IS INSURANCE BETTER THAN FACT?

drunkguy · Feb 11, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by wilheim:
Jazz - Actually that is my very point. The concept (escrow) has always been available but no watch-dog or gambling portal is going to play insurance man for sportsbooks when they really have no idea how financially sound they are. So we are back to square one<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that is really the heart of the problem, and what Jazz is getting to...the portals do not want to take the risk on themselves, but then, by default, are allowing ALL the risk to fall on the players. The two possible scenarios are:

1. Accept only "blue-chip" books as advertisers

2. Accept quesytionable or new books as advertisers, but give the players assurance that they will not be ripped off.

The forums/portals are receiving ad revenue as well as referral revenue. They receive this money only because they direct players to send money to those books. Thus, they are intimately involved in the cash transactions taking place, whether they want to admit it or not.

If a portal is going to accept revenue by sending players to a book, then they should also be willing to accept at least some of the risk. To leave all the risk in the hands of the players (which are really the hands that feeds the forums) is unfair and unethical IMO.

anyways, good thread so far

Jazz · Feb 11, 2004

Agreed with Drunkguy of course, as I said above - the problem is that sites wish to receive the advertising revenue and referral money (if applicable) without incurring any risk for promoting a book. How is that fair?

drunkguy · Feb 11, 2004

Jazz-

apparently we are communicating telepathically or something tonight

Every time I put a post in this thread I see that you posted essentially same thing while I was writing

Jazz · Feb 11, 2004

lol - given that I don't believe in telepathy, I'd say that ... wait, you were going to say you didn't either, right??? I'm getting freaked!!!

anyway. cul8tr, have got to catch some zzzzsss, but I do agree with your main points

wilheim · Feb 11, 2004

Simply put you are absolutely correct. The industry, and I use this term loosely, wants to regulate itself like I want to get a job at McDonalds. The players are like consumers everywhere, most are brain-washed by advertising they see almost everywhere a sports team logo is printed. Why do we buy Bud? Why do we send our money to Nasa? Because that is what we know from the advertising we are inundated with. Guys like yourself and Drunk and maybe a thousand more bettors who haunt these forums know better. The problem is that is a drop in the bucket. The average $100 parlay bettor has'nt a clue. Sure we might be able to form a tiny coalition of bettors in one forum or another, but you can bet not a single book will make it a mandatory requirement that before someone posts up funds they join the coalition. Finding a bank to hold the funds would be the least of any worries a "players union" might have.

wil.

drunkguy · Feb 11, 2004

wil-

excellent and well-thought out responses as usual. Much more refreshing than the "I'm right and

) that we see so often.

Agreed that there are problems to be solved. But the only way to solve them is to start working on them

wilheim · Feb 11, 2004

Drunk - very true, some sort of dialogue has been the first tentative baby step of many revolutionary changes involving matters much more complicated than the one discussed here. Maybe there is some light at the end of a very dark tunnel, one that will benefit everyone, player, bookmaker, and yes, forum owners.

wil.

WildBill · Feb 11, 2004

Whenever you put in 100% guarantees or any kind of insurance scheme, you invite trouble. Some players gladly jump into bed with a risky book and when it goes wrong get seriously upset when they don't get 100% of their funds right when they request them. That is the bottom line.

I wrote an article that got panned by a lot of people when I made what I thought was a fair argument that as long as some risk, say 20 or 30%, was accepted by the players that we could have a good bailout and/or insurance system. People seem to want to have the right to be foolishly risky and still get their money on demand. When they don't they will cause a big stink, so even with insurance I could see a mess developing.

As much as people don't want to admit it, players need to take some responsibility for where they put their money just as they do with any investment, regardless of how good the advice is they get. The highest paid stock pickers in the world got fooled by some companies even though all their statements were supposedly audited and publicly released. Surely an unregulated business that doesn't have to give out their numbers to anyone can fool even the most diligent person.

BillyB+ · Feb 12, 2004

good ideas from Jazz, Wil and Drunk. The plans already being used at OGD but Shrink and Major tried to cancel plan. If Neteller is no good just use another method of holding funds as suggested in ohter posts above. Now the only problem is can you trust egold or other method?

hanover00 · Feb 12, 2004

This idea of holding only 10% of customer funds in cash is exactly why players are constantly being robbed.

There seems to be a pervasive acceptance of the fact that most of these off-shore books do not hold 100% of customer funds in a segregated account, not to be used for paying advertising or any other operating expenses.

This entire mess which repeats itself over and over again would not exist if books simply had to post audited customer account balance info. Simple. All this insurance scheme crap is either a group jerk-off as someone previously suggested, or a realization among those benefiting from the existence of these scam books that the ad revenue source would dry up quickly if the books had to prove segregated funds. After all, how are these shit books paying for the ads? Obviously by using customer funds rather than invested funds.

If a would be watchdog site was truly interested in protecting it's members, it would simply have to demand audited accounting of customer funds and insist that it's advertisers have 100% customer funds available at all times. Investor money and profit is to be used to pay bills. Anything short of this concept leads us to the fact that ad sites are, in fact, receiving player funds in payment for their services. Thus, sharing in the fleecing of the players.

