Ok let me answer for the Shrink if I may
1) Every book has one or more of these types of bank accounts around the world.
2)If the book is losing $ and they decide to close shop forget it you won't see a penny from one of these bank accounts...The owners will pocket the full amount....Remember Charlie funneling $250 grand each week to his daughter ??? Do you really think he went back home broke ??
1) Every book has one or more of these types of bank accounts around the world.
2)If the book is losing $ and they decide to close shop forget it you won't see a penny from one of these bank accounts...The owners will pocket the full amount....Remember Charlie funneling $250 grand each week to his daughter ??? Do you really think he went back home broke ??
What if Shrink said #3? Would you all pull out your money from Bodog then? I doubt it.
Bottom line is that playing offshore requires a leap of faith for all of us, keeping our balances down to a reasonable amount is the best that can be done. If Shrink came out tomorrow and said "listen people, due to all the potential shenanigans out there and the fact that I am not in control of the finances of any of these books, I can't ever say anything about their financial condition", then who would just give up betting completely? I would guess no one would.
You all know who everyone around here considers the "safest" books, if you can't handle the risk then keep small balances and stick to "safe" books. Why does this always have to revert into a blame my losses on someone else rant? I know you are upset at losing money and I would be too, but pointing a finger at someone gets us all nowhere. We must all from this day forward accept the fact that each and every offshore account does have some risk.
After all even Pinnacle isn't 100% certain, what would happen if the US government wanted to push some unwarranted vendetta against them and claim their money was funding terrorists? Thanks to the current climate, I wouldn't bet against them being able to freeze some or all of their funds. Not saying it is going to happen, but there just are no sure things in this business.
Bottom line is that playing offshore requires a leap of faith for all of us, keeping our balances down to a reasonable amount is the best that can be done. If Shrink came out tomorrow and said "listen people, due to all the potential shenanigans out there and the fact that I am not in control of the finances of any of these books, I can't ever say anything about their financial condition", then who would just give up betting completely? I would guess no one would.
You all know who everyone around here considers the "safest" books, if you can't handle the risk then keep small balances and stick to "safe" books. Why does this always have to revert into a blame my losses on someone else rant? I know you are upset at losing money and I would be too, but pointing a finger at someone gets us all nowhere. We must all from this day forward accept the fact that each and every offshore account does have some risk.
After all even Pinnacle isn't 100% certain, what would happen if the US government wanted to push some unwarranted vendetta against them and claim their money was funding terrorists? Thanks to the current climate, I wouldn't bet against them being able to freeze some or all of their funds. Not saying it is going to happen, but there just are no sure things in this business.
Well, from here on in, I for one will save my typing for some other thread, as it's painfully obvious that The Shrink and employees have no intention of addressing the very specific request that this thread was based upon.
I believe the author wanted to find out about the validity of the BoDog seg account, not to have The 20 Offshore Do's and Don'ts recited to him ad nauseum.
I believe the author wanted to find out about the validity of the BoDog seg account, not to have The 20 Offshore Do's and Don'ts recited to him ad nauseum.
I see the spinsters have had a meeting in the board room about damage control.
Still not very good at it.
the facts:
1) Shrink gave his unqualified guarantee about Panam, spent months promoting them, then apologized for what he considered circumstances beyond his control
2) He continues to promote bodog, even quoted some outlandish figures as fact. This is a book which is making outrageous claims and guarantees, while the principle owner has a history of pump and dump stock fraud.
Shrink and his team refuse to stand behind their words, they are directly saying, we lie about books, we have no facts. We have a top spot at google so we can bring in new meat to support our yearly fleece books.
We will not do research, we feel no need to honor our words. We leave it to the bettors to find out which of our posts are lies and halftruths, and this by their estimation is the way it should be. Shrink even brags about his self procalimed position as the premiere offshore watchdog.
We all find ways to justify our ethics.
And that my friends is why this site has no long term posters.
So how about this shrink, until you provide evidence of your claims, including the segregated account, and excessive handle claims, I'll be on bodog, you, and sting. Hell, I'm even going to register at covers, lets see how your advertisors like that.
A man stands behind his words, a coward runs from them.
Still not very good at it.
the facts:
1) Shrink gave his unqualified guarantee about Panam, spent months promoting them, then apologized for what he considered circumstances beyond his control
2) He continues to promote bodog, even quoted some outlandish figures as fact. This is a book which is making outrageous claims and guarantees, while the principle owner has a history of pump and dump stock fraud.
Shrink and his team refuse to stand behind their words, they are directly saying, we lie about books, we have no facts. We have a top spot at google so we can bring in new meat to support our yearly fleece books.
We will not do research, we feel no need to honor our words. We leave it to the bettors to find out which of our posts are lies and halftruths, and this by their estimation is the way it should be. Shrink even brags about his self procalimed position as the premiere offshore watchdog.
We all find ways to justify our ethics.
And that my friends is why this site has no long term posters.
