl (ok sitted) and came a person selling me a flover for 1000% percent and i bought it - because i was lazy to buy it before, because i was lazy to think about it before, becuse i am a human. if i were not lazy, but robot, the flower sellers would have been a very hard life. Fortunately for them, pizza delivers, night shops, gas stations and my fucking ISP i am a lazy men, except moneymanagement and lineshopping.

i am on the oppose side of barricade, so maybe HA is right and sees the things more clearly

[pags11]

tacomax does advocate your stance against gambling...he never actually places any bets...