Not sure what you think I am trying to argue. I am saying a rating system that doesn't have the flexibility to differentiate between an operation with 250+ employees paying out millions of dollars a month and a brand new place with 2 guys and a phone is a problem. 3 months ago SBR viewed Bet911 as a full letter grade safer than either Sportsbook.com or SBG. That was a serious misrepresentation to anyone who is using that information to help make a decision.
-
Comment -
Yes, Sportsbook.com and SBG are well-established Ds with long histories of unresolved disputes and blatant theft. Bet911 was an uncertain C with little history but many things going for it. They have yet to actually stiff anyone that I'm aware of. Their owner got busted, a risk shared by bookmakers all along the spectrum. Thems are the breaks.Comment -
An analogy:
You give the 18 year old chemistry student a $1000 credit line.
You give the 35 year old that pays his cable bill but not his mortgage a $0 credit line.Comment -
You are thinking of a different book. Bet911 has gone broke and stiffed everybody. Which do you think is more likely a new book to go broke and stiff everybody or sportsbook.com to go broke next year and stiff everybody? The SBR rating says the probability of those two things happening are the same when clearly they are not. It is just a flaw that should be fixed to provide better information to the SBR readers.Comment -
I thought you were talking about BetFirstClass, but the point stands.
Sportsbook.com has a 0% chance of going broke, so they should be A+ in your world? What color is the sky there?
Is the real issue here that you're disgruntled about your own current rating?Comment -
My point is that the rating system can be improved to differentiate between very large books that are financially sound but may have previous issues and brand new books which are much more likely to go under than a book with 250+ employees and that has been around for ten years. Right now the SBR rating can not distinguish between those two types of books.
So the recommendation is improve the rating system to better represent reality. I have suggested solutions in other threads, primarily to develop a two tier system so as to compare large established books with each other and then compare small new books with each other. The understanding being that all tier 1 books are better than tier 2 books regardless of grade. So sportsbook.com could be rated as a tier 1 book with a D rating but it would still be recognized as more financially stable than any tier 2 book. This would more accurately reflect the reality rather than comparing every new book at D- to sportsbook.com and saying they are equivalent in financial stability.Comment -
How do you know this? I see no CPA audited financials showing me their percent of capitalization, reserve rates, and a steady/increasing deposits and income. These companies or their bonds aren't traded or rated by the market so you can't know whether they are over their financial problems. I'm fine with SBR taking a similarly conservative approach to books that have poor histories as no past history.Comment -
Without any other information, a place that has been in business for ten years, has 250+ employees and pays out tens of millions of dollars every month is generally more financially stable than some place that just opened and has 3 employees. If you want to believe those two things have the exact same risk level than that is fine and that is what the SBR ratings are saying. SBR John in another thread said 90% of new books (D-)fail so that implies that there is a 90% chance Sportsbook.com will fail this year. If that is not accurate, which from what we can see it is clealy not, then the rating system should be changed.Comment -
You’re repeating yourself. I questioned why you thought sportsbook.com was financially sound. You haven’t given a reason yet.
I would however, like to know where you got that >10MM outflow per month figure from.
Another thing – since they stole from players in the past, we can assume their management couldn’t find raise any private capital. The only people who could have seen their books passed on investing.
And since you keep banging the drums about their time in the business and number of employees. For perspective, GM has been in business for a hundred years. They had the second most employees in the US and I believe the second highest US sales. However looking at their books you could see they were ruined and those numerous UAW employees were bleeding GM dry. That’s why they had to offer bonds at 20%+ interest (in a very low inflation economy). The market didn’t implicitly trust them because of their name and how many employees etc.
Bottom line: nearly the only information we have is whether a book pays and they stole in the past and you have no idea if they are financially sound or not. I’ve said what I cared to on this topic.Comment