My final Creditwagering thread

[Francis Sollozzo]

perhaps the slow pays have begun.

have anyone received their withdrawal today on their DCard?

i have $600.00 coming was told i would have it by 6pm est today. no money and they wont answer email, live chat wont connect. if they are finished at least i'm up money wise w/them.

[onthewhat]

im supposed to get around 650...this was my first week playing with them and they sent my debit card today supposedly

[Francis Sollozzo]

im supposed to get around 650...this was my first week playing with them and they sent my debit card today supposedly

finally got them on live chat, no money today said it will be tomorrow

[BigDaddy]

just pointing this out


All funds are transferred to the Debit Card on Wednesday and available on Thursday 6:00 PM EST.

[big joe 1212]

I guess so, hell I dont know, it's true their concept does look sketchy when you think about all the shot takers but I am starting to think they are better funded than most ppl think and are trying to build a pool of worthy credit customers IMO, plus who wants to have their pic up on the super stiff page forever

who cares about the picture being up. the only people looking are the people playing there. what do they care???

[SBR_John]

Originally Posted by bettilimbroke999
I guess so, hell I dont know, it's true their concept does look sketchy when you think about all the shot takers but I am starting to think they are better funded than most ppl think and are trying to build a pool of worthy credit customers IMO, plus who wants to have their pic up on the super stiff page forever

Here is what they should do.(and maybe were planning all along)

At some point soon they should cut off to all new players except those newbies referred and vouched for by current players. Of the current players, kick out all players who have never sent in a deposit.

The net effect is it would be an expensive way to build a big credit base but that would drop the laydown rate down to where they could make a decent profit. Since they dont have an office or any real overhead they just need a way to control the lay down rate.

[pavyracer]

Here is what they should do.(and maybe were planning all along)

At some point soon they should cut off to all new players except those newbies referred and vouched for by current players. Of the current players, kick out all players who have never sent in a deposit.

The net effect is it would be an expensive way to build a big credit base but that would drop the laydown rate down to where they could make a decent profit. Since they dont have an office or any real overhead they just need a way to control the lay down rate.

That's the worst business proposal I have ever heard. If they cut all the winning players then who's gonna build up their business. You can't build a business by attracting stiffs and losers.

[EddieJones]

But what y'all forget or won't acknowledge is that they pay out if you go over $400. Hell even I have their debit card. I've had to settle one week but I'm still up on this book.

As far as sending them info, you send it to every other cretin out there. Are they more reputable because they're in CR or the Caribs? Yeah like those have never failed.

It's just a normal book except they lure you in by having all of their clients win the first hand, so to speak.. No one is going to pay back $1000 if they lose it all from the get go. They know it, and most of you probably already know that about urselves too.

Solid book and limited action that gives you credit so even if they fall your losses are minimal to none.

[EddieJones]

I just read the post by SBR. No wonder he's retired.

[SBR_John]

I just read the post by SBR. No wonder he's retired.

Just wish I had a nickle for each of these fly-by-nights that came along each year. Like I said, days and weeks not months with this model.

[bettilimbroke999]

That's the point though, they are essentially paying 400+ for each potentially good customer, some of which will become super stiffs and some of which will become good clients, just not sure if that works long-term, but they don't pay anything for advertising which is a fortune for other books so who knows

[jjgold]

Time wil tell

[SBR_John]

Actually they dont have any expenses except for a server in CR. This looks to be run by two guys maybe three.

I'm going to ask one of the top bookies offshore to do the math figuring zero expenses and lets see what laydown rate they would need to achieve to break even.

[EddieJones]

Just wish I had a nickle for each of these fly-by-nights that came along each year. Like I said, days and weeks not months with this model.

By that I meant you seem to be biased towards the books... Than the player. And we can't have that in a gambling forum now can we?

I figure after any book gets a large base of customers, they can live off the juice easy by hedging bets on matchbook. That's what I would do if I had a large client base anyways.

[SBR_John]

If your losers paid like clockwork you could hedge. But if you hedge a bet and the player loses and lays down then the book loses twice. I would doubt they are hedging and really no need to dealing -110.

