[Igetp2s]

I can't believe this debate is still going on, despite being explained several times already in very basic terms. This isn't advanced calculus guys. This is 3rd grade math. You don't need experts or arbitration to settle this.

If the line is -105, and the commission or fees or whatever you want to call it is 1% win or lose, it is equivalent to slightly worse than -107 lines. $105 to win $100 becomes $106 to win $99. If it's 2% of only winning wagers, it becomes $105 to win $98.

If you can't come up with this result on your own, you have no business gambling on sports and expecting to win long term. Your math is simply not good enough.

[Doug]

It is a bit disturbing that Max can't acknowledge this after it has been essentially proven that his -105 is -107.

We need to trust him to keep balances and only pay the offending 2% fee upon demand.

-107 just isn't that great of a deal with newish book.

[noyb]

-107 just isn't that great of a deal with newish book.

well, obv the business model of paying out winnings right away and the 2% that comes with it has its drawbacks. but the single most important risk which demands extra caution when dealing with a newish book is they might close shop at any time. not holding your funds at all obviously eliminates this risk.
i'd say -107 with no real risk of losing your funds at the book itself is a pretty good deal. you agreed with me at the start of this topic, but somehow apparently changed your mind along the way.

i'm not familiar with ******* or how reliable they are, but i can only be strongly in favour of more books not holding any funds at all. those 2% fees would have to go to make the whole model sustainable, but all in all this would be a huge improvement in terms of risks for customers.

[Doug]

well, obv the business model of paying out winnings right away and the 2% that comes with it has its drawbacks. but the single most important risk which demands extra caution when dealing with a newish book is they might close shop at any time. not holding your funds at all obviously eliminates this risk.
i'd say -107 with no real risk of losing your funds at the book itself is a pretty good deal. you agreed with me at the start of this topic, but somehow apparently changed your mind along the way.

i'm not familiar with ******* or how reliable they are, but i can only be strongly in favour of more books not holding any funds at all. those 2% fees would have to go to make the whole model sustainable, but all in all this would be a huge improvement in terms of risks for customers.

Well funds are really still at risk here, the way I see it.

Max still grades the bets (?) Doesn't this make it like an X-bet at Matchbook ?

Are Parlaymakers and Gold-pay the same entity ? My account #'s are the same at both. Would it be considered Kosher ( as in not connected) if my Neteller account # was the same as my CRIS account # ?

I'm suggesting that PM's instant pay just is not as bulletproof as it is cracked up to be....main flaw being Max has control. Once graded, you'd think it is OK, but is it still Max ?

Does Max= Parlaymakers= ******* ?

Several good books now take *******...A nice plus ++no other book besides PM does this "instant" pay method besides Max.

It's not really instant unless it gets wired to my bank account or similar ( IMO). ******* or PM could tank.

PM is a one man shop ( ?), if this one man can't can't fathom that his -105 is -107, can we deem him to be a competent bookie ?

The model of booking parlays at lower juice suggests needing a good bankroll. Straight players should get a better shake at books like 5D, and MB. Euros have Pinny, already.

I 100% believe Max has the best of intentions here and is not a scammer, he is not Spiro or Mickey, etc.

One could have added Jay Cohen along with Spiro ( or is it Spiros ?), a few years ago, eh ?

Be careful out there !

[offshoregenius77]

If we were all just smart enough to stop using books except for exotics , and stick with exchanges, we ALL would be better off. Anyone comparing parlaymakers to matchy is CRAZY!!!

Matchbook is the best thing for american bettors since Pinnacle. Wise up and stick with matchy..

[offshoregenius77]

Doug,
I had the same concerns as you with the way the sites have that same ugly black layout. If he isnt a part of gold-pay he is offering -107 and paying 2% for each transfer!? Im no math genius nor an accountant, but I can tell you he wont make money that way....NO WAY.

[bookie]

Doug,
I had the same concerns as you with the way the sites have that same ugly black layout. If he isnt a part of gold-pay he is offering -107 and paying 2% for each transfer!? Im no math genius nor an accountant, but I can tell you he wont make money that way....NO WAY.

You haven't been reading this thread. He's offering -105, which with the two percent transfer fee is an effective -107. And he's offering the Pinnacle menu of wagers--way, way more than Matchbook. And his lines go up early, again, another advantage over matchbook.

This book still needs to do more to establish itself, but in offering low juice overnights a bunch of sports and lines on quarters, etc. it offers stuff that matchbook doesn't.