US Sportsbooks which offer Pinnacle lines....

[Igetp2s]

since parlaymakers pays instantly i would give them a B minus, i am sure if they had missed a payment it would have been all over the board, but they are new to get a higher rating, lots of variety , korean baseball to every tennis tournament

This is actually bad, since you get charged 2% of every win when they deposit back to Gold-Pay. I am sure most people here would prefer not to get charged 2% of every winning wager, in exchange for less than instantaneous payouts.

[Doug]

I agree with Igetp2s.

Are Gold-pay and Parlaymakers owned by the same people ?

[vyomguy]

This is actually bad, since you get charged 2% of every win when they deposit back to Gold-Pay. I am sure most people here would prefer not to get charged 2% of every winning wager, in exchange for less than instantaneous payouts.

I think you have an option in parlaymakers to withhold some sum in your account before you cash out. I think you can set that limit. Lets say, you set the limit to $2500...you can keep on making your bets and the winnings will be put into your account but not gold-pay. When your balance exceeds $2500, you will be able to cash out and pay 2% just once. This will save you lot of money.

But as I said earlier, unless they increase the limits to at least a dime per bet, I wont be playing there. With higher limits, they could be one of the top options out there.

[Max009]

This is actually bad, since you get charged 2% of every win when they deposit back to Gold-Pay. I am sure most people here would prefer not to get charged 2% of every winning wager, in exchange for less than instantaneous payouts.

It always amazes me that given all the issues with payouts in the offshore industry that instant payouts are viewed as a negative by some people. With Parlaymakers you are basically getting -106 or better with instant payouts and you are saying that this is a bad deal.

The good news is that there are lots of full juice books without instant payouts to choose from so you don't need to be burdened with being in control of your money.

[wrongturn]

Does parlaymaker offer live game betting, for TV games like NBA playoff?

[Max009]

Does parlaymaker offer live game betting, for TV games like NBA playoff?

At this time there is no live betting. Hopefully in the fall we will have some of that.

[heyman]

since parlaymakers pays instantly i would give them a B minus, i am sure if they had missed a payment it would have been all over the board, but they are new to get a higher rating, lots of variety , korean baseball to every tennis tournament

lol. what are the limits?

[yoteamo79]

used 5dimes they have similar line like pinn u could do almost anything you want and high limit

[Igetp2s]

It always amazes me that given all the issues with payouts in the offshore industry that instant payouts are viewed as a negative by some people. With Parlaymakers you are basically getting -106 or better with instant payouts and you are saying that this is a bad deal.

The good news is that there are lots of full juice books without instant payouts to choose from so you don't need to be burdened with being in control of your money.

Ridiculous post. Would you pay $100 in fees for instant payouts from every book? So saying instant payouts is great without addressing the issue of cost is meaningless.

I didn't say instant payouts are negative. I said instant payouts at the cost of 2% of every winning wager are negative. Instant payouts are a benefit most probably don't need, not at that price. I can live with waiting 1-2 weeks for free check payouts. -106 lines at $250 limits are OK, but nothing special that you can't get better at 5 Dimes or Matchbook.

[Igetp2s]

I think you have an option in parlaymakers to withhold some sum in your account before you cash out. I think you can set that limit. Lets say, you set the limit to $2500...you can keep on making your bets and the winnings will be put into your account but not gold-pay. When your balance exceeds $2500, you will be able to cash out and pay 2% just once. This will save you lot of money. But as I said earlier, unless they increase the limits to at least a dime per bet, I wont be playing there. With higher limits, they could be one of the top options out there.

I didn't know about this, is this somewhere on their website? If true that would be excellent.

[heyman]

used 5dimes they have similar line like pinn

close

and high limit

no

[bookie]

I think you have an option in parlaymakers to withhold some sum in your account before you cash out. I think you can set that limit. Lets say, you set the limit to $2500...you can keep on making your bets and the winnings will be put into your account but not gold-pay.

That's wrong. There is no such option.

