General:Are you serious?

[THE SHRINK]

Jazz,

Just because I sold the site doesn't mean I am not interested in putting forth our share in an escrow account to help the players...

I am in talks with SBR about this and I believe each site would be willing to put forward 50k for a total of 100k...

I will be visiting CR soon and let you know how this porgresses...

Some of the sports books have told me they would welcome this a lot...

Finally,

I have always said that the best way to judge a sports bok is NOT what I say, but rather from the posters who bet into them regularly...

I did not have an account with Blue Marlin, nor did I or others expect them to go out of biz...

It is getting real difficult out there to determine who is being truthful to us and who is not...

Ken

 

[Jazz]

Shrink: that's good to hear. Are you specifically referring to putting up money to ensure the funds of those who had money in Blue Marlin?

 

[THE SHRINK]

Jazz,

NO...

It was NEVER our pledge to do so, but if we go ahead with future plans to insure books, you better believe we will honor our commitment...

 

[Jazz]

Shrink: may I politely suggest you start with a book your site advertised NOW, rather than wait for a future failure. The resulting goodwill would be fantastic advertising for the Rx, no?

And yes, I know it wasn't your 'pledge' to do so, but what I am saying is that there is no way on this planet I would ever believe a recommendation from the Rx about a sportsbook in the future unless there was such a guarantee behind it. 2 Rx-recommended books down in one week, GA 'absorbed' by Royal and BM still twisting in the wind - not a very encouraging record. And rumors reported elswhere of a third - yet still RUMORS of course.

 

[BillDozer]

good to hear

When you think about it it sounds like it should be done. Why should a site make any money off a book that went down where its players it sent there lost his/her money?

Granted I don't know anything about overhead of a site like this but I assume a high % of each ad is profit. If it was me I wouldnt want that %. Its essentially the money the book stole.

 

[jimbutorac]

Bill,

Didn't say Tyco went under - just used example to say that even audited figures don't tell the truth. Just like if you were an account at Blue Marlin, don't tell me if you were a stockholder at Tyco you wouldn't be pissed thast your investment was pissed away - if you wanna split hairs, cool.

Jazz, I honestly go back and forth with your comments about insuring funds. If WorldCom advertises in BusinessWeek, and you lose your investment, you don't hold BusinessWeek responsible. On the other hand, BusinessWeek refrains from promoting the stock, more or less.

However, there are brokers all over that pumped that stock before it went bankrupt and unless you can prove prior knowledge and collusion, they will be held harmless.

 

[Jazz]

Mudbone: I can appreciate your comparison to Businessweek and Worldcom - but my response would be that Rx representatives have posted positive recommendations about Blue Marlin, whereas you don't see that about Worldcom at BW - if you did, then you're damn right I'd jump BW about it.

There is a far more intimate relationship here between the Rx and the advertising books than there is between BW and their advertisers - I'd dare say they have a LOT more to choose from. Given that intimacy, I think that more responsibility arrives with it than in other circumstances - the Shrink admitted as much with this comment "but if we go ahead with future plans to insure books, you better believe we will honor our commitment" - meaning, the only reason for the Rx to have future plans to insure books is EXACTLY because it has become such a credibility issue for the Rx.

 

[jimbutorac]

Hey Jazz,

My initial response is to say that there is as much, if not more manipulation of media regading the financial sector but that doesn't exonerate what's going on regarding BM.

To build on what you're saying, to me there are two possible solutions:

Post a statement (and don't quote me on exact wording) to effect that "We accept paid advertising on this site and do not vouch for viability of the business"

OR

After a listing of each book, maybe they could list,

"This book has been finacially audited by XYZ Accounting firm and has fullly paid into ABC insurance gurantee fund".

I know the wording is kinda amateurish, but hopefully concepts are apparent. But I have to say I think the prospects for option 2 are limited, I don't think there is that kinda margin in the industry to allow it. You've been around a lot longer than me, whaddya think?

 

[Jazz]

Mudbone, your longevity isn't at issue here, believe me - I think you're right, option #2 is not going to happen, I just don't see it. Option #1 would work but only if ALL Rx employees and owners would refrain from posting positive 'personal experience' stories about the books advertising here, which would be one helluva sea change and one that I doubt books who advertise here would readily accept.

Not that I am saying your idea does not have merit, I'm saying it probably wouldn't fly - same as mine of course - lol.

So will there be a solution to this problem? I don't know, I'll wait and see, in the meanwhile I won't believe anything I see here with regards to a book's viability (OR anywhere ELSE for that matter - it's not just an Rx issue, you know)

 

[jimbutorac]

Jazz,

I hear what you're saying and pretty much agreee. Lurked for a long time and always took into account what you got to say and respected your opinion.

