Gamblers Avenue responds AFTER BEING SOLD

voodoxxx · Nov 5, 2003

some really great post in here and its painfully simple.

1. GA does not sale Mike Silver runs off with the money and everybody loses.

2. Royal bails them out gets 350k in post up with 5 times roll over and you have a shot at your money.

I dont think Royal is to blame, they just walked into a goldmine and you cant blame them for that. good business.

But i would be willing to bet this was not a sale but a bailout. I dont know this but Royal didnt give GA a dime for the business
You can tell by the way this was handled Mike Silver or Fred or who ever was not smart enough to know that they had a business worth at least 125k if there was 350 in there. But rest assure GA didnt make any money...... IMO

Fishhead · Nov 5, 2003

Sick- It is amazing to me that posters do not see the value in line shopping and low vig. AMAZING TO ME!!! Having you around saves me so much time typing.....since I agree with you 98% of the time.

jwunderdog · Nov 5, 2003

You can call it a sale, you can call it a bail out, either way it makes no difference to the player. The player now has a added requirement he didn't have 2 days ago. Certainly can not blame Royal, but this other bullshit about being sold VS bailout, is just that "bullshit".

The bailout is certainly better then nothing, but Mike is playing this like it is someone elses fault. Take some responsibility for the situation. If your book of business was worth so much,Royal would have galdly taken it over for just the customer base with no rollover?

I am so sick of people not taking responsiblity for their own actions!!

BY the way I don't blame GA for selling it was a business decision,just don't like the spin they put on it.

Fishhead · Nov 5, 2003

Jdog- Agree, GA was 100% in the wrong here.

Thank god, with some small strategy and a little time invested, using Sicks strategy will get you back at LEAST 75% of your money and more if your smart about it.

jateeluv · Nov 5, 2003

I think the main point in TE's statement is that he is assuming that Gamblers Avenue is covering all the money in everyone's account by holding it in their bank account. With the run to the bank by alot of it customers, their bank account was going low and as a result any profit. With the negative publicity and the rumors flying, more and more were running to the bank.

So instead of thenselves being in a bad situation where if someone happened to bet big and win big and not being able to pay them and have food on their table own table, they just did a smart business move by letting Royal acquire them.

This acquiring of their accounts, made it so that the employees of GA could get their last check, the owners can still have money left in the bank account to invest in other places and so forth.

We all know why books offer bonuses. It is so that they have more money in the bank collecting interest, more money to collect on the vigerous, and hopefully have the customer lose out which can cover any bookie mistakes in the future.

As customers to GA, we are investing in their business and by taking all our money out of their bank at once, we have left them no money to run their business. Now, this is what happens in a small book and it can happen in a big book too!! It would take more customers taking out more money but it can happen anywhere.

The fact is that we need to be careful about how rumors start and take facts when they actually come and stop taking opinions as facts.

Now if i said BOOK XYZ was thinking of selling, and everyone runs to their bank and takes money out of BOOK XYZ, then BOOK XYZ has no 'starting money' for the potential new suitor and the new suitor in order to protect their investment needs to have a rollover requirement. IT is the customers fault in reality for the new owners to require the rollover but it is also a bad business move as it angers customers.

It is a no win situation all started by rumors and speculation that Gamblers Avenue was hurting for money to pay people when in reality they weren't, they just weren't generating any profit to take their company to the next step. GA covered their asses in case of a run to the bank happened, they did their part. Don't be mad at Mike or Freddie, be mad that Royal wants to protect their investment by placing a rollover. However, keep in mind they have to place this rollover due to the cowardly customers who ran to the bank who as as result helped to expediate the process of selling off GA.

jwunderdog · Nov 5, 2003

Fish,

TO me this is not a big deal just don't like the spin. 5 times roll over to an active gambler is nothing, the bonus whores probably don't like it.

I am a little concerned that this isn't just a rollup. Just because Royal accepted the bailout doesn't mean Royal is anymore solid then GA was when they accepted the last bailout.Just because GA was sold doesn't mean Royal is flush with cash.Could easily convert the customer base to a simple agent agreement. This is pure spectulation with no facts so treat it as such.

Fishhead · Nov 5, 2003

jdog- Yes, be smart pal.

TheOldBallgame · Nov 5, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by sick gambler:

as a half point in the NBA just about cancels out the vig of 10% (just about)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not even close. At least a point is needed (depending on side or total and what number is being sided or middled) in the NBA. Except for sides close to pick, a point and a half is needed, and sides over -10 and almost all totals need two points to overcome the house edge.

Your half point would come close (with a side near pick) at a shop like Pinnacle that deals a ten cent line IF they set the line to -105 each way. They neutralize it by shading the moneyline instead.

[This message was edited by The Old Ballgame on November 05, 2003 at 12:08 PM.]

Ladeda · Nov 5, 2003

What a crock of shit this thread is!

Anyone who thinks GA could have paid all debts is not thinking to clearly. If what Mike Silver says players are really getting shafted since they would have gotten paid out just fine if Royal didn't buy Gamblers Avenue. If that is true then Royal is not a hero at all, they are just making a business decision in which the players are getting screwed.

Now if it was a bail out because GA couldn't pay then Royal is a hero. Which is probably more likely. That is why I don't understand why thr RX continues to allow these scammers the ability to post their lie ridden garbage.

Royal is wither screwing players or a hero , which one is it?

