SBR on Oklahoma Sports Betting (Rating D)

Hey guys;

I wanted to bring this subject to dicussion here in the forum.

I would also like to propose that anybody that takes part on this discussion does it with an open mind. I am always eager to learn and I know many of you can lead me in the right direction or correct any mistakes I may have commited during my analysis.

When I read The General's posts on Oklahoma SportsBetting.com, the whole ordeal triggered all my alarms. It seemed to me like this new book (in operation for the last 4 months) was targeting the forum audience in a rather aggresive manner. So I reviewd their model and John and I agreed that their business model is NOT profitable. After we finished our discussion, SBR posted:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 4.24.2004 (12:52 PM CST)
OklahomaSportsBetting(SBR rating D) Refusing so far to take SBR phone calls or respond to SBR emails - Book runs a very high risk business model - At this point, SBR knows of no other bookmaker or anyone else in the industry that will vouch for them - Players funds at this operation could be at higher risk than the current SBR rating of D would indicate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A couple of days after, I personally called Mr. Michael Montanaro, GM of OSB. The discussion prolonged for almost 1 hour and none of the issues that will be presented here were satisfactorily addressed by Mr. Montanaro. I invite Mr. Montanaro to refute my arguments and to do it publicly in this thread.

Why did SBR rate OKlahomaSportsBetting with a D?. This will be long, but I'll try to be concise:

Issue #1: Risky Bonus Structure

Allow me to quote an inserpt of OSB's bonus page:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>First Time Deposit Bonus rollover requirements:

10% = 3x play-through requirement
15% = 5x play-through requirement
20% = 8x play-through requirement
Any bonus over 20% = 10x play-through requirement<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the sake of brevity, let's disect the following structure:
15% Sign-up Bonus: 5x play-through requirement

How much theoretical percentage does a book get to have on this bonus structure? A 5% of the total rollover amount.

In this case: 5% of $5750. That equals $287.5

Now, one of the possible scenarios might look like this:

$287.5 - $150 (bonus amount) = $137.5
$137.5 = 2.3% theoretical percentage of hold.

But OSB offers a 10% rebate on losses. Let's say a customer loses $1000 in the first month; so it now turns out that OSB must give customer B $100 out of $137.5 they got from Customer A.

$137.5 - $100 = $37.5
$37.5 = 0.65% of total rollover amount.

But even then, OSB offers Referral Bonuses, up to 20% referral bonus

What if my buddy Sick Gambler is in the process of raping them as I speak? How many "bonus whores" can you find in the forums?

My point to debate is:

This bonus structure is flawed and provides no real percentage of hold to the house. Mathematically speaking that percentage of hold might very well fall under 0.5% We all have seen books with these model fail in the past.

*** This bonus structure is also combined with the following perks***

Issue #2: Percentages of hold on turnovers

At -110, the house can expect a theoretical percentage of hold of 4.54%

Bettor A bets $11,000 to win $10,000 on Team A
Bettor B bets $11,000 to win $10,000 on Team B

Total turnover for the book: $22,000
Total profit: $1000
$1000 = 4.54% of total turnover.

OSB offers -107 on Wednesdays. Total percentage of hold on a 14 cent line: 3.2%

And -105 on Fridays. Total percentage of hold on a 10 cent line: 2.3%

What if Lander decides to take OSB for a walk in the park? The arbitraging nature of the reduced juice market is the joy of middlers and scalpers.

Issue #3: Percentages of hols on MLB

OSB offers a dime line up to -150/+160 (for what I can see in their live lines, totals included)

What's the percentage of hold on dime line -150/+160? This is an extensive discussion. I invite you all to read the followin thread byREALITY: The Scorecard For Bookmakers By REALITY

Issue #4: Phantom Credit End

Mr. Montanaro claimed OSB was a long established shop, with a solid credit end backing it up; yet, he was unable to find a solid credit operation to vouch for his shop.

Those of you that understand the nature of the credit business, will see how really odd this is.

Issue #5: Management lacks Knowledge

While on the phone, I pointed out the dangers of targeting the sharp forum crowd, if you do not have the square players data base to offset the action.

