What´s the reason books are rated A here?

[moonbeam]

All those A rated books have to pay their employes.

Not enough with that they have to pay SBR.

Also they have to pay their winning players.

I really ask myself what´s their way to earn their money?

[Chopsticks]

Not only do they pay sbr, but they probably pay lots of other sites too.

People lose a lot of money gambling so they can afford it.

[dwaechte]

I really ask myself what´s their way to earn their money?

This is how.

http://forum.sbrforum.com/sportsbooks-industry/819889-sportsbook-accepts-bigtime-bettors.html

[BChrisB]

Here is one thing I always wondered.

Now for the sake of simplicity, I'm only using side bets paying 100/110

A book collects 110 for every losing bet and pays 100 for every winning side.

Simple math tells you that they carry the house edge and through the laws of averages they are going to come out ahead. However, what is the overhead cost of a book?

Most online books have affiliate programs and this is how they get sign-ups through advertising. The average affiliate share is 25% for sportsbooks.

So here is where the problem comes in, If a book is paying an affiliate 25% of revenue share off losses, then for every 110 they collect their paying 25% right of the top to an affiliate. So in essence, the book is now at the odds of 100/85 (collecting 85 for every 100.) This isn't taking to account overhead. Server fees, employees, taxes, bank fees, etc, etc. So where does this really put them? Collecting 65 for losses (after overhead) but paying out 100?

The math on the surface really doesn't add up. I know there's more too it, especially when you take into account all exotics like props, futures, parlays, etc, etc where the house edge is greater than side bets. However, side bets make up the vast majority of wagers placed.

So how do online books really make money when in reality they aren't really collecting 110/100?

[Chopsticks]

I don't know if you have it in your calculations but there are more losers than winners out there, and most of these affiliate deals have a "negative carryover". Let's say that you have three people who have signed up through your aff scheme..

Player A loses $500.
Player B wins $500.
Player C wins $500.

Your affiliate account is now -$500 and you won't get paid squat. But obviously with "power in numbers", there will be enough players so that it is enough for everyone to get paid. I think a while back Bookmaker used to publish the amounts paid to their top affilliates and there was always a handful of affiliates that had >$100.000 per month. It did not specify which affiliates but I would imagine SBR was up there at the top.

[BChrisB]

I don't know if you have it in your calculations but there are more losers than winners out there, and most of these affiliate deals have a "negative carryover". Let's say that you have three people who have signed up through your aff scheme..

Player A loses $500.
Player B wins $500.
Player C wins $500.

Your affiliate account is now -$500 and you won't get paid squat. But obviously with "power in numbers", there will be enough players so that it is enough for everyone to get paid. I think a while back Bookmaker used to publish the amounts paid to their top affilliates and there was always a handful of affiliates that had >$100.000 per month. It did not specify which affiliates but I would imagine SBR was up there at the top.

Your 100% correct about the negative carryover, I probably should have stated that as well with net wins vs net losses, however, a 110/100 margin can't be enough when you take in account all the overhead factors. Like I said, I was very simple in my explanation. However, I feel as of right now, there's a lot of books who are ponzi scheming it because of the numbers. I think this explains a lot of what people are commenting about on many threads. Why a book will take unlimited deposits yet still only allow one payout a week. Bounced checks, etc, etc....

Your just hearing a lot more of this lately on SBR and other betting related forums, even from the reputable books.

It's just something to take note on.

[BChrisB]

I think a while back Bookmaker used to publish the amounts paid to their top affilliates and there was always a handful of affiliates that had >$100.000 per month. It did not specify which affiliates but I would imagine SBR was up there at the top.

Yes, Bookmaker stopped doing this because they ripped off all their affiliates and little do the large affiliates know.. they shortened their cookie expirations for affiliate ID's to only 14 days now. I think this is signs of desperation and they are in trouble. They don't post the top affiliate earners anymore because they don't want everyone to see the drop after what their doing behind the scenes.

Just my FYI, the reason that I take note of this is because I'm one of those affiliates that they owe money to but I'll never see it.

However, SBR isn't the place for me to state my case as an affiliate so I try to refrain from that here.

[Fishhead]

A books have earned their keep

Many of the B books have bought their rating.

[wrongturn]

Here is one thing I always wondered.

Now for the sake of simplicity, I'm only using side bets paying 100/110

A book collects 110 for every losing bet and pays 100 for every winning side.

Simple math tells you that they carry the house edge and through the laws of averages they are going to come out ahead. However, what is the overhead cost of a book?

Most online books have affiliate programs and this is how they get sign-ups through advertising. The average affiliate share is 25% for sportsbooks.

So here is where the problem comes in, If a book is paying an affiliate 25% of revenue share off losses, then for every 110 they collect their paying 25% right of the top to an affiliate. So in essence, the book is now at the odds of 100/85 (collecting 85 for every 100.) This isn't taking to account overhead. Server fees, employees, taxes, bank fees, etc, etc. So where does this really put them? Collecting 65 for losses (after overhead) but paying out 100?

The math on the surface really doesn't add up. I know there's more too it, especially when you take into account all exotics like props, futures, parlays, etc, etc where the house edge is greater than side bets. However, side bets make up the vast majority of wagers placed.