[bookie]

It always amazes me that given all the issues with payouts in the offshore industry that instant payouts are viewed as a negative by some people.

I think you're a little tone deaf here, Max. From the players perspective, there is nothing instant about your instant payoffs. If our winnings were deposited right back into our checking accounts--that would be an instant payout. But they're deposited into an offshore entity that isn't registered anywhere and that has no more credibility than Parlaymakers itself. So then, after we've paid the two percent fee to get our instant payout we then have to pay another fee to get that "instant payout" wired to us---and that's not to mention that pre-instant pay out fee we had to pay to get a deposit to Gold-Pay in the first place. So why call them "instant payouts"? Why not call them "Gold-Pay payouts" since that's all they are.

I hope it's clear that I am not a hater. I understand your business model is to outsource your payment processing so that you don't have to do all that rigmarole and can offer low juice lines. I think it's a smart business model, and I hope you're successful. I don't think it's unfair to the player, and might even turn out to be the best thing out their given the harsh environment. But when you say "instant payouts," "instant payouts," "instant payouts," and you're just amazed that people don't get how good it is it just makes a lot of us grind our teeth.

Also let's do the math on what the two percent does to line value. If I bet a -105 line at Parlaymakers I'm betting 105 to win 98, and 105/98 is 107.14....I'm just saying.

[Doug]

good post, bookie !

[Max009]

I think you're a little tone deaf here, Max. From the players perspective, there is nothing instant about your instant payoffs. If our winnings were deposited right back into our checking accounts--that would be an instant payout. But they're deposited into an offshore entity that isn't registered anywhere and that has no more credibility than Parlaymakers itself. So then, after we've paid the two percent fee to get our instant payout we then have to pay another fee to get that "instant payout" wired to us---and that's not to mention that pre-instant pay out fee we had to pay to get a deposit to Gold-Pay in the first place. So why call them "instant payouts"? Why not call them "Gold-Pay payouts" since that's all they are.

I hope it's clear that I am not a hater. I understand your business model is to outsource your payment processing so that you don't have to do all that rigmarole and can offer low juice lines. I think it's a smart business model, and I hope you're successful. I don't think it's unfair to the player, and might even turn out to be the best thing out their given the harsh environment. But when you say "instant payouts," "instant payouts," "instant payouts," and you're just amazed that people don't get how good it is it just makes a lot of us grind our teeth.

Also let's do the math on what the two percent does to line value. If I bet a -105 line at Parlaymakers I'm betting 105 to win 98, and 105/98 is 107.14....I'm just saying.

A couple of quick points. There is a difference between having your money at a book and having your money in an ewallet where you can easily move funds from one book to another or cashout the same day. Having the instant payouts gives the player a lot more control over their funds. As far as the math part goes it is fair to say that on winning wagers you are paying -107 including any fee but then on losing wagers you only have to pay -105, which is the equivalent of all wagers being basically at -106. Of course some lines are actually better than -105 to start and you have the ability to get exchange offers from our exchange members which are guaranteed to be better than our standard lines so it could quite easily be better.

Finally, if you want to say Parlaymakers is offering a lousy deal that is fine but you should compare it to something. If having -106 and the funds back in your control instantly is a bad deal then what is -110 and waiting a week for a payout? I think from a player perspective having more control over your money is very beneficial and if that takes our line from -105 to -106 overall net from the player perspective then I think it is worth it. As you mentioned, certainly from an operational point of view on our end it is very helpful.

I do appreciate your input and understand what you are saying. The customer always wants a better deal no matter how good the deal is to start with.

[bookie]

I do appreciate your input and understand what you are saying.

I don't have the sense that you do appreciate and understand what I'm saying, so let's go over it again.

If you want to say Parlaymakers is offering a lousy deal that is fine but you should compare it to something.