Unfortunately for me, I'm on East Coast and gotta be at work tomorrow am so don't see all this getting resolved tonite.

Peace out.

 

[DarrylParsons]

Some pretty tough words from Jazz but the deeper I think about it the more I have to say he's absolutely right.

If a site wants to be a real watchdog it has to back its words with cash if the case demands it. Thinking of it on an individual scale, if I recommend a book to a friend and he gets stiffed there I know I have 2 options -- either take a share in his misfortune by covering some portion like 1/4, 1/3 or 1/2 of his loss, or lose a friend. If he does well then I expect our friendship to flourish and get invited out to celebrate etc. It's just the way it works -- friends are friends because they identify with each others' fates to some extent.

When the Rx praises books which are truly praiseworthy, makes offers, runs contests etc. (ie. does good things) the favor gets returned by its posters by lots of clicks, lots of praise, referrals, etc. But when a recommended book goes under and no sort of compensation is given, then the opposite happens. People become suspicious and the kudos points go down.

So in short I say that the Rx should open their wallets to some extent on this Blue Marlin issue if only as a symbolic gesture -- say an amount equal to all the advertising money received from them less direct expenses. This would show that the Rx is not interested in profiting from rogue books and send a huge message to anyone who is questioning how serious this site is about its role as a watchdog.

 

[PatrickMcIrish]

Good thread guys, ideas never hurt anyone. Here's my 02 cents on the issue. First I have never cared for the term "watchdog site". It's not what we are IMHO. Once we take the first nickel from a book they have become a means to make a profit for us, we certainly are not an overseer of any sort. However it does not mean the sites are not beneficial to the players, every wiseguy in the world reads this site. We have had a hand in saving loads of people from bad books too. Albeit usually people relatively new to off-shore betting who don't know who is who yet. As folks stay on the forums longer they become more in tune to what is going on and they know who the obvious shit books are. Blue Marlin is a book that most insiders will tell you they would not have guessed about. This book has been in business 8 years I believe and has always taken care of business. Gamblers Avenue and some others may have been a different story though they ended up being bailed out by another book.

As far as mods making comments on books Jazz I do not agree with that at all. You are wise enough to know that our thoughts and opinions are no better or worse than anyone elses. Fishhead, me and some others gamble just as much as most of you all, we have our thoughts as well. I think you give us too much credit if you feel us saying anything good about a book is wrong. I often speak of books who don't even advertise here, under your plan do those have to go as well? Censoring mods who like to gamble is an overreaction in my view. For the record I am all for a financial commitment of some sort but doubt you will ever see it. MW did it once I believe up to $500 and there was strong allegations of all sort of cheating going on even then. If the dollar amount was bigger it would be worse. I am sitting at a book and know the Rx is backing me than I call you up and tell you to send 50k if I am going out of business. Don't really send me a quarter but I am putting you on the books for it and we can chop it up later. This is just one example but I can't see an unregulated field like this having a plan so that players will ever be without risk. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, we can give you 100% honest information and real recommendations yet still lead you right to the slaughter. Anyway I am all for hearing ideas and discussing things but this site can not read what is in someone's heart. If a book wants to steal your money he is going to do it. Doubt we can get Shrink and/or other sites to pay us back but don't see that it can hurt to ask.

This is mostly a business for these sites. The most value in a place like this is listening to what others have to say that actually play at these books. Not what the sites whom are getting paid have to say. I do believe Shrink tries to put up good books here but there will be problems in this field. Always is. You can be beat out of some big money or take some big laydowns and before you know it there is problems. A year ago all was fine. To make it worse bookies are taught very young to keep their business off the street. If they do not want you to know anything you are going to be hard pressed to find it out. If your name is Shrink or Russ it will be even worse. I am not punching holes in anything you say, just being realistic here. There are no sure things. When BetWorks went down that should tell you all you need to know. Anyway thanks for the posts, just wanted to chime in some of my thoughts on this. Believe me I have thought long and hard on this, I'd like to see something done. Instead of sites fighting with each other something productive for the players would be a nice change of pace.

 

[Pretending]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Well it was nice knowing you General. Sorry to see you get fired! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was the General fired?

 

[Pretending]

bump

 

[PatrickMcIrish]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pretending:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Well it was nice knowing you General. Sorry to see you get fired! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was the General fired?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heck no! Fired for what? General's a good man.

 

[Pretending]

Well it confused me to Patrick and I couldn't find any context. Quote is from Players 69, I guess he was kidding but I couldn't tell.

 

[Pretending]

Probably my fault here. sorry if i made a stir.

 

[PatrickMcIrish]

No it's okay Pretending, someone else asked me this earlier. I wasn't sure if I missed something last night is why I asked.

And don't worry about creating a stir, we like to be stirred up around here.