Sportsbook Review Process

**jackkkk2009** · 05-01-10, 08:37 AM

WSEX.com should go into blacklist.

**MadTiger** · 05-01-10, 08:42 AM

As a business consultant and investor, I can't imagine doing any type of objective review process WITHOUT looking at a balance sheet. I can't fathom it. Fa real.

**thespeculator** · 05-01-10, 09:33 AM

how about when a book can't pay you through an e wallet because there merchant fund doesn't have enough money, so basically they are paying you with incoming funds, why can't they just fund the account even if it takes a couple of days,

**trixtrix** · 05-01-10, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Hareeba!

Looking at the criteria mentioned when SBR does a sportsbook review there seems to be one glaring omission: the Balance Sheet !!

Reading about the crap players are getting from WSEX and other books it seems pretty obvious to me that there are lots of sportsbooks out there that rely on players to fund their working capital.

Sportsbooks have no right to use players' funds for their own purposes.

No way should a bookmaker be using player deposits for working capital funding purposes.

Ideally player depos.ts should be held in a separate trust account and the bookmaker should only be entitled to access those funds when players lose. Conversely the trust account should be topped up when players win. A daily settlement process should be in place.

Government appointed regulators are failing in their duty to players if they are not requiring and policing the above.

Any proper review of a sportsbook must include a review of their balance sheet to ensure that player monies are not being put at risk. Books which fail that test should not be rated at all but placed on the Blacklist as they simply don't have the money to pay all their clients out and are technically insolvent.

lol

1.) sportsbooks (w/ maybe a few euro book exceptions) are not public entities and therefore had no need (and likely will not) divulge their balance sheet (assuming they even have one) to the public/sbr.

2.) "govt appointed regulators"?? from where? el grand del rey of san jose better business bureau? no such entity exist in most offshore countries such as costa rica and panama that the online books are hosted in.

**Hareeba!** · 05-01-10, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by trixtrix

lol

1.) sportsbooks (w/ maybe a few euro book exceptions) are not public entities and therefore had no need (and likely will not) divulge their balance sheet (assuming they even have one) to the public/sbr.

Irrelevant. If they want to be rated by a reputable agency then they ought to be willing to disclose whatever is required to them.

Originally posted by trixtrix

2.) "govt appointed regulators"?? from where? el grand del rey of san jose better business bureau? no such entity exist in most offshore countries such as costa rica and panama that the online books are hosted in.

I'm not sure that is correct. All that I've ever played at have been regulated.
I wouldn't even contemplate putting money into one that wasn't.

**acarmelo1** · 05-01-10, 11:04 AM

In panama we have the JCJ Gaming regulation bureau

**trixtrix** · 05-02-10, 01:34 PM

right, have you ever met a gaming regulator from there who saw a book's balance sheet?

**trixtrix** · 05-02-10, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Hareeba!

Irrelevant. If they want to be rated by a reputable agency then they ought to be willing to disclose whatever is required to them.

I'm not sure that is correct. All that I've ever played at have been regulated.
I wouldn't even contemplate putting money into one that wasn't.

right, why don't you email other private companies like zuffa and ask them to disclose their balance sheet to you?

**Hareeba!** · 05-02-10, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by trixtrix

right, why don't you email other private companies like zuffa and ask them to disclose their balance sheet to you?

Missing the point totally mate

If they were wanting me to endorse their product that is what they would have to do

This is all about integrity

Are you happy to lend your money for free to a sportsbook to fund its business with no assurances that it can pay its debts when they fall due?

I'm certainly not

But I strongly suspect that is what you are doing when playing at a lot of them

**trixtrix** · 05-02-10, 08:59 PM

that's b/c ALL the relevant books NEVER reveal their balance sheet, why do you think sbr insist on office visits? it's b/c the working condition is the only gauge of a book's financial position that's easily available to outsiders..

affiliates endorse the books for profit, simple as that. not b/c of integrity issues.

you're barking up the wrong tree on this thread b/c this is a pipe-dream that will never happen

**Thremp** · 05-02-10, 09:47 PM

I think "pipe dream" is the best summation of this thread.