I'm not saying that Parlaymakers is offering a lousy deal. I thought I went out of my way to say the contrary. "I don't think it's unfair to the player, and might even turn out to be the best thing out their given the harsh environment." But I'll say it again, even compared to the big mainstream 11-10 books ParlayMakers may be a good deal--although it's certainly expensive to deposit into it's a reduced juice option and if a lot of users report they've taken multiple instant withdrawals without a hitch it might turn out to be a really good deal.

My objection was to your use of the term "instant payout." It's like you're trying to make a bug into a feature. People hear "instant payouts" and think that they'll get the payout instantly, and of course once they look into it they find out that their are different stages to the payout (from the book to Gold-Pay to a wire or check) and for small bettors the multiple tier of fees is especially expensive. So then they say, "Wait a minute...I thought it was an instant payout, but it's something different than getting the payout instantly." What it is is not bad compared to other books and as you point out there are advantages to having your money at Gold-Pay. When compared to the expectations aroused by the term "instant payout," however, it's disappointing and I think contributes to some of the resistance you're encountering that you've said you find amazing.

As far as the math part goes it is fair to say that on winning wagers you are paying -107 including any fee but then on losing wagers you only have to pay -105, which is the equivalent of all wagers being basically at -106.

In this industry what line value means is amount to win/amount bet. Your argument that losers don't pay juice might make sense to you as an argument, but the received way that line value is calculated is result invariant. Maybe it would be best if you talked to someone you trust about this to see how you're -106 argument amounts to special pleading because I don't really want to debate that with you. I think, though, that you'll find that if you continue calculating juice like that knowledgeable sports bettors will always be giving you grief. By overstating the case (as with "instant payouts") you'll be hurting your efforts to explain the value that ParlayMakers has to offer.

[Max009]

"In this industry what line value means is amount to win/amount bet. Your argument that losers don't pay juice might make sense to you as an argument, but the received way that line value is calculated is result invariant. Maybe it would be best if you talked to someone you trust about this to see how you're -106 argument amounts to special pleading because I don't really want to debate that with you. I think, though, that you'll find that if you continue calculating juice like that knowledgeable sports bettors will always be giving you grief."

The problem is that in fact the additional fee is result variant. To say that all wagers at Parlaymakers are the equivalent of -107 is just false. As I pointed out, on wagers that lose you do not have to wager -107 so in effect you are saving $2 on every $100 wager. If I have one wager at -107 and one at -105 I am wagering 212 to win 200 which is the same as having two wagers at -106. You can't simply calculate the fee on winning wagers and then ignore the fact that you have to wager less on your losing wagers.

[Doug]

point to Max.

[thespeculator]

my reasons for accepting the 2% gold pay fee is very simple. I am not worried about the check showing up . When the check will show up. Depositing the check in a bank and dealing with questions from the teller. Will the check actually clear. In my case the checks are in american dollars and i live in canada, that is an automatic 30 day hold on the check.

So is 2% alot, yes I agree it is, is it worth it, IN MY OPINION , yes

[Igetp2s]

"In this industry what line value means is amount to win/amount bet. Your argument that losers don't pay juice might make sense to you as an argument, but the received way that line value is calculated is result invariant. Maybe it would be best if you talked to someone you trust about this to see how you're -106 argument amounts to special pleading because I don't really want to debate that with you. I think, though, that you'll find that if you continue calculating juice like that knowledgeable sports bettors will always be giving you grief."

The problem is that in fact the additional fee is result variant. To say that all wagers at Parlaymakers are the equivalent of -107 is just false. As I pointed out, on wagers that lose you do not have to wager -107 so in effect you are saving $2 on every $100 wager. If I have one wager at -107 and one at -105 I am wagering 212 to win 200 which is the same as having two wagers at -106. You can't simply calculate the fee on winning wagers and then ignore the fact that you have to wager less on your losing wagers.

Your math is wrong. If the lines are -105 on each side, and you pay 2% on winning wagers, you are risking 105 to win 98 on every wager, which equals a little worse than -107. This is regardless of win or lose. Your "averaging" to get -106 doesn't make sense. If you bet 2 games, win 1 and lose 1, you have won 98 and lost 105 = -$7. That's the same result as betting $107 to win $100 twice, winning once and losing once.