Mr. Montanaro said they were BIG on search engines.

"Pay-per-click?" I asked
"Yes" he said.
"Didn't the S.E. close all gambling bids on pay-per-clicks campaigns?" I asked
"I meant to say just S.E.... no pay-per-clicks" he said
"Like ORGANIC S.E.?" I asked
"Exactly" he answered
"Could you please point one keyword submitted to ANY search engine by OSB?" I asked
"I don't know of any right now" he said

SBR HAS NO INTEREST ON SEEING THIS BOOK FAIL. BUT OUR PRIMARY OBLIGATION IS TO THE PLAYERS:

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, SBR DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT OSB IS A PROFITABLE BUSINESS MODEL.

Maybe they're filthy rich and extravagant enough to just be eager to give their money away like that. But that's NOT good business... hence:

SBR Rating for OSB is D

Players funds at this operation could be at higher risk than the current SBR rating of D would indicate.

By Another Poster


How many reviews of sports books, casinos and any other gambling related site are actually written after the author has played in the site before writing his/her review?
Is it not vital to an honest review that the author not only reads the web site, surfs the lines and call the manager of the book to ask questions but also posting money and wagering to get an honest and objective analysis of the book.

To use an analogy: For those reviews that have been written without the author ever having placed a wager at the book. Is it not just the same as a food critique writing about a restaurant by simply looking through the window, reading the menu and then commenting on the quality of the food?
Sure one can tell if the place is clean, are tables are full of customers, what color the uniforms are, and how many “employee of the month” pins the waiters have, but you can't write any sort of legitimate review without having the complete "dining experience."
Same is true for gambling site reviews no? After all, offshore gambling sites are a place to post wagers, not just provide information about themselves with a fancy web site.

I personally think a $100-$150 post up and 30 days wagering experience is more than enough time and money for the author to give the public reading the reviews an honest assessment. An assessment that has been built on first hand facts and less on the authors opinion’s based on “past experiences” and “hunches” or whatever abstract concept hold far more value in my opinion.
Obliviously the author anonymity is key during the time in which he is trying the book, I think by posting up small amount with small wagers would keep him/her under the books radar for the 30 days, western union transfers in small amount can be sent with test questions instead of names if I am not mistaken.

The moral of the story is this- Readers beware of reviews that does not include the authors wagering experience at that book, their payout process and other important factors that can only be analyzed fairly by first hand experience. You are probably getting only half the story or the author is bias.
Just 1 opinion.
Would love to hear feedback.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> At the begining I was skeptical and scared about Oklahomasportsbeting.com
After tried them out for $250 and then cashed out $2.5K without any inconvenience, I must say that mike and its entire staff are great people to deal with, great CS A+ I like a lot their baseball lines,the only thing is i wish they had a better selection of basketball propositions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice post Walk. I think it is safe to advise caution to anyone with a new unknown book. To many well established shops to have the worry over a new one. I wish the book the best as well, but have to let players know there is suspicion in the air.

Superstar, are you Mr. Montanaro?

Now, in order to address the issue you raised I'd like to use your analogy.

If you have a restaurant, a TACO house for example, where your tacos are $1 each and you open at 5am in the morning and you close at 1pm in the afternoon and you're right off a major freeway (I-35) for example.... I can definitely say the audience you're targeting is truck dirvers and fine working men, that need a power breakfast to start off a hard day of work.

You'd be TARGETING.

The RX and the rest of the gambling forums on the web are highly educated gamblers, that can and will take advantage of a flawed business model if they are invited to do so. They are to be compared with GOURMET CONNOISSEURS.

When will the model collapse? Who will get choked on the next migas taco while trying to swallow?

I find it hard to believe OSB is making any money out of this model. That's my whole point.

OSB is a flawed business model.

But if any OSB representative cares to address these issues, I'm more that eager to learn what they have to say.


General:

You have done a superb job advicing players about the risks presented by OSB's business model.

Kudos.

http://forum.therx.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=100090022&f=988094022&m=290109731

Dear Limping thru Life
what does it takes to have a site like yours??
can i have one?

Superstar:

I don't see anything there.

