What were the real motives behind TOW's 'pre-warning' on the ASAP situation?

As of today, nobody would be in the position to tell if ASAP will go down in history as a failed book or if this latest situation will simply be an obstacle they will overcome. And I have one single question to ask:

HAVE THERE BEEN ANY REPORTS OF POST-UP PLAYERS BEING SLOW PAID?

I have yet to hear of a post-up player that is currently being slow-paid by ASAP. Before I go on, let me say that I really hope nobody gets stiffed if the book fails, and I really hope the book will be able to meet their financial obligations on a timely manner. However, I must also say that if this sportsbook is not properly funded, they would have probably run into trouble sooner or later. In the current market, any under-capitalized operation wil be taken out of business.

Now,the latest ASAP situation has once again raised the perennial issues on who really has 'deep pockets' in this industry and who doesn't, it has proven again that there are only a few solid sportsbooks in this industry that would be in the position to process every payout caused by a run in the bank and continue to conduct business as usual. There are a lot of sportsbooks out there that would not endure a run in the bank; there are a lot of sportsbooks that simply do not have the liquidity to process all the payout requests created by a run in the bank. And this is an intrinsic part of this industry: risk management. A lot of books strive by collecting from their credit end on Tuesdays after a good NFL weekend, so they can pay out to their post-up end on Wednesday.

If we come to think about it, ASAP would probably have never been put in this situation if Roberto Castiglioni -owner of The Offshore Wire and aspiring industry watchdog- had not issued this PRE-warning.

So a very valid question is what motives did Roberto Castiglioni really have to issue this pre-warning (what the fvck is a pre-warning anyway)? At the time he issued this pre-warning, the sportsbook had never had a slow-pay complaint generated by a post-up player. As a matter of fact, there were only a few credit players that were being put on hold. There is a possibility that if Roberto had not issued this warning, the book would have been in the position to pay their credit players and that would have been the end of it.

Am I here to defend ASAP? Hellz no!!! The fact of the matter is that they probably deserve to be out of business if they can't pay upon request on a timely manner. But I do believe it would be interesting to learn what is Roberto's ultimate purpose on issuing this pre-warning. So let me speculate and offer different scenarios...

Scenario #1: Roberto was given a hint that ASAP was having trouble to collect all the money owed by their agents and being aware of all the things we mentioned above, he saw the post-up players were in danger of not collecting their funds and decided to issue the pre-warning so players would lower their exposure of suffering an eventual stiff-job. Why? Because he's a well-intentioned watchdog dude whose primary interest is to look after the players.

Scenario #2:: Roberto was given a hint that ASAP was having trouble to collect all the money owed by their agents nad he decided to nail them. But why would a he want to do such a thing? Here are 2 possible reasons:

• By issuing this pre-warning and helping create a run in the bank in the post-up end of this operation, he would definitely increase the possibilities of the book ACTUALLY going out of business. This would allow him to reaffirm his image of 'insider' and 'watchdog'. After all, this would not be the first time he seeks this type of self-promoting campaigns.

• Coincidentially, one of the main guys in the ASAP operation is the same guy that has filed a legal sue against the owners of BetRoyal for having fired him wrongfully. It turns out the owners of Royal have pointed a finger at the former CEO of the company: Roberto Castiglioni. After all, they say, it was HIS decision to fire the guy in the first place.

So would Roberto Castiglioni cause a run in the bank of ASAP impulsed by his legitimate concern to avoid players from getting stiffed? Or did he simply make it harder for ASAP to get out of this situation of financial hardship, impulsed by a personal agenda?

The truth is I don't know. But I'm sure he will come in here to abswer this questions.

Grazzie, Roberto. Apprezzerò il suo tempo e lo sforzo di rispondere a queste domande... SCHIFOSA...

Interesting post.

One thing I try very hard to do as all of my BR peers will tell you is that I try and hear all sides of complaints/issues that arise before I even consider a logical solution or take to the open forum. And most often, I allow many chances before I would put the book in a spot for a run on the bank. I think this is the appropriate method. I receive complaints almost daily and most all are settled off forum. Just because I get an email or call does not mean I have to run to the forum and try to discredit a book, atleast until I hear the WHOLE story. Slinging mud will get you no where. As a matter fact I am a firm believer the less mud slinging you do, then the better person you are. For the record, I am not accusing Roberto of wrongdoing. I have no idea what the answers are to Walk's question.

Walk of LIFE, Check out the post at OGD about this issue....

I warned posters to look for "PLAYER FEEDBACK" & to take the report by TOW with a grain of salt as every single "Watchdog Site" will often have "alterior" motives...

TOW came into the thread & was upset with my challenge...