Im sure CW thinks Im being hard on them. They are welcome to come in here and tell us why this model will work when the math seems to show this model is no where near breakeven.

[bettilimbroke999]

If your losers paid like clockwork you could hedge. But if you hedge a bet and the player loses and lays down then the book loses twice. I would doubt they are hedging and really no need to dealing -110.

Im sure CW thinks Im being hard on them. They are welcome to come in here and tell us why this model will work when the math seems to show this model is no where near breakeven.

I agree with ya mostly John, but it's been 5 months and no payout complaints, I was thinkin it was a total scam 5 months ago and would be closed in a month or 2, now I'm starting to think they are well funded and may make it through the stiff weed out period to a point where all their clients pay when they lose

[pavyracer]

I'm beginning to think that SBR John is a stiff and would welcome CW going out of business to avoid paying his gambling debts. Euro 2008 must have burned his pockets.

[pokernut9999]

Real bookies rarely hedge , in football a bookie may hedge one or two games a week.

[MrX]

The good news is that if you're going to take a chance with an iffy book, the credit model leaves the player less exposed. You only stand to lose the amount you're up for the week, which is generally much less than your entire balance which is at risk at a post-up book.

[SBR_John]

Lets do some math here and maybe some guys who have booked can tell me where I'm wet.

Lets say you hold 7%. Most books do not hold that much but it is possible to hold 7%. For this exercise lets give CW every benefit of the doubt.

Lets say the laydown rate is 15%. I think it is at least 20% probably closer to 30% but again, lets give them every benefit.

Lets put their handle at $5mil a month and operating expenses at a meager $10,000 a month which might cover the server and phone lines. Lets not figure any banking cost, overnight delivery, processing, lines service or the other million expenses traditional books have.

OK, here we go.

They book $5m for the month and hold 7% - gross profit of $350,000.

The losers owe CW $2,675,000
The winners are paid $2,325,000

Now the expenses;
At a 15% laydown rate $401,000
Operating cost is $ 10,000
Total costs $411,000

Gross profit $350,000
Expenses $411,000
Profit/(loss) ($ 61,000)

Cash flow and P/L will of course differ considerably since this is credit. But thats how I see it and that gives CW a whole bunch of benefits of doubt. Like the laydown rate. The above calculations assumes that CW gets only 1 stiff for every 6.5 losers. It also assumes they have almost no operating cost and no salaried employees, office, ect.

I'm not anti anything. If someone can show me the light on how they can turn a profit I'm all ears.

[bettilimbroke999]

Think about it though, once they get to a point where they have deposit history players will they be screwed 15% of the time, I don't think so. I think they are losing a good bit per month right now building a credit shop full of worthy clients, perhaps as you stated earlier they will disallow new signups and end this stiff weed out process at some point and are relying on a near 100% payin rate after that, idk exactly what their plan is but if they get stiffed 15% of the time for their entire business plan then there is no way they turn a profit, true.

[Cloak & Dagger]

Lets do some math here and maybe some guys who have booked can tell me where I'm wet.

Lets say you hold 7%. Most books do not hold that much but it is possible to hold 7%. For this exercise lets give CW every benefit of the doubt.

Lets say the laydown rate is 15%. I think it is at least 20% probably closer to 30% but again, lets give them every benefit.

Lets put their handle at $5mil a month and operating expenses at a meager $10,000 a month which might cover the server and phone lines. Lets not figure any banking cost, overnight delivery, processing, lines service or the other million expenses traditional books have.

OK, here we go.

They book $5m for the month and hold 7% - gross profit of $350,000.

The losers owe CW $2,675,000
The winners are paid $2,325,000

Now the expenses;
At a 15% laydown rate $401,000
Operating cost is $ 10,000
Total costs $411,000

Gross profit $350,000
Expenses $411,000
Profit/(loss) ($ 61,000)

Cash flow and P/L will of course differ considerably since this is credit. But thats how I see it and that gives CW a whole bunch of benefits of doubt. Like the laydown rate. The above calculations assumes that CW gets only 1 stiff for every 6.5 losers. It also assumes they have almost no operating cost and no salaried employees, office, ect.