But the issue of lines is irrelevant to my argument. It is a completely separate issue. The type of lines you offer, and the banking rules, have nothing to do with each other.

My argument is solely regarding banking. I am saying that the basic industry standard formula of 1 free check a month for something like $3,000, that takes 1 - 2 weeks to arrive, is superior to paying 2% on every winning wager to get your money instantly to Gold-Pay. You may disagree with that assessment, but I think a majority of posters here would have my preference. I am willing to take a slightly greater risk by having funds remaining at the top notch books, in order to significantly reduce my overall costs. You are entitled to disagree, but you shouldn't be surprised if many people have similar feelings as me.

The ideal would be if Parlaymakers offered their customers a choice in the matter. Then people could decide for themselves which way is better.

[Max009]

Your math is wrong. If the lines are -105 on each side, and you pay 2% on winning wagers, you are risking 105 to win 98 on every wager, which equals a little worse than -107. This is regardless of win or lose. Your "averaging" to get -106 doesn't make sense. If you bet 2 games, win 1 and lose 1, you have won 98 and lost 105 = -$7. That's the same result as betting $107 to win $100 twice, winning once and losing once.

But the issue of lines is irrelevant to my argument. It is a completely separate issue. The type of lines you offer, and the banking rules, have nothing to do with each other.

My argument is solely regarding banking. I am saying that the basic industry standard formula of 1 free check a month for something like $3,000, that takes 1 - 2 weeks to arrive, is superior to paying 2% on every winning wager to get your money instantly to Gold-Pay. You may disagree with that assessment, but I think a majority of posters here would have my preference. I am willing to take a slightly greater risk by having funds remaining at the top notch books, in order to significantly reduce my overall costs. You are entitled to disagree, but you shouldn't be surprised if many people have similar feelings as me.

The ideal would be if Parlaymakers offered their customers a choice in the matter. Then people could decide for themselves which way is better.

I don't think we are going to agree on the math and arriving at the correct value of the line with the fee. Nor do I think it matters. I will stand by what I said earlier.

Like I said before, you can play at other places and pay -110 and get one free check a month. If you think paying -110 on every wager is better than paying -105/-106/-107 and having the money in your e-wallet I doubt there is anything I can do to convince you otherwise. Best of luck to you.

[Doug]

point to Max.

I take this back, Iget is correct....

Your math is wrong. If the lines are -105 on each side, and you pay 2% on winning wagers, you are risking 105 to win 98 on every wager, which equals a little worse than -107. This is regardless of win or lose. Your "averaging" to get -106 doesn't make sense. If you bet 2 games, win 1 and lose 1, you have won 98 and lost 105 = -$7. That's the same result as betting $107 to win $100 twice, winning once and losing once.


if it was two bets at -106 and you split, you'd lose $6, but you lost $7 here.

money could get trapped in ******* if it goes like Neteller as well.

[Max009]

I take this back, Iget is correct....

Your math is wrong. If the lines are -105 on each side, and you pay 2% on winning wagers, you are risking 105 to win 98 on every wager, which equals a little worse than -107. This is regardless of win or lose. Your "averaging" to get -106 doesn't make sense. If you bet 2 games, win 1 and lose 1, you have won 98 and lost 105 = -$7. That's the same result as betting $107 to win $100 twice, winning once and losing once.


if it was two bets at -106 and you split, you'd lose $6, but you lost $7 here.

money could get trapped in ******* if it goes like Neteller as well.

Would you agree that if the fee was 1% whether you won or lost the wager then it would be roughly equivalent to -106? If that is the case then if my wagers were equally half winners and losers then I would be indifferent if I paid 2% on winning wagers or 1% on winning and losing wagers.

[Doug]

Would you agree that if the fee was 1% whether you won or lost the wager then it would be roughly equivalent to -106? If that is the case then if my wagers were equally half winners and losers then I would be indifferent if I paid 2% on winning wagers or 1% on winning and losing wagers.

