Consumer Reports accepts no advertising

**Spedizzo** · 01-10-13, 08:15 PM

It'll never be established, you would essentially be paying a subscription for a watch dog that won't even remotely have the pull of SBR. If a book doesn't pay you, what can they do? You will be paying a subscription for the same result.

In theory it's a great idea though. Places like SBR and the like have been around too long for a new "watchdog" to be the standard. As corrupt as SBR is, every place or forum has had it's share.

It's a dirty business. People need to do their own due diligence and not put anything they can afford to lose offshore.

**Dark Horse** · 01-10-13, 08:17 PM

Not sure. By now CR offshore is 95% the scum of the earth. Wouldn't it be a waste of time to try to make honest people out of crooks?

It's up to the few honest books to make a strong statement. They need to unequivocally condemn these scammers, rather than shrug them off as 'business as usual', and go to extreme lengths to ensure that players can be offered a safe and secure investing environment. If not, things will only go from bad to worse. There are those who believe it won't get worse if nothing is changed. They are wrong. Just look at the timeline since the anti-internet gambling 'legislation'. Things have been going downhill ever since, with everybody looking out only for themselves, often at the cost of others, and that will continue unless someone or some books with integrity stand up. These people still exist. The ball is in their court. May the true leaders stand up and be counted.

**Dark Horse** · 01-10-13, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Spedizzo

It'll never be established, you would essentially be paying a subscription for a watch dog that won't even remotely have the pull of SBR. If a book doesn't pay you, what can they do? You will be paying a subscription for the same result.

In theory it's a great idea though. Places like SBR and the like have been around too long for a new "watchdog" to be the standard. As corrupt as SBR is, every place or forum has had it's share.

It's a dirty business. People need to do their own due diligence and not put anything they can afford to lose offshore.

SBR is done as a watchdog. People who still give them credibility are either nuts, or are getting paid. As far as opportunity, there is a very big opening. PC is right about that.

**jgilmartin** · 01-10-13, 08:30 PM

Wouldn't need to be a pay service; you could have ads for businesses that aren't sportsbooks. Just run ads from an ad network (not sure if Google would approve it for AdSense or not, but there are many other competing networks out there.

**Santo** · 01-10-13, 08:50 PM

Online ads pay virtually nothing compared to even 10 years ago, you couldn't finance a business on them -- not even Twitter et al. can do that.

**princecharles** · 01-11-13, 06:05 AM

See if there was some sort of private FDIC equivalent that books could pay to attach themselves to, or players could pay to be covered by, this would not seem like a ridiculous idea.

A book would gain GIGANTIC good publicity if they could show a verifiable segregation of player funds from operating and payout monies.

**AlwaysDrawing** · 01-11-13, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by princecharles

See if there was some sort of private FDIC equivalent that books could pay to attach themselves to, or players could pay to be covered by, this would not seem like a ridiculous idea.

A book would gain GIGANTIC good publicity if they could show a verifiable segregation of player funds from operating and payout monies.

Segregated funds will never happen with a sportsbook. With poker you can just keep player funds in a segregated account, and charge that account daily with the rake accrued.

With Sportsbooks, it's much more fragile. Dollars won by Player A don't indicate a loss by Player B like in poker. Books can win or lose on the whole by day or week. That's why even in Las Vegas you only see sportsbooks as tangential to the main business of table wagering, because holding cash reserves is EXPENSIVE.

**princecharles** · 01-11-13, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by AlwaysDrawing

Segregated funds will never happen with a sportsbook. With poker you can just keep player funds in a segregated account, and charge that account daily with the rake accrued.

With Sportsbooks, it's much more fragile. Dollars won by Player A don't indicate a loss by Player B like in poker. Books can win or lose on the whole by day or week. That's why even in Las Vegas you only see sportsbooks as tangential to the main business of table wagering, because holding cash reserves is EXPENSIVE.

Very smart response. (Not sarcastic).

Still, how would you structure a 'hybrid' outside the box ideal 'safety net' for players in an ideal world, working with the current climate 'on the ground'?

**tarheelfan72** · 01-12-13, 12:09 AM

People would pay if the "watchdog" site offered insurance on their recommended books. That is also how you keep people from sharing accounts, as only one person would get insurance. Would you pay $30 a month for a service that gave unbiased ratings AND promised to pay you if the book did not?

Obviously there would have to be limits, like you can't insure a $75K balance at a Costa Rican sportsbook. That would invite new insurance scams to develop. But, there are ways to do this in a profitable and mutually beneficial way.

**tto827** · 01-12-13, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by tarheelfan72

People would pay if the "watchdog" site offered insurance on their recommended books. That is also how you keep people from sharing accounts, as only one person would get insurance. Would you pay $30 a month for a service that gave unbiased ratings AND promised to pay you if the book did not?

Obviously there would have to be limits, like you can't insure a $75K balance at a Costa Rican sportsbook. That would invite new insurance scams to develop. But, there are ways to do this in a profitable and mutually beneficial way.

In your dreams bro. I'd love to see it happen but c'mon. If it would be so profitable why don't you start this business?

**Dark Horse** · 01-12-13, 03:08 AM

More practical to simply leave CR. They had an opportunity to cater to the US public in a professional manner, and they blew it.

**Hankwins** · 01-12-13, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

More practical to simply leave CR. They had an opportunity to cater to the US public in a professional manner, and they blew it.

wow the dirtbags behind betislands now represnts all of of bookcmakers in CR? thanks
for filling us in.

**JasonDC** · 01-12-13, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by Hankwins

wow the dirtbags behind betislands now represnts all of of bookcmakers in CR? thanks
for filling us in.

Im not sure if he was referring to all bookmakers..he might have been talking about SBR.

**princecharles** · 01-12-13, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

More practical to simply leave CR. They had an opportunity to cater to the US public in a professional manner, and they blew it.

Dark Horse is right.

He understands the nepotistic inbred CR sportsbook culture far better than most.

Too many players are persuaded by varied looking websites into thinking there are solid firewalls separating these operations.

Don't be fooled any longer into believing the American paradigm of competition and transparent anti trust practices exist in this tiny fourth world graft riddled shithole.

When the music stops, there will be far fewer chairs to jump into than most of you understand.