I'm not anti anything. If someone can show me the light on how they can turn a profit I'm all ears.

[bettilimbroke999]

Everyone knows this is a risky book, would I be playing there if this weren't a credit shop that was 10x more convenient than other books, no. The worst part of sports gambling is to have your money tied up in sportsbooks that require deposit first, I personally hate it, I like having access to my money, maybe the other posters don't mind it but I do. I will pay my losses that's fine but I don't like loaning my money to Bodog then waiting 2 months when I want to withdraw it, back in the old days with instant payouts it wasn't as big of an issue, but now I think credit shops are a good idea. Hey if they know you are going to pay when you lose what's the difference if you pay up front or not, they will make the same amount of money, but creditwagering will first need to weed out the stiffs and I imagine they will lose a good bit of money doing that, but hopefully they end up with a pool of gamblers with a bit of integrity in the end and survive, if not they close and screw ppl out of their winnings that week or reward ppl by cancelling their losses that week.

[Bet Shooter]

Lets do some math here and maybe some guys who have booked can tell me where I'm wet.

Lets say you hold 7%. Most books do not hold that much but it is possible to hold 7%. For this exercise lets give CW every benefit of the doubt.

Lets say the laydown rate is 15%. I think it is at least 20% probably closer to 30% but again, lets give them every benefit.

Lets put their handle at $5mil a month and operating expenses at a meager $10,000 a month which might cover the server and phone lines. Lets not figure any banking cost, overnight delivery, processing, lines service or the other million expenses traditional books have.

OK, here we go.

They book $5m for the month and hold 7% - gross profit of $350,000.

The losers owe CW $2,675,000
The winners are paid $2,325,000

Now the expenses;
At a 15% laydown rate $401,000
Operating cost is $ 10,000
Total costs $411,000

Gross profit $350,000
Expenses $411,000
Profit/(loss) ($ 61,000)

Cash flow and P/L will of course differ considerably since this is credit. But thats how I see it and that gives CW a whole bunch of benefits of doubt. Like the laydown rate. The above calculations assumes that CW gets only 1 stiff for every 6.5 losers. It also assumes they have almost no operating cost and no salaried employees, office, ect.

I'm not anti anything. If someone can show me the light on how they can turn a profit I'm all ears.

Great post John. Couple of things:

7% Hold? That is STEEP. I know you said to give them the benefit of the doubt, but that is way too high. The highest I have ever seen for a mid-sized or large book is just over 4%. Some years it can be in the 2.5 range, like the year that SF rolled in the Super Bowl. Some years, more than the standard rate of 1 in 20 games gets middled and that eats into the hold % too. Now if they are doing a HUGE race business, then they could approach that 7% combined. But I doubt it. They would have to take more Para-Wagers than sports. I don't know any book that does that. Also they obviously can't be included in the Para-pools for each track.

The laydown rate is a complete guess for all of us. Just by the nature of their business model, I am sure they are attracting more people looking to just take a shot at them. These types of people probably had no intention of paying them in the first place or don't have the means to pay in the first place. Whether it's intentional or not is irrelevant. It's still the same outcome. But what the % is ? It's anybody's guess.

Let's focus on the 5Mill/month Handle. That is a lot if you are offering out 1K per client and I think someone posted that they limit your max wager to 100? I am not sure about that number. But, that means they are booking 50K wagers every month? How many possible players can they have to get 50K wagers a month? Keep in mind, every week more are signing up, but are they signing up faster than the stiffs are dropping off the back side at whatever the lay down rate is?

This is the part that I have the problem with, The hold % is an AVERAGE over time. There are many fluctuations during that time. Maybe Ganch can help out here, but what can their draw downs be the first 5 months? It's possible they can run out of money paying out even before time gets a chance to smooth out their results, and they start to approach the true hold % of 4 percent. Just like a crap table. They will make money over time. But the day they open it for play, they are at the most short term risk to lose money. But after a certain # of rolls of the dice they will have a greater percentage chance to come closer to the true odds that are always working for the house. Eventually they are right on that % at some future point in time. Do they have the steam to keep this going if they don't start out lucky and the curve is not in their favor right away? Worse, are they doing well now, only to get hit with a huge drawdown later when everyone is wagering more money and starting to hit again? It takes a while until time smooths out the ups and downs. Do they have that kind of time? We will see.