NO.

1% win or lose ( like accepting at Matchbook) does not make -105 into -106.

That is risking 106 to win 99

-106 divided by 99= -107.07 not -106.

[Igetp2s]

Would you agree that if the fee was 1% whether you won or lost the wager then it would be roughly equivalent to -106? If that is the case then if my wagers were equally half winners and losers then I would be indifferent if I paid 2% on winning wagers or 1% on winning and losing wagers.

No i wouldn't. As Doug explained 5 seconds before I was about to, 1% win or lose is still -107.

And again you go back to the better lines argument. What does reduced juice have to do with the banking argument? I am evaluating 1 specific aspect of your book, and deciding whether it is beneficial or not. In my opinion, it is not. And you are implying that only full juice books offer free payouts in a timely manner, which is not correct.

[Max009]

NO.

1% win or lose ( like accepting at Matchbook) does not make -105 into -106.

That is risking 106 to win 99

-106 divided by 99= -107.07 not -106.

It would either be risking 105 to win 99 or roughly equivalent to 106 to win 100. Where did you get 106 to win 99 from?

[Doug]

It would either be risking 105 to win 99 or roughly equivalent to 106 to win 100. Where did you get 106 to win 99 from?

If the starting line is -105 and you pay 1% win or lose, here is what happens....

you either lose $106 or win $99. This is exactly how it works at Matchbook ( accepting an offer) on NBA for example

say I offer an NBA game at Matchbook

I offer Boston -105, you take it ( for $100), I have LAL at +105, you have Boston at -105. You will pay the commission, not me. I win $105 ( plus a rebate) or lose $100. You will either win $99 or lose $106.

[Max009]

Best of luck to both of you. I don't think we are going to agree that 105 to win 99 is the same as 107 to win 100.

[Doug]

It is 107 to win 100, but is not 106 to win 100.

[Max009]

It is 107 to win 100, but is not 106 to win 100.

105 to win 99 is not the same as 107 to win 100. Those are not mathematical equivalents.

[Doug]

105 to win 99 is not the same as 107 to win 100. Those are not mathematical equivalents.

Your statement in RED is correct.

Here is where you are going wrong. You are not charging yourself the commission on the loss your way. If you had exactly $105 in your Matchbook account, you could not take all of my offer, you'd have to settle for only about $98 getting matched, as in your 105 to win my 98.

WHEN YOU LOSE YOUR BET, YOU ARE LOSING $106, NOT $105.

105 to win 98 and 106 to win 99 are both almost equivalant to 107 to win 100.


We need a few guys to verify this for you Max.

I suggest

Ganchrow
Rickysteve
Justin7
Fishhead
Math.com

to name a few

[bookie]

I think, though, that you'll find that if you continue calculating juice like that knowledgeable sports bettors will always be giving you grief.

It looks like that's what's happening.

Doug, good idea. Since Max has an arbitration agreement with SBR maybe he can call on them to set up an arbitration panel to determine what effective line it's legitimate to claim given the facts. .

[Doug]

The -105 at PM that is really -107 now doesn't look so hot. A full juice shop at -110 can be less than -110 with rewards ( like Betjam), more like -109. 5Dimes and Matchbook look a lot better than PM for straight bets. I have doubts about the exchange being able to match many bets, at this point.

PM is still a good option with a lot of variety there at less than -110.

They are actually about the best around for parlay bettors, with low vig lines in parlays, very few offer that.

Another good thing about PM is that Max will listen to the players. He will eventually see that his -105 is really -107.

[Thomas_Garber]

parlaymakers are scam at work. They will stiff a lot of people. they are trying to building their reputation at the moment with low limits so they can pay...once they get a little popular they will increase the limits and take down lot of cash and run away. don't believe any of their shills posting here.

i know for a fact they are scam in progress from someone in the industry.

[bookie]

It seems to me if they were a scam they wouldn't be working through Gold-Pay, they'd just accept and and all deposits.