An open response from World Sports Exchange . . .

Like I said, you are not even close on the wwts deal, even if we fudge it up to $17mil for you, keep digging. There's is so so much more there for a guy who wants to find it, but it wouldn't be playing fair if I just gave it up, and spoil the fun.

Here's a hint, considering the sale price of Blue Square and sportbook.com, books doing in the ballpark handle of WWTS, does their sale price being a factor of ten times greater than your reported $10mil for WWTS, make you wonder? Even a little? If it doesn't you should stop reading press releases and do a bit more homework.

And one more hint, Tasmanian was not wwts.

Btw, when you are done looking, please send the dime to Habitat for Humanity. Make it 2, I know how much you love a guy like Jimmy Carter.

On another note, my commments about the safety of the books I listed were just that, SAFETY, not shareholder value. Please don't mix the 2. shareholder value and betting safety are at best only marginally correlated, even at the extremes.

And using market cap as an indication of safety is odd. We both know market cap has little to do with anything, need I cite 1000 examples, starting with the former cap of internet companies, or telecom companies?

Babbling onward, I cited the ability to peruse financial documents "companies which are public must submit financial documents which I can peruse to see if their house is in order, and do those documents tell the truth as I know it."

The key here is: "do the documents tell the truth as I know it". My ability, however limited, to interpret the financial docs of canbet and sbt, have led to my conclusions.

Take it for what its worth, but after I mug you on the WWTS deal, maybe you'll listen a bit better.

Btw, thanks for posting Canbet has been in business for 7 years, I wouldn't have known that

TC

 

[Sodium Pentethol V]

Post something useful,
I did.

What you do and do not know, only you can tell, see, I'm the one posting all the deals, prices and financial information thus far.

You? well you've parroted several things I posted thus far and if i wanted to burn you, I would merely make up a book and a price, and watch you use it in your next post.

Post something of substance else I'm done.

and yeah the TC thing is bothering the crap outta me, I know we've crossed paths at another board but cannot place it, in fact I would guess you are a friendly but can't quite put my finger on it and don't care enough to figure it out.

 

[Sodium Pentethol V]

You know actually,

I do not care what WWTS sold for if it was higher than $10mill,

my whole point was that they paid alot of money per active customer, you want to say they paid 52.5million fine,

they have what 10,000 actives at the most,(folks that bet once a week, not once a year as defined above)

so for your sake we'll double that to 20,000, how much equipment? 5million? about 2.5X too high but we'll use it for your sake.

So we get:

52.5mill paid
5mill for equipment

leaves 47.5 million /20,000 customers=$2375 per customer?

that's pretty steep if you ask me, say they paid 25million, that's still what about $1185 per head? that's still pretty steep,(using extremely beneficial numbers for the buyer) think customer acquisition costs are anywhere near that high?

so by all means post that that it was sold for some ungodly sum, it only means they paid more per head and that was pretty much the point I made earlier in the thread.

 

You did not put something up of any use so deserve no return, an overused innacurate press release. If you are truley THE ACTUARY, and actually work in the stock analysis business you have done nothing so far to impress me on this wwts deal or other comments concerning companies with debt.

I thought the intrigue of finding the truth would motivate a fellow like you to dig into the wwts deal, and offered enough to show you there was more to it.
But instead you proffer I'm parroting you? In your mind possibly, but I don't bother with press releases as useful information.

You wrote:

"if i wanted to burn you, I would merely make up a book and a price, and watch you use it in your next post"

Okay, you are serious now, really serious? You didn't want the hints about tasmanian or comp values of bluebook and sportsbook.com. Bringing out the insults instead, you don't want to play along to achieve greater understanding and spiritual enlightenment so here's the deal.

You can have wwts at $10-$17mil. buyout for the whole company. None of the tricks used by pancho, this is a straight deal. I'll even give you up to $20mil u.s. dollars, twice what you have misquoted.

One dime, posted at a nuetral book, we'll then choose 2 arbitrators to determine if I'm right or you are. Not too many on these boards know these stocks, ponchos not a good arb unless you want to choose him

, but this should be fairly straightforward. Can't use wsex as an arb as you are artlessly supporting them here.

Lets make it easy, you say under $20mil value for the whole company, I say the value was over $20mil..

You shouldn't have insulted me, now put your money up or take your press releases and run.

The Daily news is free info, unfortunately mine has a price for anyone offending me.

Neutral book/neutral arbs, pay to see my cards.

 

[Sodium Pentethol V]

you seem to miss the point,

so let me spell out as clearly as humanly possible, I really do not care what they paid, whatever it was it amounted to thousands of dollars per active account,

so lets say they paid $37million dollars,

that equates to at least $1750 per customer that is alot of money.

the more they paid, the higher per active account, you cited them as more financially sound than WSEX, i don't think WSEX pays thousands of dollars per customer, all else is equal and to be honest the intellectual talent is probably gone.

so what is your point exactly? that I was either misinformed or uninformed about the price and your prescious information proves my point even further?