As far as expenses go, a small shop will run 700/month for leasing space large enough to sit about 8 people max. The hardware is 2500/month for everything. Redundant Servers, Power Back-up, Phones, Desks, Workstations. 3000/Month for licensed gaming software with Pinny lines. Utilities and a small per minute phone charge of .03/ minute. Middle of the road educated staff will run you about 1K per month/person. You also have the 13 month rule in CR so each person will run you 13K per year, plus medical and vacation and holidays. Remember, we never close! You can thank Sharky for all this info on expenses. That is not expensing any of the payment and banking stuff. It costs money to move 5mil handle everymonth. Unless these guys are sleeping at their desks, then they are way over 10K per month expenses.

Maybe they are using PPH (that is my theory). Even at rock bottom pricing of 15/player/week, they are way over 10K. With 200 steady players, they are at 12K per month. But how the hell can they get 5Mil Handle with 200 players? They would have to be whales, and what would a whale need credit for? Also, would a whale take a chance on a new book?

Doomed from the start. Maybe it's the goverment with deep pockets going after the little people like the way they tried to make an example of some people with Napster!

My two cents

[SBR_John]

Thanks BetShooter for breaking it down. Good thinking on the pph. I didnt think of that. Maybe they are not doing 5mil in handle as you suggested although 5mil is a very small number. The hold % could be 7% at a square, low limit credit shop before laydowns I think? One more thing, even if the laydown rate was 10%, only 1 out of 10 losers failed to pay, they still would be upside down.

There has to be a part II to this business plan.

[big joe 1212]

Lets do some math here and maybe some guys who have booked can tell me where I'm wet.

Lets say you hold 7%. Most books do not hold that much but it is possible to hold 7%. For this exercise lets give CW every benefit of the doubt.

Lets say the laydown rate is 15%. I think it is at least 20% probably closer to 30% but again, lets give them every benefit.

Lets put their handle at $5mil a month and operating expenses at a meager $10,000 a month which might cover the server and phone lines. Lets not figure any banking cost, overnight delivery, processing, lines service or the other million expenses traditional books have.

OK, here we go.

They book $5m for the month and hold 7% - gross profit of $350,000.

The losers owe CW $2,675,000
The winners are paid $2,325,000

Now the expenses;
At a 15% laydown rate $401,000
Operating cost is $ 10,000
Total costs $411,000

Gross profit $350,000
Expenses $411,000
Profit/(loss) ($ 61,000)

Cash flow and P/L will of course differ considerably since this is credit. But thats how I see it and that gives CW a whole bunch of benefits of doubt. Like the laydown rate. The above calculations assumes that CW gets only 1 stiff for every 6.5 losers. It also assumes they have almost no operating cost and no salaried employees, office, ect.

I'm not anti anything. If someone can show me the light on how they can turn a profit I'm all ears.

I book and I never lay off bets unless everyone goes one way. I sometimes get hit, but I have saved up winnings over the years to survive. The junkies who spend all their winnings might do all that BS.

[flyingillini]

Great post John. Couple of things:

7% Hold? That is STEEP. I know you said to give them the benefit of the doubt, but that is way too high. The highest I have ever seen for a mid-sized or large book is just over 4%. Some years it can be in the 2.5 range, like the year that SF rolled in the Super Bowl. Some years, more than the standard rate of 1 in 20 games gets middled and that eats into the hold % too. Now if they are doing a HUGE race business, then they could approach that 7% combined. But I doubt it. They would have to take more Para-Wagers than sports. I don't know any book that does that. Also they obviously can't be included in the Para-pools for each track.

