Sting's tenure as a sportbook owner was short & disastrous. CALLING FOR A TOTAL BOYCOTT OF HIS SITE

[IntuitionBET]

agreeen - One thing some of these Jump-the-gun they must be thieves posters are NOT considering is:

1) G.A. may of just been a book that was NOT well funded and didn't have enough players to balance both sides of each game and along with the rest of the industry had a BIG losing season as the favorites were winning so far. Not to mentioned that maybe Mike was NOT a good bookie. And that's what really led to their financial collapse...not thievery, not extending to many bonuses but a combination of all the above.
Up to a couple of weekend ago the favorites have won over 85% of the games so far. FACT.

I'm not trying to cover for Mike or anyone I'm just trying to take a mature look at the most common business model of many books and it's a FACT that many books that are still open right this very minute NEED new sign-up monies to keep playing their players and have the cash to pay overhead and operate. And then when that STOPS and they don't have a rich investor to INJECT a big ca$h infusion to keep them open combined with run on the bank panic they can be in trouble.

Unlike books like Royal or Pinnacle who the majority of their customers don't even look at the forums most if not all of G.A.'s client came through posting forums....So when someone started a rumor about them it caused things to crash within a couple of days.

 

[mindboggle]

I agree with the boycott. If he had shut his dang mouth and left well enough alone, he is just a scumbag.

 

[WildBill]

Does anyone remember Sting, when he was here, ever doing anything but trying to damage certain people's credibility while hyping all those whose wallets Sting was in? I remember I had never seen a writer or poster that seemed to have more clearer agendas than that guy. He wrote interesting stuff sometimes, but half the time you could see it as thinly veiled advertising so all of this should shock no one.

 

[WINNINGHAND]

Sorry for the digression, but I was just wondering how many customers GA had? Not the gambler's anonymous in malibu, but Gambler's avenue.

 

[hanover00]

I believe Royal said that there were 250 active accounts during the chat last night.

 

[historian]

I have a theory has to why Sting would push the elimination of the rollover requirement. There has developed a trend that will end the willingness for one book to assume the liabilities of another.
The practice is the padding of the postup liabilities. This is when players are given large balances by the broke book which are then paid by the book who does the takeover. When the players are paid the money is then given to the broke owner. This occured in a couple of instances Skybook (RIO), Directbet (PariAction), ABC (Jazz), and having seen the Camelot books I think it was so blatant as to scare off any potential rescurer. The accounts are added after the deal is finalized but before the moving of the players and the rescurer is left to pay the players or face an assault on the posting sites by ghost posters and shills. This is why there will be very few deals where a rollover is not required and is why I believe Sting was so concerned about the requirement. He probably padded some accounts and needs that money as soon as possible. You will notice that I don't even question the issue of Sting being involved and that is because of his own actions. He climbed into bed with both Gambler's Avenue and Bodog's so fast it makes the hookers at the Del Rey look like senior citizens.
Good Luck to All

 

[truthteller]

So Walk after seeing this don't you think a boycott is justifiably called for.

Now we see the stock market scammers are involved.

 

[Tablarasa]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I'm not trying to cover for Mike or anyone I'm just trying to take a mature look at the most common business model of many books and it's a FACT that many books that are still open right this very minute NEED new sign-up monies to keep playing their players and have the cash to pay overhead and operate. And then when that STOPS and they don't have a rich investor to INJECT a big ca$h infusion to keep them open combined with run on the bank panic they can be in trouble.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any book that "needs" a cash infusion halfway through the football season, in order to keep paying its customers, is a bad place to be playing.

Either their business model is badly offkilter, they are terrible bookmakers, they are completely underfunded for their hold positions, or they are just plain crooks.

Why play in one of these places, when there are so many solid places to play? Why take that 20% or 25% and risk the pain and stress involved when a book goes bad?

Yes, as IB says, quite a few books are in this situation. They are books that could disappear with a few bad weeks, or after a terrible playoff run, or a bad Superbowl. Probably some of them will, lets just hope no one gets badly burned.

And lets hope, after all this fuss, that someone is still willing to help out players when a book does go bad.

 

[eh]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by newbie666:
GA=oddsandends=betjerrys=DINO=SAME=SCUMBAGS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
newbie666

You are dead wrong on this buddy. Dino in no way is connected to Tom aka Mike Silver.

Mike was in with the turn keys guys you know their names.

Dino = Jerrys = West Coast Credit also running another credit shop for someone, you also know his name.

 

[Railbird]

Royal is a joke book, vanilla and pretty much useless, almost as bad as Sportingbet.

 

[krackman]

Let me put an end to all the "Sting owns CTN" I am 100% sure without a doubt that he does not have any ownership of the magazine or their website. I am currently visiting with the Coles and they are and have always been the owners of the magazine and website.


Buzzsaw's post's are most important in this thread.

"But in the end there was just a broke book and a book willing to takeover the accounts of the broke book. Every thing elese was a made-for-forum sideshow"

[This message was edited by krackman on November 12, 2003 at 09:45 PM.]

 

[Railbird]

Sting is a quality investigative reproter, he was on Mark Del early among others

 

[PatrickMcIrish]

I agree Krack. Haven't followed along real close but always thought it was pretty clear that Royal came to the assistance of Gamblers Avenue. Was a good deed in my mind. Now it seems most of this coming out is mudslinging between parties who dislike each other. Since the players are being taken care of I guess there is no real harm in it if you live for this sort of stuff. Bores me to tears personally. Anyway thank you Royal for your assistance in the matter.


Rail- I've noticed you are losing your touch at inciting folks who post here. Even the old stand-bys hardly pay you any mind any longer. That can't be good news for someone who thrives on attention.

 

[TheGeneral+]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Now it seems most of this coming out is mudslinging between parties who dislike each other. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Sir