I mean i don't get it, do you guys live to prove me wrong?

I post what I know to be the truth, sometimes I'm wrong, so what, you're going to bet me that you have better information to prove my point?

and then you're going to lecture me about some spiritual crap?

Every place you named is a safer place to have money than WSEX, I merely was creating some conversation, which I regret, they are all governed in real jurisdictions, that's the only reason, anything you wanna cite as safe because it is public is BS, and the fact that some guy paid thousands of dollars per head for WWTS actives, means they paid thousands more than WSEX did.

 

I didn't miss your point, I mean your latest point, you've been all over the place in this thread saying my list is unsafe due to:

First its market cap. Disproven.

Then its sbt debt. Disproven.

Then its canbet debt. Disproven.

Then its possible financial document fraud. Prove it. Needless to say wsex provides no financial data, but that to you is safer than companies which do.

Then its low stock price. Disproven.

Then its length of time in business. Canbet in business longer than wsex.


Then its wwts a crummy book because they only sold for $10mil or $17mil, you're not sure, which will be disproven when you post up.

Then its wwts a crummy book which was sold for too much money because their buyer has high per customer aquisition costs.

Now disproving that:

Handle per customer. WWTS does a whale of a business. Their customers are huge players, of course someone is going to pay a premium for the jumbo size. Look at the number of customers and match it to handle.

Your latest "point" is another puff of smoke. Noone purchasing a book is looking at this, marginal at best. They are going to look at handle, hold, and number of unique customers, but only the last one if they already own another outfit and are judging crossovers. In the case of wwts there was little if any crossovers. Their handle puts them in the top few books in the world, as does their hold. I'll even speculate their handle is larger than wsex.

Using your latest attempt to stay in the ballgame, you are telling us wsex is safer than wwts because they paid less per generic customer, completely disqualifying size of customer, and ignoring all the other actually relevent info I posted above, including regulatory environment and access to key financial information, in addition to the fact they are so immensely profitable their purchase will be paid off in two years.

You should quit while you're behind, better to be thought a fool than proven to be one.

 

[Sodium Pentethol V]

Yea you're right buddy,

debt loaded, negatibe P/E stocks that trade for pennies at or near their all time low isn't my forte.

Best of luck with your valuable information,

if you do ever to actually contribute anything useful, you'll have to PM me, last time I look at this thread, if I wanted worthless and seemingly endless babble and doubletalk, I'd turn on the television.

Oh yeah remember they paid thousands and thousands of dollars per customer.

 

[Sodium Pentethol V]

and just because you're pompous jackass,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I didn't miss your point, I mean your latest point, you've been all over the place in this thread saying my list is unsafe due to: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said your list was unsafe, I asked why you corellate safety with a company being public, DUHHHHHHHHH you didn't miss the point, even though I posted it now 5 times.

[quote}First its market cap. Disproven.[/quote]

WTF did you disprove, huh Dick Tracy? They are worth almost as less as they've ever been, no disproving nothing, first and foremost shareholder value, DUHHHHHHHHHHHH

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Then its sbt debt. Disproven.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Disprove what, do they have a mountain of debt or not? Is there balance sheet like a bad train wreck? DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Then its canbet debt. Disproven.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Disproved what, that CANBET IS CURRENTLY AND HAS ALWAYS LOST MONEY? Negative P/E of close to 100? But that doesn't matter after seven years in business. DUHHHHHHHHHHHHH

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Then its possible financial document fraud. Prove it. Needless to say wsex provides no financial data, but that to you is safer than companies which do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Possible document fraud?WTF are you talking about? Is this another disproof? I'll take their financial acumen over some of the jokers out there right now in a heartbeat. Remember your WWTS was just sold for thousands and thousands of dollars per customer.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Then its low stock price. Disproven.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WTF did you disprove? HUH the markets are rallying and what have your beloved companies fared, they are trading around historical lows

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Then its length of time in business. Canbet in business longer than wsex.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea let's see I posted Canbet was in business seven years then you copied it posts later, is this another brilliant disprove?[/quote]


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Then its wwts a crummy book because they only sold for $10mil or $17mil, you're not sure, which will be disproven when you post up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

a pompous jackass thru and thru, you wish to bet to support my point? don't hurt yuorself patting too hard, REMEMBER THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS PER ACTIVE CUSTOMER, duhhhhhhhhhhhhh

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Then its wwts a crummy book which was sold for too much money because their buyer has high per customer aquisition costs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What was this a brain cramp? Posting the same praragraph twice, you like calling WWTS crummy twice in a row? YES POMPOUS JACKASS, they paid THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS PER ACTIVE CUSTOMER

