Question for the Major and SBR

suetoneous · Nov 7, 2003

SBR, GA was rated a C+ last Sat. …Care to explain just what criteria you used to evaluate GA?

Major, GA advertised w/ you, so why couldn’t/didn’t you ask them what their handle was? IOW, if they are doing ave.25K a day, you’re certainly smart enough to connect the dots…

- less than 100 clients
- outrageous bonus incentives
- cost of advertising on your site
- personnel cost
- miscellenous cost

All lthis adds up to is a book in dire straits.

Oh, SBR could have asked the same questions…And wasn’t SBR just in CR? He’s rating a book at C+, basically giving this book his personal seal of approval(little or no risk), logic would tell us that his “watchdog” for gamblers would visit GA and personally evaluate the operation. Obviously he didn’t.

Buzzsaw · Nov 7, 2003

In hindsight, GA was rated too high at C+. It was not an A or B book but none the less SBR had a very unfortunate and very regrettable rating on GA.

I'm not making excuses, I can't. As the poster pointed out the warning signs were there. Of course the signs are a lot clearer in hindsight but never the less, they were there. Hopefully SBR will do a better job in the future.

suetoneous · Nov 7, 2003

Buzzsaw, the question was: WHAT CRITERIA DID YOU USE TO EVALUATE GA AND GIVE THEM A C+ RATING? I think this is a fair question and deserving of an answer.

I have played at a number of your books you rate a 'D' or worse and have never had a problem with them, nor have ever heard of any problem...Now I'm not suggestion anything NEFARIOUS here, like a payoff to get a higher rating. I'm sure your criteria is legit... for rating books.

Still waiting on the Major ...

I wonder how many here would have posted up with this book if they knew how puny it really was???? Didn'yt one hv 20k?

BillDozer · Nov 7, 2003

I can't speak for SBR but Major trashed BHB the day after they asked to be removed from the advertising list. Right after he lead his people in there. Then he hit hard questioning their location and operation. Not meant to be a pure insult but it answers your Q. If I followed advertising of a person I trusted and they cause a run on the bank...

Buzzsaw · Nov 7, 2003

GA was not micro tiny, small yes but bigger than a lot of books that have advertised here and at MW. They had $350k in escrow which is more than a lot of books. All SBR ratings are determined by player feedback, the people behind the operation, time in service, business model, customer service, evaluations of insiders, opinions of other bookmakers and other factors.

suetoneous · Nov 7, 2003

"They had $350k in escrow which is more than a lot of books."

Buzzsaw, this does not square with what the Major (AND SHRINK) have said regarding the financials of GA. Both have said/implied there was no money left...no cash on hand etc. Now you're saying there was an escrow account with 350K in it?

Buzzsaw · Nov 7, 2003

sue, No. I should of said they were suppose to have $350k in their escrow account.

lander · Nov 7, 2003

I think GA flat out lied to EVERYONE. If they lied to Ken, then they surely lied to Major and surely lied to Buzz, and surely lied to Johnnie D ...

Makes me start to think there never were any NAB or SecureBuxx conspiracies, just liars and thiefs at those companies

BillDozer · Nov 7, 2003

maybe they did/do have 350k

suetoneous · Nov 7, 2003

First of all BUZZ, a book with around 100 clients, I would call PUNY.

SECOND, I hope you don’t think I’m so naïve as to believe you answered my question regarding your criteria. Let me put it another way. In order for you to rate GA at C+(little or no risk)… you had to be privy to some kind of information that led you to believe this book was more than what it turned out to be. YOU RATED THIS BOOK. Now one more time (then I give up).

- You were in CR, RIGHT? Did you visit GA and talk to Fred personally? If not WHY NOT?

- If I’m wrong, and you were not just recently in CR, did you ever bother to pick up your phone and call Fred at GA…and ask him some questions regarding his book? Like, “Fred, could you give me an estimate of what your daily handle is?” “Could you tell me about your business model?” ETC.

Now, of course our SHRINK could have asked some questions to, right? And so to could the Major, who right now is playing VICTIM. LOL

To all the PUNTERS here,it does look like we were DUPED by these so called "watchdogs."

suetoneous · Nov 7, 2003

LANDER, I don't remember SHRINK, Major or BUZZSAW saying they were lied to by Fred. Therefore, it appears our "watchdogs" NEVER asked ANY questions pertaining to FRED'S operation.