**Hareeba!** · 05-02-10, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by Thremp

I think "pipe dream" is the best summation of this thread.

So, effectively you are saying it is okay for sportsbooks to raise free working capital from their customers?

Do you realise that simply means they don't have enough funds at any time to pay out all customers' balances?

And that once customers stop or severely slow up putting new money in that the show is likely to collapse and customer funds will not be repaid in full?

And you are happy to play at books like that?

Do you think government regulators should allow them to operate like that?

**flyingillini** · 05-02-10, 11:33 PM

Very good information in this thread!

**Thremp** · 05-03-10, 04:00 AM

Originally posted by Hareeba!

So, effectively you are saying it is okay for sportsbooks to raise free working capital from their customers? Do you realise that simply means they don't have enough funds at any time to pay out all customers' balances? And that once customers stop or severely slow up putting new money in that the show is likely to collapse and customer funds will not be repaid in full? And you are happy to play at books like that? Do you think government regulators should allow them to operate like that?

No. I clearly didn't say anything of the sort.

All the following questions stem from that ridiculous ass strawman.

**Santo** · 05-03-10, 05:12 AM

H: The problem is that 'regulators' in the Costa Rica or Panama sense carry little more weight than exchanging a rubber stamp for a sum of money; they don't care, they don't mediate and they don't regulate, certainly not in the way you would be used to with Aussie / UK books. I've never even looked at whether an offshore book I use is regulated, forums and websites like SBR carry far more useful information, even if you have to read between the lines.

**Hareeba!** · 05-03-10, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by Santo

H: The problem is that 'regulators' in the Costa Rica or Panama sense carry little more weight than exchanging a rubber stamp for a sum of money; they don't care, they don't mediate and they don't regulate, certainly not in the way you would be used to with Aussie / UK books. I've never even looked at whether an offshore book I use is regulated, forums and websites like SBR carry far more useful information, even if you have to read between the lines.

That's my point Santo. I fear that the lack of adequate control over the operation of sportsbooks in many jurisdictions leads to the practice I have referred to.

The bottom line is that if players' funds are being used to fund the working capital of these businesses they are almost certainly at least technically insolvent.

A proper process of review should identify that risk to players and result in an appropriate grading

**Climate** · 05-03-10, 05:55 AM

Add Customer Service ratings, player cumulative ratings and a few other ratings to this.

**Krtica** · 05-03-10, 08:05 PM

Those who bet long time, know where to deposit and where not , Costa Rica , Jamaica , North Pole , North Korea, Nicaragua , Philipines, doesnt matter.
- " review of their balance sheet " will be NEVER known.
- anyway , old guys know where to bet , deposit , etc...

**Hareeba!** · 05-03-10, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Krtica

- " review of their balance sheet " will be NEVER known.

why?
if they want to borrow money from a bank they'd have to show it
if they want to be endorsed by a reputable entity they should expect to have to demonstrate that depositors' funds are secure and not being used to fund the business

Originally posted by Krtica

- anyway , old guys know where to bet , deposit , etc...

okay, so bugger all the young guys who are prone to being ripped off by rogue operators?

**trixtrix** · 05-04-10, 10:19 AM

hareeba, what is your point here? you won't be able to make the books submit their balance sheet to anyone. and if you don't want to play there then that's fine, those of us who want to win bigger than 3 digit bets will have to assume some risk and go to these books.

so what's your argument exactly?

**Hareeba!** · 05-04-10, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by trixtrix

hareeba, what is your point here? you won't be able to make the books submit their balance sheet to anyone. and if you don't want to play there then that's fine, those of us who want to win bigger than 3 digit bets will have to assume some risk and go to these books.

so what's your argument exactly?

I really thought I'd stated it pretty clearly.