TheGeneral+ · Feb 12, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jazz:
the problem is that sites wish to receive the advertising revenue and referral money (if applicable) without incurring any risk for promoting a book. How is that fair?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is the business model of forums. There are 100's of sports forums on the net that will not financially back their advertisers. What if at some point & some forum, several books joined together and pulled out. Stole everything. There is just not much of a plan that will work and now, knowing that any of these insured plans will require extra personal information to parties we may not trust makes it worse.

There is alot not fair in this world.

Sites like the Rx wish to receive ad money cause they have to receive ad money or we could not be here to discuss this topic.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> If a would be watchdog site was truly interested in protecting it's members, it would simply have to demand audited accounting of customer funds and insist that it's advertisers have 100% customer funds available at all times. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The better books will say see ya, we dont need that headache and we do not want to disclose that info. This was brought up by Ken and immediately shot down by some bookmakers. Not to mention, we would not know if the numbers were true or not.

drunkguy · Feb 12, 2004

Think about this for a minute: why do we have to post up funds with a book?

Because the book does not want to extend us credit. Thus, we send our money as proof that we will pay if we lose. That is the ONLY reason for sending post-up.

Post-up money is only to be held for that purpose. It should be spent on advertising, overhead, beach parties, coke, hookers, or anythig else. That is the investors job to provide the expense money.

By condoning that sportsbooks only be required to prove they hold 10% of post up funds in cash instruments seems to be tacit approval of the way books are spending OUR post-up money.

They should be required to hold 100% of customer assets in either cash instruments or an escrow account. That is the only acceptable answer. I understand that change will not come overnight, but to accept any less is ridiculous.

hanover00 · Feb 12, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Not to mention, we would not know if the numbers were true or not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, this is why we use the terms audited and escrow. Look them up.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>The better books will say see ya, we dont need that headache and we do not want to disclose that info. This was brought up by Ken and immediately shot down by some bookmakers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly as I said, you, as an advertising site, are concerned that you would disappear along with many of your ad customers. The fact remains that you are being paid with player funds. Sometimes, people have to take a stand. The alternative is to reveal yourself.

TheGeneral+ · Feb 12, 2004

hanover00,

Not trying to knock any ideas. Hope you know that.

Opimistically reading along and maybe through all this a plan will work with books who advertise.

Jazz · Feb 12, 2004

General: "It is the business model of forums. There are 100's of sports forums on the net that will not financially back their advertisers. What if at some point & some forum, several books joined together and pulled out. Stole everything."

I know it's the business models of the forum - that's for certain. However, the point of this topic was to explore ways to change the current 'business model' wherein forums advertise and promote books to its readers and yet assume none of the risk involved if and when those books go to hell. Theory here is that we need (meaning, the players need) some type of meaningful incentive for forums to ensure the banners they put up are not simply future funereal shrouds.

Also, I am more than fully aware this is an unregulated environment, which is why this topic was started in the first place. Unfortunately, I've seen other topics begun here after the last few book failures, and the usual course of the topic is some spirited discussion followed by the regrettable conclusion that nothing is likely to change, and that's just the way the business is, and there's not much we can do about it. As this topic has.

The basic problem as I see it: the forum players are asking for more security which will require both the forum and the book to take on more risk, and that's like asking Michael Jackson not to sleep with little boys. However, I do wonder what percentage of Panam's clientele resulted from sign-ups on forums, and I'm wondering what players could do in response to the same old same old for the next new book to be promoted in order to get changes made. Now, I'm only exploring steps that could be taken by forum players in order to encourage forums to change their policies - perhaps boycotting new books promoted by forums where no type of safety net at all is provided. Money talks and perhaps is the only way for change to occur. A book like Olympic isn't affected, far too many players from outside the forums, and no need anyway - but for the next Panam, if they knew a big boycott was underway unless some verifiable security arrangements had been made, it might influence them.

And perhaps that might eventually happen, where players get disgusted with the status quo where we are expected to understand that it's a devil's playground out there and no one except us has to take the risk.

lakerfan · Feb 12, 2004

It seems this forum is all about TALK; other forums DO.

TheGeneral+ · Feb 12, 2004

Jazz,

There is not a concern that you have that I do not. Like I said in another post, we can barely get 10 posters to say "nice job" or "Congratulations" when another wins a contest.

The brotherhood is not strong.

Without a strong bond between the people, there is less of a chance of good communication and assistance. There have been some pretty sharp people reading along these threads and if there is a system developed to make safety guaranteed, then I am leading the pack helping.

It's just not easy to do and tougher with agendas and egos in the mix.

WildBill · Feb 12, 2004

That is sad but true General. This place used to be a good friendly spot with lots of info. Now good info gets buried in threads full of agendas, rumors, and outright hostility...

lakerfan · Feb 12, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> That is sad but true General. This place used to be a good friendly spot with lots of info. Now good info gets buried in threads full of agendas, rumors, and outright hostility...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your right. Problem is a lot of the posters where driven away by stupid moves by this site including frequent bannings.

I think Shrinks "idea" is better than nothing. But I would like to see some action on it. Peep and Major are both taking action.

AdamSelene · Feb 12, 2004

As an aside, I can certainly see on book agreeing to insure another book are stepping in upon a failure as a pure customer acquisition attempt -- only insuring up to a certain dollar amount or certain percentage, making the cost per customer in line with normal customer acquisition costs.