Guest · Nov 7, 2003

sue, the Major isn't around right now, but when he returns I'll be sure to direct him your way.

As far as I know, GA was "grandfathered" into MW initially, when Oddsnends decided to get out of the post-up biz and sold the post-up end to GA. After that initial stint was over I think GA re-upped. It looks as though they were advertising heavily in quite a few forums. I'm not sure how much good asking questions does, Sue. Sure, everyone could have asked about their handle, but do you think they would have received an honest answer? Even after going belly-up Mike Silver was offering to show his "financials" to prove GA's solvency, when we know now that he was in serious debt. What was that all about? Would he have faxed a doctored bank statement? Have Sting vouch for him again? ("GA had yet another winning week, folks!") Who knows?

Lots of times we don't hear negative things about advertising books until there is a beef between the site and the book. Of course you get smeared (it's just because they don't advertise with you anymore) if you disclose the information. Tough position.

Also, wasn't Fredd just the marketing/PR guy? He claims to have no knowledge of the financial position. Sting on the other hand, was quite close to the owner Mike Silver. They are in fact partners.

buddyboy · Nov 7, 2003

GA bought the postup end from Oddsn'ends... all 35 players?

fredd just the marketing guy? he should have known how many post up players in total.

less than 100 total players X average postup of $500 gives them a total of $50,000. why would they need $350K in escrow

lol

dngu047 · Nov 7, 2003

Whilst we're on ratings I think a couple of Australian books need adjustment. Firstly you have Centrebet as a B+ and Sportodds as a C-. Sportodds just bought Centrebet.

Secondly you have SportsTAB as a C. SportsTAB is a multi billion dollar gaming behemoth. I'm pretty sure it has enough in petty cash to buy any of the books on the recommended list.

I think a ratings upgrade is in order.

Buzzsaw · Nov 7, 2003

Sue, I think I answered your question, I don't have anything else to add and I'm not doing an interview with you.

Look, no one is going to be 100% correct all the time. SBR was on here screaming run from Homebets months before they down and we were right. Before that we were telling everyone Royal was in trouble, turns out they were. SBR also said BetUs would not make it through the Superbowl last year..we were wrong. And so it goes...

A lot of calls get made, there are 100's of books. I'm telling you SBR did a crappy job on GA. We knew Freddy and actually had some problems with his previous operation. SBR never had them in the A or B's but even a C was too high and I am truly sorry. I hope we can do better.

buddyboy · Nov 7, 2003

SportsTAB should be a C

here is why:

TAB only posted an after tax profit of $76.6m for the year 2002. that is only an increase of $8.7m from 2001.

86% of the firms revenue is from wagering services.

compare that to the books that rent space in the bon-bini building and you can see why a "bon-bini" book gets an A and "SHABBY TABBY" gets a C

theswami · Nov 7, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw:
SNIP......We knew Freddy and actually had some problems with his previous operation. .....SNIP<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What kind of problems?

Interesting comment given that Fredd has denied knowledge of GA's problems and a number of posters have given the guy a pass on the GA incident.

lander · Nov 7, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by suetoneous:
LANDER, I don't remember SHRINK, Major or BUZZSAW saying they were lied to by Fred. Therefore, it appears our "watchdogs" NEVER asked ANY questions pertaining to FRED'S operation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://therxforum.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=100090022&f=988094022&m=31510107&r=81310207#81310207
" posted November 04, 2003 10:42 AM
Looks like you guys have not been forthcoming and honest...

I will have much more to say about this later, but there appears to be a silver lining about to happen...

THE SHRNK"

Not sure, I guess I was reading into this when I said that GA was lying to the watchdogs. It's not fully qualified, so perhaps I'm off base.

Don't know.

Question for the Major and SBR

Search

suetoneous

New member

Buzzsaw

New member

suetoneous

New member

BillDozer

New member

Buzzsaw

New member

suetoneous

New member

Buzzsaw

New member

lander

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &

BillDozer

New member

suetoneous

New member

suetoneous

New member

buddyboy

New member

dngu047

New member

Buzzsaw

New member

buddyboy

New member

theswami

New member

lander

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &

Forum statistics

Share this page