A post by mizike. Who's mizike?

mizike - NEWBIE - Registered: August 05, 2003

How is this related to the issue I presented, anyway?

Let's get an OSB representative, discuss these issues with hard facts. That would add credibility to the operation.

Quoting posts by newbies WON'T add ANY credibility. Anybodu can build a shill campaign and then quote one of his own ghosts. I'm not sayin that's what you're doing, but you might as well be doing it. How would the readers of this forum know the difference?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> To use an analogy: For those reviews that have been written without the author ever having placed a wager at the book. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>While it might sound good it's not in the best interest of the players to simply play into a book and base a professional opinion based on that one experience. It's like saying the analysts following Wackenhut Services can not review the company because they have never been a prisoner in one of their prisons.

While the example is just as extreme as the resturant example, it points out there is more to it to form an opinion than simply sampling the food.

TOW has taken the time to interview the on site managers of Oklahoma a few weeks ago. I was reading a post by another poster in the other thread about Oklahoma and its articulation clearly reminded me of Jack, one of the two fine gentlemen leading this Book.

Calling out this schilling job is positive, but seemingly not sufficient since I believe that these kind of threads may set the grounds for the next Gamblers Avenue.

I will skip Will's valid considerations about profitability and concentrate on two other aspects that I feel appropriate to adress to this forum :

1) Players be aware that the bailout season is over. I seriously doubt, after having recently spent some time talking about this issue with a couple of top bookmakers, that future players will be assisted by bailouts. This means that if in the past punters might have taken this aspect into consideration, while taking a shot with a newly established book, within their risk/reward equation, this element will no longer have to be considered.

2) Forum operators : it is kind of remarkable that such schilling jobs are being tolerated, given the potential and non needed risks deriving from this allowed exposure to forum readers, who may be more gullible than what we all think and fall into the trap set up by these schills. The other Oklahoma thread is a clear example of this. Having said this I find it quiet amazing that the book in question is not even an advertiser here and, in normal circumstances, such kind of threads would be immediately moved into another section of this forum.

Players are obviously free to disagree with the message that watchdogs bring forward, as they are the ones that make the final decision if to take the risk of wagering at a book or not. However punters should never underestimate signs of "potential problems" around the corner, as being perceived in this very case.

Roberto
Theoffshorewire

Regardless of all your mathematical geniusness, at this present time of May 8,2004 oklahomasportsbook has paid me very fast via neteller and western union. Someone else has posted how they got paid promptly via debit card. Meanwhile a book like royal continues to have reports of slow pay with any form of payment and should be a F- if oklahoma is a D. Superstar, once again I agree with your point of view and furthermore it looks like this D rating is based on what MIGHT happen to oklahoma based on their business model,rather than how they are currently treating their customers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 2) Forum operators : it is kind of remarkable that such schilling jobs are being tolerated, given the potential and non needed risks deriving from this allowed exposure to forum readers, who may be more gullible than what we all think and fall into the trap set up by these schills. The other Oklahoma thread is a clear example of this. Having said this I find it quiet amazing that the book in question is not even an advertiser here and, in normal circumstances, such kind of threads would be immediately moved into another section of this forum.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for your concern Roberto. I think we need to look at all kinds of shilling. We should put a stop to all of it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Forum operators : it is kind of remarkable that such schilling jobs are being tolerated, given the potential and non needed risks deriving from this allowed exposure to forum readers, who may be more gullible than what we all think and fall into the trap set up by these schills. The other Oklahoma thread is a clear example of this. Having said this I find it quiet amazing that the book in question is not even an advertiser here and, in normal circumstances, such kind of threads would be immediately moved into another section of this forum. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good call on the schilling campaigns... but I do not believe this is the right time to start attacks against the RX mods (accept my apologies if that's not what you're doing). Let's hear OklahomaSportsBetting addressing the issues first. The thread is open for discussion.

Once the players have the info they need, you can start the bashing if you wish.

Deal?

[This message was edited by Walk of Life on May 08, 2004 at 04:24 PM.]

