so sbr says that books dont pay to keep their ratings up??????

**HedgeHog** · 08-13-12, 05:09 PM

6k a month? Also, I don't think BP has been a sponsor for some time. Please provide more details.

**shari91** · 08-13-12, 05:13 PM

**Bill Dozer** · 08-13-12, 05:43 PM

BetPhoenix Rated C

BetOnline Rating Discussion

**mighty maron** · 08-13-12, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by Bill Dozer

BetPhoenix Rated C

BetPhoenix was artificially inflated when their ads were on the top of the page along with the other sponsors. Soon after they were taken down the ratings adjustment was made.

Now BOL...how this "outfit" is still B+ is the agruement that books that sponsor will not go below a certain rating regardless of questionable actions like Poker confiscations and slowpays/missing wires.....

**HedgeHog** · 08-13-12, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by mighty maron

BetPhoenix was artificially inflated when their ads were on the top of the page along with the other sponsors. Soon after they were taken down the ratings adjustment was made.

Now BOL...how this "outfit" is still B+ is the agruement that books that sponsor will not go below a certain rating regardless of questionable actions like Poker confiscations and slowpays/missing wires.....

I agree, but OP is making meritless claims.

**Bill Dozer** · 08-13-12, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by mighty maron

BetPhoenix was artificially inflated when their ads were on the top of the page along with the other sponsors. Soon after they were taken down the ratings adjustment was made.

The more time passes the more a few posters try to tell a new story to make a point. Phoenix was in the B range for about two years because of their assets and relationships at the time. Phoenix was downgraded one spot while still advertising here. Seems like youre reaching here on whether Phoenix should have been upgraded from B- to B for a BetOnline argument. No one mentions when sponsors get downgraded with these theories or when sponsors are taken down for dropping below B or B-...not to mention the 8 books who requested a SBRforum media kit this season that didn't get one.

**HedgeHog** · 08-13-12, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Bill Dozer

The more time passes the more a few posters try to tell a new story to make a point. Phoenix was in the B range for about two years because of their assets and relationships at the time. Phoenix was downgraded one spot while still advertising here. Seems like youre reaching here on whether Phoenix should have been upgraded from B- to B for a BetOnline argument.

No offense, Bill, but BP was held in the B range way too long. The relationship that kept them there was a monthly ad check, same with BOL. OP is full of shit, but he touched upon a valid point.

**mighty maron** · 08-13-12, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by Bill Dozer

The more time passes the more a few posters try to tell a new story to make a point. Phoenix was in the B range for about two years because of their assets and relationships at the time. Phoenix was downgraded one spot while still advertising here. Seems like youre reaching here on whether Phoenix should have been upgraded from B- to B for a BetOnline argument. No one mentions when sponsors get downgraded with these theories or when sponsors are taken down for dropping below B or B-...not to mention the 8 books who requested a SBRforum media kit this season that didn't get one.

Bet Phoenix has the rating that it merits now that its not a sponsor.

BOL has had more than a few cases where poker confiscations of significant money went on where they were judge and jury. BOL claimed they were not a member of the Action Poker network which did not let USA players on. This claim was proven false when a person played himself in real cash against himself from the Betonline and Action poker clients at the same time. Here is the reviews of BOL and the network they play poker on http://www.pokerscout.com/AllReviews.aspx?id=19

BOL drags there feet and slowpays...yes slowpays.. people...does a book deserve a B+ rating when it is a hassle to get the funds you were lucky enough to win off of the site.

I stand by this statment....A+'s are easy to rate when the planet agrees on them....D-'s and F
s are scambooks that with enough disclosure are easy to see.

The rub comes from a few of the sponsors at the top of the page that have more than a few hicccups. Bovada's pedigree is better than BOL yet when they had processing issues down they went in the ratings. They fixed it and up they went.

With BOL its quite a few complaints for quite a long time...longer than Bovada's..yet no adjustment....

Why you stand by this outfit and dont do a slight downgrade is beyond me....

**Bill Dozer** · 08-13-12, 07:12 PM

People will have their theories as long as there is a conflict of interest with advertisers and covering them in the industry. Thats why we show whats behind the ratings and discuss them here. You are welcome to have your own ratings and tell everyone about them.