So how about this shrink, until you provide evidence of your claims, including the segregated account, and excessive handle claims, I'll be on bodog, you, and sting. Hell, I'm even going to register at covers, lets see how your advertisors like that.
A man stands behind his words, a coward runs from them.
Halifax,
Honestly I don't think we could get you and the rest an answer you would trust. I mean they aren't going to open their books and their proprietary information to us just because some Rx posters want it. They might tell us they have the funds, they might even be willing to give us someone else to vouch for it. But short of giving us an account number and contact, we couldn't give you that assurance. And I am sorry, but if it was my business there is no way I would give that information out to anyone, respected person in the offshore community or not.
As I said, unfortunately there is nothing more any of us can do but either take their word for it or not. Everyone should be operating on the premise that there is nothing there to protect you at any shop and if there is then it is just a little extra security you weren't expecting.
Honestly I don't think we could get you and the rest an answer you would trust. I mean they aren't going to open their books and their proprietary information to us just because some Rx posters want it. They might tell us they have the funds, they might even be willing to give us someone else to vouch for it. But short of giving us an account number and contact, we couldn't give you that assurance. And I am sorry, but if it was my business there is no way I would give that information out to anyone, respected person in the offshore community or not.
As I said, unfortunately there is nothing more any of us can do but either take their word for it or not. Everyone should be operating on the premise that there is nothing there to protect you at any shop and if there is then it is just a little extra security you weren't expecting.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> posted February 09, 2004 11:27 PM
I see the spinsters have had a meeting in the board room about damage control.
Still not very good at it.
the facts:
1) Shrink gave his unqualified guarantee about Panam, spent months promoting them, then apologized for what he considered circumstances beyond his control
2) He continues to promote bodog, even quoted some outlandish figures as fact. This is a book which is making outrageous claims and guarantees, while the principle owner has a history of pump and dump stock fraud.
Shrink and his team refuse to stand behind their words, they are directly saying, we lie about books, we have no facts. We have a top spot at google so we can bring in new meat to support our yearly fleece books.
We will not do research, we feel no need to honor our words. We leave it to the bettors to find out which of our posts are lies and halftruths, and this by their estimation is the way it should be. Shrink even brags about his self procalimed position as the premiere offshore watchdog.
We all find ways to justify our ethics.
And that my friends is why this site has no long term posters.
So how about this shrink, until you provide evidence of your claims, including the segregated account, and excessive handle claims, I'll be on bodog, you, and sting. Hell, I'm even going to register at covers, lets see how your advertisors like that.
A man stands behind his words, a coward runs from them
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good post
I just posted this somewhere else, not going to even bother addressing all the specifics on my mind. Looks like docdekay feels the same way
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The thread showed promise this am and now fish and general followed in Kens reversal and it represents everything wrong withthe whole stinking set up <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
dog
I see the spinsters have had a meeting in the board room about damage control.
Still not very good at it.
the facts:
1) Shrink gave his unqualified guarantee about Panam, spent months promoting them, then apologized for what he considered circumstances beyond his control
2) He continues to promote bodog, even quoted some outlandish figures as fact. This is a book which is making outrageous claims and guarantees, while the principle owner has a history of pump and dump stock fraud.
Shrink and his team refuse to stand behind their words, they are directly saying, we lie about books, we have no facts. We have a top spot at google so we can bring in new meat to support our yearly fleece books.
We will not do research, we feel no need to honor our words. We leave it to the bettors to find out which of our posts are lies and halftruths, and this by their estimation is the way it should be. Shrink even brags about his self procalimed position as the premiere offshore watchdog.
We all find ways to justify our ethics.
And that my friends is why this site has no long term posters.
So how about this shrink, until you provide evidence of your claims, including the segregated account, and excessive handle claims, I'll be on bodog, you, and sting. Hell, I'm even going to register at covers, lets see how your advertisors like that.
A man stands behind his words, a coward runs from them
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good post
I just posted this somewhere else, not going to even bother addressing all the specifics on my mind. Looks like docdekay feels the same way
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The thread showed promise this am and now fish and general followed in Kens reversal and it represents everything wrong withthe whole stinking set up <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
dog
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WildBill:
Halifax,
Honestly I don't think we could get you and the rest an answer you would trust. I mean they aren't going to open their books and their proprietary information to us just because some Rx posters want it. They might tell us they have the funds, they might even be willing to give us someone else to vouch for it. But short of giving us an account number and contact, we couldn't give you that assurance. And I am sorry, but if it was my business there is no way I would give that information out to anyone, respected person in the offshore community or not.
As I said, unfortunately there is nothing more any of us can do but either take their word for it or not. Everyone should be operating on the premise that there is nothing there to protect you at any shop and if there is then it is just a little extra security you weren't expecting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bill, I understand this, and I already know the answer to the question posed in this thread. There is no "reserve" fund earmarked for BoDog players. Half the sportsbooks out there claim to have the players' money insured/escrowed, and in almost every case (including BoDog's case), it's bullshit.
More than likely, all of the posters in this thread know that these claims are bullshit, so we take them with a grain of salt.