I agree with gamblingshark. WAY too many other books to give caution about. There hasn't been one slow pay complaint against this book and almost any real player comments have been positive. Two payouts for me, both done very quickly. I appreciate the idea of wanting to warn players, but this book has been serving the players well from what I see. I could easily name other books worth of negative attention. That said, I could easily name other books that deserve positive attention, but I do think people should be aware that Oklahoma has been a very good book to me and apparently other as well.

Peteep and gamblingshark:

I'm glad to hear you guys have great experiences with the book. As far as my considerations are concerned, it's just a warning sign that's all.

OSB has bee paying their player promptly for the whole 4 months they have been in operation.

Wil that remain to be the case? Certainly hope so. I'm just trying to get the GM of this book to address this issues.

In this industry, the long run is ALL that counts.

I agree with some of the posters about being wary about other books too. But it is also true that with many good options out there ( Pinnacle, wwts to mention two of the rx advertisers , Olympic and VIP to mention non advertisers here ) I see very little reward in opting for a third tier book that, based on many factors, only some of which have been mentioned in this thread, may end up being as good as its last payout goes.

No intention to offend anyone here or elsewhere. Just calling facts for what they are.

let me see if i get this straight...

True Feedback of actual players such as peteep,Gamblingshark and myself are considered as "schilling jobs" we are jus players who came across to a new a shop, did a deposit, checked the service and got paid with no prbs

And comments by of Walk of Life (Limping thru life)are considered "Reviews" just beacuse he owns a dotcom...actually i feel kind of scared and bothered as the same time thet the Limp proclaimed himself as representative of the players and the industry in general

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 2) Forum operators : it is kind of remarkable that such schilling jobs are being tolerated, given the potential and non needed risks deriving from this allowed exposure to forum readers, who may be more gullible than what we all think and fall into the trap set up by these schills. The other Oklahoma thread is a clear example of this. Having said this I find it quiet amazing that the book in question is not even an advertiser here and, in normal circumstances, such kind of threads would be immediately moved into another section of this forum.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this part of the reason why Limp thrue Life and the General bash OSB.com constantly??

[This message was edited by superstar on May 08, 2004 at 04:52 PM.]

[This message was edited by superstar on May 08, 2004 at 04:53 PM.]

.

superstar, peteep and gamblingshark just don't get it.

Suppose someone invites me to a seminar. These seminars go under different names - every few years there's a different one when the craze hits again. "Airplane", etc. - there was a primetime TV doc. on one aimed solely at women.

At the seminar, they tell me that I need to invest $5,000. They show me a chart, showing how I will get back about $100,000 eventually - i.e., the person at the top of the chart gets the $5,000 "investment" from the next 10 people who join. Then those 10 people get their names at the top. All each of them has to do is get 20 people to join and invest. Then those 20 get 20 more, etc. , etc.

This is known as a Ponzi scheme. It always fails, because in short order everyone on Earth would have to be investing $5,000.
It ALWAYS collapses, and the people at the top (who are always grifters) score big, and a few others who get in early may get a little, and everyone else gets screwed.

Now, Walk of Life enters the room and demonstrates mathematically that the scheme cannot work.

superstar, peteep and gamblingshark enter the discussion and state that they've been involved for a short while and everything's hunky-dory.
(Well - of course. It's supposed to be A-OK at the beginning).

Not only that - superstar brings in mizike, who says that if everything goes fine with the deal for 30 days, then f*ck the math.
superstar, peteep and gamblingshark's heads start nodding like bobblehead dolls.

The excellent analysis that Walk of Life
did does not mean that this book will DEFINITELY fail - it means that IT IS LIKELY.

Those capable of minimal understanding of math are forewarned.

As for the others - join if you wish, enjoy, make money.
But don't be ridiculous and state that 30 days experience at a book is more valuable than an analysis of their business model and references.

[This message was edited by Scooter1 on May 08, 2004 at 05:21 PM.]

if he knows the business so well i guess he needs to open himself a bookiejoint

I am not so certain I have bashed OSB superstar. I don't know why I would.

superstar wrote - "And comments by of Walk of Life (Limping thru life)are considered "Reviews" just beacuse he owns a dotcom...".

WOL - Does that mean you own a website, or a business?
If it's a website, which one?