So how do online books really make money when in reality they aren't really collecting 110/100?

Your math is wrong. 25% of affiliate fee does not equal to 100/85. It is (110-100)*25%=$2.5 for every $220 bet amount received. All other overhead cost come from this profit too.

[BChrisB]

Your math is wrong. 25% of affiliate fee does not equal to 100/85. It is (110-100)*25%=$2.5 for every $220 bet amount received. All other overhead cost come from this profit too.

Sorry, your wrong. A player loses $100, your commission is $25 !!! If you thinking it's only $2.5 then you don't understand how affiliate programs work.

Any yes, there is the 25% the other way, however. Like I said, this is only one factor to all the overhead. Bonuses for one. Employees, Utilities, Servers, IT, ... I just don't think the math adds up, and if it did, no online book would ever go under. Yet we know that is not the case.

[BET THE HOOK]

The books are making a ton dont worry.

[BChrisB]

The books are making a ton dont worry.

Do you see their financials? If not, then how do you or anyone of us really know.

What about WSEX? There were at the top too.

On top of that, what about covering ** fees? That puts them at even money or less right there, everytime.

[wrongturn]

Sorry, your wrong. A player loses $100, your commission is $25 !!! If you thinking it's only $2.5 then you don't understand how affiliate programs work.

Any yes, there is the 25% the other way, however. Like I said, this is only one factor to all the overhead. Bonuses for one. Employees, Utilities, Servers, IT, ... I just don't think the math adds up, and if it did, no online book would ever go under. Yet we know that is not the case.

I am not disputing your $25 commission if player loses $100. But player also wins bets. The commission is calculated based on the net loss in a period, not based on lost bets only. There is huge difference between the two calculations. My $2.5 per $220 bets is just an average, if we assume players win 50% of bets.

[BChrisB]

I am not disputing your $25 commission if player loses $100. But player also wins bets. The commission is calculated based on the net loss in a period, not based on lost bets only. There is huge difference between the two calculations. My $2.5 per $220 bets is just an average, if we assume players win 50% of bets.

Understandable, I wasn't exactly trying to layout a complete table as that would take 1000's of words and me all night of typing. There's so many variables in place. However, it just seems when a book is offering bonuses, cover ** fees, paying of affiliates, employees, server fees, net and IT, etc, etc. They have to be less than even money. I know the public is typically losers and they make more off poor money management from players than the true odds could ever make them. However, taking into accounts costs, I really believe a lot are ponzi scheming it right now. Hell, even the top books seem unable to keep a processor for more than a month or two nowadays, pretty soon their going to run out of processors. Don't think for a second that VC and ** aren't onto them. The more processors they lose, the more ** fees they have to cover and so on.

Furthermore, I'll bet there's more wives reporting this to banks, **, VC, **, etc, etc than anyone else because their husbands maxed out their cards on betting games and their calling up the banks every time they see a charge from gambling. I can almost guarantee this. Not to mention chargebacks from the actual players.

I'd give good odds that after all is said and done that most books are below even money on sides alone.

[Dark Horse]

It would have been nice if there had been an announcement by SBR that they were changing direction from watchdog organization into a superportal for books; the first assisted players, the second wants a percentage of their lifetime losses with as many books as possible. There never was such an announcement. And it was pretty much a 180.

Did SBR betray the trust of players? I think so. Why? Because players saw the old watchdog organization as ready to fight for them. Here was somebody on their side. Much of the momentum during the 180 transition was based on that trust. Now SBR is a candy store intent on luring in players in all sorts of underhanded ways. Yes, underhanded. Unless you think it's ok for 12-14 year old school kids to get SBR points for pizzas, or for 'fun' contests to draw players in as early in the season as possible for as little prize money as possible. The old SBR actually was quite generous with those contests. 5K per month for baseball, then down to 2.5K, then down to candy. Look at the combined record for the current NBA contest. It's terrible. SBR doesn't want winning players, so the forum was dumbed down (I believe) on purpose. I remember the days of the green meter for quality posts. But when mofo was hired, the direction away from quality to quantity was once and for all clear to all. And just so everybody doesn't get p*ssed off, they invented SBR points. The bread crumbs that hold it all together. Presented as extreme generosity.

Do I trust the ratings for books? Yes. That's about the only thing I continue to trust here. Do I trust this SBR? Right. With the exception of Justin7, these people are not your friends. They want your money, and unless you're careful their 'program' will make you lower your guard and give it to them. To be clear, I would have no problem with any of this if SBR would state what they really are. They've done a great job in creating a successful business. But the fact that they continue to present themselves as Sportsbook Review is, in my opinion, as hilarious as it is dishonest. They are not deserving of that original trust. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

The above may contain exaggerations to make a point. But the underlying idea is not exaggerated. Whatever happened to the 18-year old requirement? 14 year olds can't bet online, but they sure can get drawn in right here, long before they have any clue. How many of them think JJ is the man? Do you really want them to approach betting like that? I guess so.

I must be getting old. I find myself wondering sometimes why the f*ck nobody gives a f*ck about anything anymore. It's like a free for all with everybody in it for himself, without any regard for the welfare of others.