1. A review of a sportsbook must take into account the way players' funds are protected. I can't see how one can do that without access to the balance sheet or ample evidence of the proper conduct of a separate trust account for all player monies.

2. If they are not kept separate from the operators' funds and always available for prompt payout they must be at risk and the book shouldn't be endorsed but placed on a blacklist.

3. Use of players' funds for a sportsbook's working capital purposes means that players' are providing free unsecured loans to the sportsbook for risk capital. I doubt most players realise that and would willing do so if they did.

4. Regulatory bodies aren't doing the job they should be and which players' should be entitled to expect unless they are policing the separation of players' and operators' funds.

**trixtrix** · 05-05-10, 06:52 AM

it's obv you don't understand a damn thing you've been told in this thread, gl to you sir

**Peeig** · 05-05-10, 09:02 AM

Besides the fact that this will never happen......seeing the balance sheet of a stand alone entity might not tell you that much........especially if the owners aren't keen on keeping a bunch of assets on this entities balance sheet........you would need to see consolidated balance sheets or possibly net worth reports of the owners.....again, dreamland.

**Hareeba!** · 05-05-10, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by trixtrix

it's obv you don't understand a damn thing you've been told in this thread, gl to you sir

Oh, I understand what I've been told okay

What I don't understand is that there seem to be so many like you who don't appear to care that your money is being used interest free in risky enterprises and that you may as a result never see it again. For a current example just look at the crap going on with WSEX.

**Hareeba!** · 05-05-10, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Peeig

Besides the fact that this will never happen......seeing the balance sheet of a stand alone entity might not tell you that much........especially if the owners aren't keen on keeping a bunch of assets on this entities balance sheet........you would need to see consolidated balance sheets or possibly net worth reports of the owners.....again, dreamland.

I don't think it needs go that far.
Just far enough to demonstrate that players' money is being kept separate and always available to be paid out.

**Thremp** · 05-05-10, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Hareeba!

Oh, I understand what I've been told okay What I don't understand is that there seem to be so many like you who don't appear to care that your money is being used interest free in risky enterprises and that you may as a result never see it again. For a current example just look at the crap going on with WSEX.

Because we want to make money.

**Hareeba!** · 05-05-10, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Thremp

Because we want to make money.

LOL, go ahead, keep making Monopoly money at WSEX

**Thremp** · 05-05-10, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Hareeba!

LOL, go ahead, keep making Monopoly money at WSEX

Yeah. And Pinnacle. Bookmaker. Greek. etc etc.

**Hareeba!** · 05-05-10, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Thremp

Yeah. And Pinnacle. Bookmaker. Greek. etc etc.

I wouldn't know for certain (as I am unaware of any rating agency which does the full monty on them) but I'd be surprised if Pinnacle doesn't do the right thing. Probably also Greek and maybe Bookmaker/CRIS/DSI also.

However I suspect there are are a lot more dodgy than clean ones in regard to how they deal with player funds.

**Hareeba!** · 05-06-10, 05:26 PM

Bet911 the latest one to be caught out misusing players' money

there are heaps more out there

**Thremp** · 05-06-10, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by Hareeba!

I wouldn't know for certain (as I am unaware of any rating agency which does the full monty on them) but I'd be surprised if Pinnacle doesn't do the right thing. Probably also Greek and maybe Bookmaker/CRIS/DSI also. However I suspect there are are a lot more dodgy than clean ones in regard to how they deal with player funds.

So now you're just making up bullshit? Good post. Thanks!

**Hareeba!** · 05-06-10, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Thremp

So now you're just making up bullshit? Good post. Thanks!

precisely what is the "made up bullshit"?

**Thremp** · 05-06-10, 07:00 PM

You don't know wtf these places are doing. You're speculating.

**Hareeba!** · 05-06-10, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by Thremp

You don't know wtf these places are doing. You're speculating.

to some extent that is correct
and precisely whey we need reviews that cover off on the issue
WSEX and Bet911 are two current examples of what I've been talking about
Surely you don't suggest there are no others?