Rating thoughts: what if Sportsbook.com...

[crinkle]

Believe what you want and play where you want. Each player apparently has a different experience with Jazette.

[ShamsWoof10]

What if they advertised with SBR?

How would you rate them, if this situation developed and lasted for several years?

SBR would rate them an A+!

[Justin7]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin7
What if they advertised with SBR?

How would you rate them, if this situation developed and lasted for several years?

SBR would rate them an A+!

That's a very creative quote, ShamsWoof10. To be clear, I didn't say that.

I don't place any weight on whether a book advertises. I talk about the good in non-advertisers (as in here), and the bad in sponsor books.

[trixtrix]

obv i'm likely one of the biased posters in any thread regarding sb.com

but there's a big difference between a book that's treating EVERYONE fairly vs. a book that simply addresses disputes that gets routed to sbr. theoretically, a reputable book would rarely have a legit complaint against them in the first place, even the fact that multiple legit complaints (even though resolved) arose recently against sb.com shows that everything is obv still not on the up and up

[yisman]

Would never use them. Off with their hands...

Or heads.

[trixtrix]

I've give them a C+ or B- if all the above is done. The correlated deal was unfortunate, but those players were knowingly taking shots. 5dimes would of dealt with them the same way, so I see no difference their.

yea, no they wouldn't

[skrtelfan]

I was specifically told it was ok to have accounts at multiple sportsbook.com skins and shortly after I was told that, I read about the confiscations due to "multiple account abuse." There were also incidents reported here where sportsbook.com canceled pending futures with positive equity under the guise of "leaving the US market" post-UIGEA but they reentered the US market like a week later.

[Chopsticks]

I was specifically told it was ok to have accounts at multiple sportsbook.com skins and shortly after I was told that, I read about the confiscations due to "multiple account abuse."

A rep from hollywood came on here to say that it was ok not long ago too.

[HedgeHog]

A rep from hollywood came on here to say that it was ok not long ago too.

So it's ok with Hollywood, but what if your other account is with Sportsbook.com? While your Hollywood accout is safe, your SB account is not. Sportsbook may very well confiscate funds based on your Hollywood activity--so beware.

[wrongturn]

It is always okay to have accounts at multiple skins. But they are not totally separate. If one use skins to bet more than max limit or bet opposite sides for promotion, that is where the trouble begins.

[thespeculator]

whatever system the have for getting card approval, why can't other books use the same system, ,,, is it true they route the cards through a retail store they also own,

[tomcowley]

D. They need to pay the people they stole from first.

This. Well, a D- version of this. If they think they were in the wrong, then they can prove it by making it right. If they don't, it's just a matter of time and opportunity until something happens again, and they deserve the D-..

If I went to the next SBR bash and stole the money from your wallet (off camera of course), would it really matter if I went to the 4 bashes after that and didn't rob you? While I was gambling it up with obviously more than enough money to pay you back with interest if I felt like it. Of course not. I'll be nothing but a piece of shit thief for eternity if I don't make it right.

[gambleballs]

D- is the appropriate rating for them.

If they pay me my money from way back when then I'd consider upgrading them to D.

[lukahh]

I don't place any weight on whether a book advertises. I talk about the good in non-advertisers (as in here), and the bad in sponsor books.

i do not think this is accurrate, but this is how the world turns.

as for sportsbook.com, i guess time should heal some wounds, allowing it to ascend in rankings by half point each 6 months.

as for "old owners, better management", it is my experience from other industry that management runs business the way owners want it, not the other way around. so rating should be capped somewhere.

[gambleballs]

If you upgrade them you are basically showing other books that what they did has no long term effect on their SBR rating. Where as if you keep it the same.. 5 or 10 years down the road another book might say: "The last time a book was shady they got demoted to D- and never recovered".

[gafl]

The ultimate responsibility lies with the owner. Can't believe any successful owner would give his managers free rein to do what they want. Gamblers are checking out sites like SBR more often now before they get involved with offshore books due to the problems in the business. So the books want all their bad press to go away. Should not be rated better than D until they clear up all the money due players.