lets examine why a book gets an "A" or above rating ok?
1) It pays out without a problem
2) It offers great lines
3) Offer good bonuses,without crazy rolloevers
If a book does these three things well i see no reason why it shouldnt be "A", so in that regard you are correct for basically failing Oddsmaker, BUT if in order to get an "A" or above rating you have to be perfect in all aspects how the hell does Bookmaker not just get an A but an A+?
1) They have by far the worst MLB lines of any book, BY FAR!
For example, Right now Bookmaker has Boston ML at -165
WSEX has them at -157
LAA ML are -151 to WSEX's -143
So basically every game they are worse than there competitors, yet they get a better rating
2) Dont know about there payouts, lets assume they are good, but they are dishonest about bonuses, they said 20% bonus i put in 200 they say minimum is 300 for bonus, after there was no mention of this tidbit
All in all i am just wondering why Bookmaker gets high ratings?
1) It pays out without a problem
2) It offers great lines
3) Offer good bonuses,without crazy rolloevers
If a book does these three things well i see no reason why it shouldnt be "A", so in that regard you are correct for basically failing Oddsmaker, BUT if in order to get an "A" or above rating you have to be perfect in all aspects how the hell does Bookmaker not just get an A but an A+?
1) They have by far the worst MLB lines of any book, BY FAR!
For example, Right now Bookmaker has Boston ML at -165
WSEX has them at -157
LAA ML are -151 to WSEX's -143
So basically every game they are worse than there competitors, yet they get a better rating
2) Dont know about there payouts, lets assume they are good, but they are dishonest about bonuses, they said 20% bonus i put in 200 they say minimum is 300 for bonus, after there was no mention of this tidbit
All in all i am just wondering why Bookmaker gets high ratings?