But this stuff posted just isn't true. Judge and Jury? BetOnline gave every player their money after making sure there were no scammers... Not money to some and not to others. If they didn't obviously that would not be a good book.

Bovada's standard payout was 5 weeks after they lost a group of processors. BetOnline will be downgraded too if their standard payouts times are extended and they dont have alternative methods. Right now there is a batch of only 11 bank wires due to a wire processor. 4 of those guys can take an alternate method with the fees covered. The other 7 have to suffer while the book tracks them down. The payouts are expected to take 2 weeks from now for everyone else which is about right for B range books. If they go much longer we'll reflect that and root for them to come back like Bobada did. No one is dismissing the 11 delays as weve seen a book's 11 become 111, but right not it is what it is and has to be kept in perspective. Bovada was also an A book.

**durito** · 08-13-12, 07:39 PM

What about the 500 sportsbetting.ag payout delays that BOL is responsible for?

**chase hardy** · 08-13-12, 08:41 PM

the deal is I know that betphoenix.com was paying you all 6K a month for a good time. Thats all I know!

**princecharles** · 08-14-12, 02:44 AM

Originally posted by chase hardy

the deal is I know that betphoenix.com was paying you all 6K a month for a good time. Thats all I know!

Proof? Evidence? Links? Quotes?

Give us something.

Anything other than 'I know it'.

**iceminers26** · 08-14-12, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by shari91

yeah real fkn funny hussy, posters are waiting for checks longer than they should from high end books and you have the nerve to post this shit

**HedgeHog** · 08-14-12, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by iceminers26

yeah real fkn funny hussy, posters are waiting for checks longer than they should from high end books and you have the nerve to post this shit

I'll let Shari speak for herself, but I think she was laughing about the BetPhoenix reference-- not BOL. BP has been off the SBR list of advertisers for some time now.

**djefferis** · 08-14-12, 10:39 AM

Love clueless post like the OP's, just shows how much of a rumor mill this industry is.

BP pays nothing to SBR, aside from what is rightfully earned on legacy customers (those who signed up when their banner was up here), that much I would guarantee.

I take SBR ratings at what they are, an industry insiders opinion. They are not the only opinion,r and I don't always agree with their assessments. That said, they are as unbiased as any other forum.

Use your own common sense and stop trying to influence others. If the OP or anyone else has an agenda to push, they are free to develop their own forum, cultivate their own viewers and content and spew away. SBR is open enough to allow dissenting viewpoints, but there is a line between not agreeing on some shops and promoting ANY shop who will pay you.

**Legions36** · 08-14-12, 11:30 AM

Well how do u guys think we get our points here and all that other free stuff? SBR has to make money some how and i could care less on how they do it, why would they publicly announce they take payoffs from books think about it. With that being said i don't worry how others make money and i don't want anyone else wondering how i make my money.
I like OP's thread here because from experience at different books i know some ratings at places r way to low and seems flawed or fixed in some way or another, but that doesn't mean i will go rack up insane balances at these places.
With that being said why does everyone worry about what others make or do? Don't u think its just better to mind your own business?

**taxer** · 08-14-12, 11:37 AM

LOL @ people acting like SBR is a charity... of course people pay for banners but that does not mean " ANYONE " can pay for a banner .. the books listed at the top in my opinion are rightfully there.

SBR is THE most unbiased forum .. this thread being a perfect example you post something like this at another forum and it gets deleted and maybe even banning the posters.

topics like this offer transparency something we should all appreciate

**PLA** · 08-14-12, 11:37 AM

The main point is that nobody likes the BetOnline B+ rating. Too high for them

**djefferis** · 08-14-12, 12:45 PM

Just curious, how does a book paying promptly equate to the solidity of their finances and management ?

I deposit 11 times for 300, lose the first 10 and win and cash for 500 on number 11...I can guarantee ANY book, scam or not, is going to pay me quickly...why kill the golden goose?!

Ratings at SBR are based on risk of funds to a operation folding, mainly due to financial backing and reputation. They aren't infallable (wsex), but can be spot on when others disagree (lazerwager, betED).