The laydown rate is a complete guess for all of us. Just by the nature of their business model, I am sure they are attracting more people looking to just take a shot at them. These types of people probably had no intention of paying them in the first place or don't have the means to pay in the first place. Whether it's intentional or not is irrelevant. It's still the same outcome. But what the % is ? It's anybody's guess.

Let's focus on the 5Mill/month Handle. That is a lot if you are offering out 1K per client and I think someone posted that they limit your max wager to 100? I am not sure about that number. But, that means they are booking 50K wagers every month? How many possible players can they have to get 50K wagers a month? Keep in mind, every week more are signing up, but are they signing up faster than the stiffs are dropping off the back side at whatever the lay down rate is?

This is the part that I have the problem with, The hold % is an AVERAGE over time. There are many fluctuations during that time. Maybe Ganch can help out here, but what can their draw downs be the first 5 months? It's possible they can run out of money paying out even before time gets a chance to smooth out their results, and they start to approach the true hold % of 4 percent. Just like a crap table. They will make money over time. But the day they open it for play, they are at the most short term risk to lose money. But after a certain # of rolls of the dice they will have a greater percentage chance to come closer to the true odds that are always working for the house. Eventually they are right on that % at some future point in time. Do they have the steam to keep this going if they don't start out lucky and the curve is not in their favor right away? Worse, are they doing well now, only to get hit with a huge drawdown later when everyone is wagering more money and starting to hit again? It takes a while until time smooths out the ups and downs. Do they have that kind of time? We will see.

As far as expenses go, a small shop will run 700/month for leasing space large enough to sit about 8 people max. The hardware is 2500/month for everything. Redundant Servers, Power Back-up, Phones, Desks, Workstations. 3000/Month for licensed gaming software with Pinny lines. Utilities and a small per minute phone charge of .03/ minute. Middle of the road educated staff will run you about 1K per month/person. You also have the 13 month rule in CR so each person will run you 13K per year, plus medical and vacation and holidays. Remember, we never close! You can thank Sharky for all this info on expenses. That is not expensing any of the payment and banking stuff. It costs money to move 5mil handle everymonth. Unless these guys are sleeping at their desks, then they are way over 10K per month expenses.

Maybe they are using PPH (that is my theory). Even at rock bottom pricing of 15/player/week, they are way over 10K. With 200 steady players, they are at 12K per month. But how the hell can they get 5Mil Handle with 200 players? They would have to be whales, and what would a whale need credit for? Also, would a whale take a chance on a new book?

Doomed from the start. Maybe it's the goverment with deep pockets going after the little people like the way they tried to make an example of some people with Napster!

My two cents

This by far has made the most sense. Great post and Shootie knows what he is talking about.

[big joe 1212]

gov't doing this.. no way!!!!!

not much they could do to us, do you think they would be sending us money????

[Cloak & Dagger]

gov't doing this.. no way!!!!!

not much they could do to us, do you think they would be sending us money????

BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHA

ya...FOR SURE its not the government...giving out the stimulus checks were enough

[fiveteamer]

CW is not doing big numbers with the races. The racebook is in a word, a joke.

[purecarnagge]

So basically even with generous numbers you can make more money by putting 5 million into a savings account with a bank with no risk.

[bettilimbroke999]

So basically even with generous numbers you can make more money by putting 5 million into a savings account with a bank with no risk.

Agreed, I've always thought books like Pinny, Betfair, and other high dollar books prolly make a fortune off the interest of the deposits they hold

[pokernut9999]

Guess you guys have not noticed interest rates lately. No one is making much at any bank.

[bettilimbroke999]

One thing you guys are overlooking is that CW is a great site which offers some of the fastest free payouts online and ppl will likely pay (like I did) b/c they like the book itself, they are certainly risky but I'm certainly rooting for them to stick around b/c they are perfect for small betting MLB and could maybe even be good for college football or NFL

[picantel]

Actually they dont have any expenses except for a server in CR. This looks to be run by two guys maybe three.

I'm going to ask one of the top bookies offshore to do the math figuring zero expenses and lets see what laydown rate they would need to achieve to break even.

They are actually run by 5 guys and they are quite familiar with you John and the other SBR owners, ect.