Betonline.com

**bookie** · 03-20-06, 11:05 PM

This is normal practice for someone who looks like they may be good at getting bets in ahead of line-changes.

One of the SBR guys will have to respond to your question about the specific rating.

**bigboydan** · 03-20-06, 11:21 PM

as bookie mentioned above, steam type players are not well liked at alot of books. you've winning too much, there for your limits were cut.

you need to stick with books like pinny,cris,cascade. these types books won't dick you around.

**pags11** · 03-21-06, 04:35 AM

I wouldn't dick around at all with these guys...

**Jack Schitt** · 03-21-06, 10:25 AM

I think BetOnline.com is a hidden gem...I have had an account with them for almost a year. Never had a problem

Eli and JC are two of the nicest customer service people in the industry

JS

**Mudcat** · 03-21-06, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Blackchip

I have a question about a book you have rated a D. I found SBR and Betonline.com by putting in the words "safe sportsbooks" in a google search.

I have been playing there throughout the NCAA tourney and been kicking their butts pretty good. I was getting 2k a game online and won over 10k in the first 2 rounds. I asked for $2500 on Friday and $2500 today and was paid with an hour both times through Neteller. My problem is, I went to bet a NBA total and the max they would take from me was $500.

I called Customer Service and in a very polite manner was told my online limits have been lowered to $500 but I could bet $2000 over the phone. Is this normal practice? Why are they rated a D?

Welcome to the forum Blackchip. Congratulations on your bets.

The practice of reducing limits is very common for smaller books. It's a standard business practice used by certain books who are targeting the recreational player, but don't want to dance with the professionals. It doesn't affect the SBR rating per se; some of the "A" rated books here do it.

As for BetOnLine's D+ rating, that was initiated last August. It is very common for an inital rating to be in that area. History shows that it is sensible to make new books earn higher ratings over a period of time. In the case of Betonline, there is this additional factor:

8/12/2005 12:54:00 PM
SBR Bill Dozer reports BetOnline (SBR rating D+) using stiff bookmaker Robbie Mcphail and old Apex Sportsbook customer list to solicit new players. Multiple players have complained that Robbie is again dialing for deposits; this time, on behalf of the relatively unknown BetOnline. The operation is about one year old and is starting its first marketing campaign. Players should be weary of a sportsbook that chooses to use an individual with a soiled reputation to launch its brand.

**Jack Schitt** · 03-21-06, 11:35 AM

Hummmm

Wierd, hard to believe that one employee, or in this case a past employee can lower a sportsbook rating.

I only comment about this, because I posted about another sportsbook yesterday, that has the same problem, because of the same person?

Shouldn't sportsbooks be rated on lines, payouts and customer service, not who they hire... I have never had a problem with either one of these sportsbooks, and as far as I can tell no one else has on any of the 5 or 6 forum sites???

JS

**jay88** · 03-21-06, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Jack Schitt

I think BetOnline.com is a hidden gem...

They definetely are! The only down side no weekend payments. From there on great sportsbook for avarage bettors. If you are a pro stick to Pinnacle and Cris.

**Mudcat** · 03-21-06, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by Jack Schitt

Hummmm

Wierd, hard to believe that one employee, or in this case a past employee can lower a sportsbook rating.

I don't find that hard to believe at all. I'm not directly involved in SBR's ratings but if I was, and a sportsbook had a scammer working in a position of influence, I would factor it into the rating BIG TIME.

It sounds like you are saying he has left - which is good - but it still leaves question marks hanging over the operation for me (I mean unless the entire ownership has turned over.) I don't have a lot more confidence in an owner who was okay with employing a STIFF than the STIFF himself.

I have seen almost no feedback on any forums about other aspects of this sportsbook's performance. This thread is just about it.

Based on the available evidence, "D" sounds like a proper rating to me, at least for now.