Shrink looks pretty bad here, but everyone is really to blame for investing over there on only the word of one individual. Due Diligence constitutes a lot more than just listening to one person. I have to at least give the Shrink credit for being the first one including MW and SBR to have the balls to break the story that this sportsbook was basically toast.
I'm not blaming Shrink or Buzz for the book's apparent 
-up act - I'm saying that if these people who should have been able to find out the important stuff did not (in time, as far as we know), then how in hell can I, sitting in Kansas City? I don't subscribe to one person's view of a book, regardless of who they are - but I have yet to see an officially-distributed list of players, pimps, potentates and posters who are considered 'absolutely knowledgeable' with respect to sportsbooks. Again, due diligence works to a point, just enough to keep you away from the known black holes but not enough to distinguish a borderline book from a decent one (risk vs. reward - for those who don't want the risk, you play at only the top books, for those who do, you don't have to like it but you have to accept it as part of that equation). I don't 'know' any poster here, not really, so I review what I can and at the other sites when deciding whether to take a flyer on a book, new or otherwise. Of course, there's the camp of those who believe if you play at any book recommended by the Shrink that you deserve whatever you find in your own black hole in the morning, and those who are in the opposite camp. Same for some people with respect to SBR's ratings on some books. So, for anyone in my shoes, the best you can hope to do is as I said, and if you can get personal information from a player that isn't posted, so much the better.
But no one here is going to convince me that there is some sort of objective, rational approach for due diligence that will avoid all situations like these from the git-go.
-up act - I'm saying that if these people who should have been able to find out the important stuff did not (in time, as far as we know), then how in hell can I, sitting in Kansas City? I don't subscribe to one person's view of a book, regardless of who they are - but I have yet to see an officially-distributed list of players, pimps, potentates and posters who are considered 'absolutely knowledgeable' with respect to sportsbooks. Again, due diligence works to a point, just enough to keep you away from the known black holes but not enough to distinguish a borderline book from a decent one (risk vs. reward - for those who don't want the risk, you play at only the top books, for those who do, you don't have to like it but you have to accept it as part of that equation). I don't 'know' any poster here, not really, so I review what I can and at the other sites when deciding whether to take a flyer on a book, new or otherwise. Of course, there's the camp of those who believe if you play at any book recommended by the Shrink that you deserve whatever you find in your own black hole in the morning, and those who are in the opposite camp. Same for some people with respect to SBR's ratings on some books. So, for anyone in my shoes, the best you can hope to do is as I said, and if you can get personal information from a player that isn't posted, so much the better.But no one here is going to convince me that there is some sort of objective, rational approach for due diligence that will avoid all situations like these from the git-go.
Shrink writes:
"Unfortunately, everyone who trusted my judgement with regards to Panam is getting hurt and I take full responsibility for allowing this to happen..."
Shrink, let me help you out here buddy - "taking full responsibility" is if you agree to pay everyone that has been stiffed. You're NOT taking full responsibility - you're basically telling everyone that got stiffed that they shouldn't have trusted you.
I know you have helped a lot of people in the past, Shrink, but please don't give us cliches when you don't mean it.
"Unfortunately, everyone who trusted my judgement with regards to Panam is getting hurt and I take full responsibility for allowing this to happen..."
Shrink, let me help you out here buddy - "taking full responsibility" is if you agree to pay everyone that has been stiffed. You're NOT taking full responsibility - you're basically telling everyone that got stiffed that they shouldn't have trusted you.
I know you have helped a lot of people in the past, Shrink, but please don't give us cliches when you don't mean it.
The due diligence may have been a poor statement. Most did there due diligence and still may lose in this scenario.
Maybe its not prudent to put so much faith in a book that has only been opened for so little a period. But thats hindsight and doesn't help anyone now.
I do think the Panam situation caught everyone off guard but I have to wonder how many customers they had that didn't come from the RX or MW.
Maybe its not prudent to put so much faith in a book that has only been opened for so little a period. But thats hindsight and doesn't help anyone now.
I do think the Panam situation caught everyone off guard but I have to wonder how many customers they had that didn't come from the RX or MW.