But the problem is that The Shrink repeated, as fact, BoDog's claim of having this Swiss reserve account set up for the players. This simple act raised the bar for Shrink's level of personal responsibility with regards to the BoDog seg account.
Given his trumpeting of the $500K PanAm bond (without doing any due diligence), it's now even more imperative for him to take responsibility for the BoDog statement. He needs to step up and say "Yes, No, or Not Sure" with regards to the existence of the seg account.
[This message was edited by Halifax on February 10, 2004 at 01:00 AM.]
Halifax,
Honestly I don't think we could get you and the rest an answer you would trust. I mean they aren't going to open their books and their proprietary information to us just because some Rx posters want it. They might tell us they have the funds, they might even be willing to give us someone else to vouch for it. But short of giving us an account number and contact, we couldn't give you that assurance. And I am sorry, but if it was my business there is no way I would give that information out to anyone, respected person in the offshore community or not.
As I said, unfortunately there is nothing more any of us can do but either take their word for it or not. Everyone should be operating on the premise that there is nothing there to protect you at any shop and if there is then it is just a little extra security you weren't expecting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bill, I understand this, and I already know the answer to the question posed in this thread. There is no "reserve" fund earmarked for BoDog players. Half the sportsbooks out there claim to have the players' money insured/escrowed, and in almost every case (including BoDog's case), it's bullshit.
More than likely, all of the posters in this thread know that these claims are bullshit, so we take them with a grain of salt.
But the problem is that The Shrink repeated, as fact, BoDog's claim of having this Swiss reserve account set up for the players. This simple act raised the bar for Shrink's level of personal responsibility with regards to the BoDog seg account.
Given his trumpeting of the $500K PanAm bond (without doing any due diligence), it's now even more imperative for him to take responsibility for the BoDog statement. He needs to step up and say "Yes, No, or Not Sure" with regards to the existence of the seg account.
[This message was edited by Halifax on February 10, 2004 at 01:00 AM.]
Exactly Hal, and I commend your efforts in this thread.
The fact some books lie about their situation does not give site owners and site employees carte blanche to repeat those lies as fact.
Site owners in particular need to be held to a standard of accountability for their statements and endorsements.
This site owner and his employees just sent their bettors to slaughter at Panam, and there is a long list of previous identical instances on this site, perpetrated yearly, yet they refuse to be held accountable, in fact defending their actions.
I can't believe even these ethically challenged individuals can't see the difference when a book lies and when they repeat those lies as fact. Can't believe they don't see their lack of character when they promote books who are high risk.
The fact some books lie about their situation does not give site owners and site employees carte blanche to repeat those lies as fact.
Site owners in particular need to be held to a standard of accountability for their statements and endorsements.
This site owner and his employees just sent their bettors to slaughter at Panam, and there is a long list of previous identical instances on this site, perpetrated yearly, yet they refuse to be held accountable, in fact defending their actions.
I can't believe even these ethically challenged individuals can't see the difference when a book lies and when they repeat those lies as fact. Can't believe they don't see their lack of character when they promote books who are high risk.
I sent you to the slaughter??? Excuse me? I didn't tell you nothing about Panam, in fact I refused comment. Maybe you believe Shrink did so, but all I ever do is point out that there is risk involved. What I don't understand is if you all think I or someone else is fleecing you somehow, why do you stick around? Why do you make such outrageous comments? Bodog isn't even showing signs of trouble, here you are acting as if it is a sure thing to happen. If you don't feel safe or you don't trust Shrink's word, by all means tomorrow first thing call them up and get your money out. In any case let me make it clear, I have never said anyone was completely safe, nor will I ever. If I do say that, then rest assured you could just call me OWNER
lol Bill, did you or didn't you just get done writing 3 infomercials about bodog for the front page?
But lets not change the topic which is:
-Is this site engaged in the active promotion of books without checking on their risk?
-Are representives of this site writing as fact known distortions and lies?
Can this site take responsibility for the numerous shady books it promoted which have gone belly up and cost this site's posters bankroll.
So shrink, can you back up the statements you made about Bodog or were you lieing? There is no grey area.
But lets not change the topic which is:
-Is this site engaged in the active promotion of books without checking on their risk?
-Are representives of this site writing as fact known distortions and lies?
Can this site take responsibility for the numerous shady books it promoted which have gone belly up and cost this site's posters bankroll.
So shrink, can you back up the statements you made about Bodog or were you lieing? There is no grey area.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I seem to remember that after Blue Marlin went down, Shrink made the statement that he would no longer advertise books unless he could see their monthly balance sheet. Wonder what happened with this?????? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good point. RXers seem to be saying hold us to a low standard, while a few months back, Shrink was saying we are going to have a higher standard. I didn't believe then or now that Shrink would actually look at books financials on a regular basis, but maybe I will be surprised.
Good point. RXers seem to be saying hold us to a low standard, while a few months back, Shrink was saying we are going to have a higher standard. I didn't believe then or now that Shrink would actually look at books financials on a regular basis, but maybe I will be surprised.