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Now disproving that:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another mysterious disproof? Where'd it go, what the F does that refer too exactly ROTFLMAO.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Handle per customer. WWTS does a whale of a business. Their customers are huge players, of course someone is going to pay a premium for the jumbo size. Look at the number of customers and match it to handle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK is this another disproof? They paid thousands and thousands of dollars per customer, OK that's it, dress it up however you like, I don;t think most people pay thousands and thousands of dollars per head, YOU OBVIOUSLY DO,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Your latest "point" is another puff of smoke. Noone purchasing a book is looking at this, marginal at best. They are going to look at handle, hold, and number of unique customers, but only the last one if they already own another outfit and are judging crossovers. In the case of wwts there was little if any crossovers. Their handle puts them in the top few books in the world, as does their hold. I'll even speculate their handle is larger than wsex.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should really avoid speculating, because the one time you actually tossed out an opinion, AND IT ISN'T EVEN CLOSE. If I put up an O/U of jst about twice that I would get balanced action, AND THEY DIDN"T PAY THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS PER HEAD.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Using your latest attempt to stay in the ballgame, you are telling us wsex is safer than wwts because they paid less per generic customer, completely disqualifying size of customer, and ignoring all the other actually relevent info I posted above, including regulatory environment and access to key financial information, in addition to the fact they are so immensely profitable their purchase will be paid off in two years.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I DESPISE GUYS THAT PLAY DUMB, THAT WOULD BE YOU, I NEVER SAID WSEX WAS SAFER THAN ANY BOOK ON YOUR LIST, I ASKED WHY YOU EQUATE SAFETY TO BEING PUBLIC,

the correct answer is the juridictions of those books and not the shareholders DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Post till them fingers fall off, maybe you can disprove me some more, LIKE YOU HAVE YET TO DO IN ONE TOPICAL INSTANCE IN THIS THREAD DUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

ROTFLMAO

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You should quit while you're behind, better to be thought a fool than proven to be one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROTFLMAO a guy that wants to bet me on my side to prove my point, ROTFLMAO

BTW I won't be clicking the thread anymore, SO IF YOU"D CARE TO BLOW ANYMORE MEANINGLESS DISPROVE GAS WHY NOT DO IT IN THE MIRROr SAVE SHRINK THE BANDWIDTH.

 

hehhehheh.

I never equated being public to safety. Prove it. Lots of air your wasting.

Odds you read this:

yes -1426

no +990

odds posted by wsex using their ladder tree.

odds on wsex handle being over $800mil a year as actuary has just stated:

over: -1200

under:-900

odds posted by wsex.

In case there is still one person left in the world who isn't aware. When the actuary (sodium p 5) gets his often inaccurate comments disproven he resorts to that condescending egomaniac personna you are witnessing above.

Don't worry I won't hold it against you, I realize its a character flaw.

Adios.

Btw, 60% of wwts sold for $31mil, and that was discluding the casino, with the seller having options to gain control of the buyer.

 

[lander]

Megaphone & Actuary,
Can you two girls quit fighting

Haden was among the most informative posters on any forums and you guys are ruining it

Knock the crap off

 

[Sodium Pentethol V]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>and yeah the TC thing is bothering the crap outta me, I know we've c****ed paths at another board but cannot place it, in fact I would guess you are a friendly but can't quite put my finger on it and don't care enough to figure it out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROTFLMAO,

Yea Antigua about the safest jurisdiction on earth right now, really thinking no book is going to stiff while they appeal to the WTO.

Canbet still losing money and can you or anyone else confirm that they are still operating under their Aussie licence?

And yea would bet my last dollar including interactives that WSEX handle surpassed $1Bill. If you include WPX there is no doubt.

 

yea that was pretty funny. Hope you learned you lesson after that beat down I gave you.

Looks to me like somebody's been searching my posts. LOL.

You were too sharp to take the WWTS bait, Jimmy coulda used that money.

No Canbet isn't operating under the Aussie license. But they are still as safe as when I posted above. Their recent slide back into the red will be rectified (not "still" as you wrote), after a profitable year.

They bought a building for $6mil in england and over $1mil of new software, and still with about $10 on hand. Their costs associated with breaking into the euro market have been high, but once they accomplish it, they will reap higher profits from the increased juice on soccer and other euro sports.

Their Handle last year jumped up over 30%, now over $500mil.


Wsex over a billion? I don't see it.

[This message was edited by megladon on February 10, 2004 at 04:43 PM.]

 

[Fishhead]

As big of a giant WSEX is in this business, they are still vastly UNDERrated in my estimation.

A solid out for years with something to offer to everyone.

 

[miaplus3]

Pay fess to w/d, no fee to deposit

 

[Fishhead]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by miaplus3:
Pay fess to w/d, no fee to deposit<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HUH??

One FREE neteller withdrawl every TEN days!!

 

[miaplus3]

fish, in return for fees on ALL w/d and no fees for all deposits & then reduce juice, is what i would prefer. i am not making a comment on how they do it now, just how i would prefer