PO69 · Nov 5, 2003

Any book who hires Fred or Mike is bad for the players. I like both of them and had no problems with their book. But guys, it is time for a career change. "Gambling is not in the cards for you guys anymore."

D2bets · Nov 5, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by The Old Ballgame:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by sick gambler:

as a half point in the NBA just about cancels out the vig of 10% (just about)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not even close. At least a point is needed (depending on side or total and what number is being sided or middled) in the NBA. Except for sides close to pick, a point and a half is needed, and sides over -10 and almost all totals need two points to overcome the house edge.

Your half point would come close (with a side near pick) at a shop like Pinnacle that deals a ten cent line _IF_ they set the line to -105 each way. They neutralize it by shading the moneyline instead.

[This message was edited by The Old Ballgame on November 05, 2003 at 12:08 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

TOB, you're right about what's needed for middles but that's a bit of a different calculation from what's need to "overome the vig" for straight betting. Of course the juice is not really 10%, it's 4.55% or such. Here's why SG is right...

Let's say the "real spread" is +7. but with that "extra half " you get +7.5. Let's say it lands on that '7' roughly 4 out of 100 times (that's conservative I think). Instead of going 48-48-4 (and getting vigged) you would go 52-48-0 which is damn near breakeven at -110.

SG is pretty much right about his claim.

Samurai · Nov 5, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>There was never a question of if the players were going to get paid or not, they were going to get paid even if we did not sell the company to Royal or any other entity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I believe they have an industry term for a statement like this. It's called lying through your teeth.

Kiss1 · Nov 5, 2003

How does anyone know for sure that GA and Royal were not sleeping together the whole time ?

Looks to me like they are just playing "hide the sausage" with our money.

jateeluv · Nov 5, 2003

Kiss, that is a new angle ..maybe they have been working on a deal for a long time..and had a plan?? and GA was giving a percentage to Royal for 'insurance'. Then if for some reason all the people run to the bank, they can use their insurance..in which case Royal walks in 'to the rescue' but now..you gotta rollover 5x times your balance. This buys time to hope to generate more of a balance and/or hope the players lose out on the rollover. I can see this view as well as my view on the post earlier.

sickgambler · Nov 5, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by The Old Ballgame:

Your half point would come close (with a side near pick) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Butch/oldballgame,

You really don't know what the hell you're talking about man, that comment you just made here made it more official than anything that you're clueless. If a game is pick like you say, you now need 1 pt, not a half a pt because there is NO ties in the NBA. And D2bets just answered for me, so no need to argue with you.. A half a point just about cancels the vig. An NBA game landing on the number is 4%, so a half point is 2%, which means you would win 52% of your games with that half point, and you need 52.84% to break even.

Boys,

Even if you play both sides of every game just to get out. NO SCALPING, NO MIDDLING, nothing.. If you just played both sides, like -3.5 and +3.5 and lost the vig, you would still get 77% of your money back.. Meaning if you have 1k there, roll it over 5x, the worst you can end up 770 back out of 1k. And that is assuming no shopping.. And even if you rolled over your money with negative 5 cent scalps on the moneylines, (-125/+120), you would still end up with 900 left out of your 1k..

It's that easy boys.. Like I said, this 5x rollover is like free money.. Weren't there some books that bailed out players that required you to match your money and play it over like 20x.. I believe that was Cascade, no? You all should be thanking ROYAL instead of bashing them..

Halifax · Nov 5, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by sick gambler:
It's that easy boys.. Like I said, this 5x rollover is like free money.. Weren't there some books that bailed out players that required you to match your money and play it over like 20x.. I believe that was Cascade, no? You all should be thanking ROYAL instead of bashing them..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sick is bang on here.

If you want to bash, there are a number of entities that might be worthy of bashing, the primary two being Gamblers Avenue (for dipping into your post-ups) and yourselves (for signing up with a book primarily for the juicy bonus).

Royal should not be bashed.

dman · Nov 5, 2003

My take on this part of any aquistion is the employees of the corp being aquired....

They deserve to be paid as equally as any player...

dman

CascadeSportsbook · Nov 5, 2003

Sick Gambler/AH,

Cascade was NEVER involved in any bailout deal with Gambler's Avenue. Please get your facts straight.

Lenny

sickgambler · Nov 5, 2003

Leonard,

I wasn't talking about GA bailout sir. I was talking about this bailout offer you guys had about 2 yrs ago. I am not sure if it was Camelot, or Aces offer, or another book, but I do remember a bailout of 20x with NO withdraw by you guys at Cascade.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.. But I do remember this..

theswami · Nov 5, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jateeluv:
However, keep in mind they have to place this rollover due to the cowardly customers who ran to the bank who as as result helped to expediate the process of selling off GA.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

jateeluv-

With all due respect, I think your post is wrong.

1) Customers did not "invest" in GA. We played at GA and gave them money to cover our action.

2) Asking for your money is not cowardly, it's just plain smart. Ask the guys who were able to get out before GA stopped processing withdrawals.

GA NEVER OWNED THE MONEY!!! It belonged to the players. How on earth can you dispute that? A prudent business person would not use players' money to "run their business." The book should always have enough money on hand to pay expenses AND pay out all balances should there be a run. GA are bad business people...scratch that...GA are unscrupulous business people. They sure as hell are smart since they ran with the buyout made ny Royal while the players are left having to roll their funds.