IF you ask me.... Before any confirmed SLOW PAY'S the post by TOW can hurt posters rather than help them... His posts may cauz a run on the BANK & players aswell as the Bookie, may be in trouble due to the run....

General;

I must admit that this whole thing did not look good on ASAP. They should have had the money readily available to pay customers upon request. After all, any run on the bank caused by a rumor can become a great marketing campaign in favor of the book if they meet their financial obligation on a timely manner. That would only speak of their financial well-being.

But we must also remember that there are only very few sportsbooks that can conduct business as usual when submitted to the harshness of a run on the bank.

And precisely because a lot of these books are in a vulnerable position is that issuing a warning of financial hardship can do one of 2 things:

1. Get the players to request their funds. Since the book might not have the funds, get some players paid and stiff others.

2. Get the players paid without the blink of an eye and be done with it.

So it all comes down to what motivates a warning... and that's precisely my question to Roberto. Now that this thread is here, let me ask Roberto one more question:

When you issued the 'pre-warning' on Thursday, Oct 14; did you have a list of post-up players that were being stalled?

On the mean time, I must admit that ASAP did look far from good in this situation.

SportSavant:

IF you ask me.... Before any confirmed SLOW PAY'S the post by TOW can hurt posters rather than help them... His posts may cauz a run on the BANK & players aswell as the Bookie, may be in trouble due to the run....

Click to expand...

I agree, SS. For all I know, almost every payout request was placed on Friday after Roberto's warning. ASAP paid on Monday, does that mean ASAP is safe now? NO. But it doesn't mean that Roberto had any legitimate slow-pay complains before he issued the warning.

Now, ASAP has paid this time; are they really a safe book? I still think that it's safer to recommned that no newbees post up with any sportsbook that has not been in business for at least 2-3 years. Risk management should be something for those players who understand all the risks involved of playing with a newer book.

I'd stick with top quality books as a general rule.

Don't think it should have been done but may turn out positive. ASAP definitely has some issues to take care of and maybe this little run made them aware of issues concerning cash on hand, and also the down side to forum relationships.


Don't know how solid of a book they are? Certainly wouldn't keep a large balance with them, but you do get some variety of lines, so for a small balance the risk/reward might be worth it.

I found the TOW websight. Any idea why they don't have ratings for Guardian/Regency/Badlands/Tradewinds?

Thanks,
osu2winbig12

Walk of Life, you ask if there was any post up players being slow payed? I think the better question is, were any players, post up or not being slow payed? I am not defending Roberto by any means, but let's do a what if. Let's say The Shrink comes into solid information that any book, paid advertiser or not, has been slow paying credit players. No former affiliation whatsoever. If The Shrink says nothing, he is not doing his job, as a watchdog to protect players. If the place does indeed go belly up, and he had this info, and did not let people know, he would be crucified. So, the other choice is announce it. This in turn causes a run, increasing the cash flow problems and causing a run of post up money. The post up players will be grateful to The Shrink for the heads up, but the credit players may not be too thrilled. Very difficult call, but I would rather have any info, from Roberto or whomever, then left in the dark. Sometimes the walk of life is down the razor's edge. Falling to either side is wrong. But what exactly is right? You tell me.

I've posted this many times before but I'll post it once more. There is no such thing as a run on the bank at a legitimate book. If a book has less on hand than customer deposits, it is insolvent. Books are not banks, they are businesses that are supposed to be holding players money to be paid on demand. They are not supposed to operate their business with these funds.

Too many of these places start out with little to no capital, and by plan operate off of customer deposits. Maybe it works for a while but it is a recipe for disaster.

But nobody seems to care. People keep opening accounts at unknown places because of bonuses or because someone takes and ad from them and vouches that they are "solid." If you are professional player that's one thing. I'm talking about making your living doing this, you may need 10+ accounts, but if you are a recreational player, why would you need more than 2 or 3 accounts and why would you have them anywhere besides a top 5 book?

Answer me this Jay, how many books are actually solvent, could repay all debts and post up money upon request? And of these, could they still be solvent and just fold anyway? Would rather be first than last if there was a run.

Jay C said:

I've posted this many times before but I'll post it once more. There is no such thing as a run on the bank at a legitimate book. If a book has less on hand than customer deposits, it is insolvent. Books are not banks, they are businesses that are supposed to be holding players money to be paid on demand. They are not supposed to operate their business with these funds.

Click to expand...

I will say that, given they probably got a whole lot of requests in a short period of time due to this "pre-warning", that having all players paid within 2 business days is reasonable (actually, I think everyone got paid the NEXT business day - Monday - from what I've heard).

We never know how much cash a book actually has unless they are audited by a 3rd party. But I certainly don't expect them to have all the money in $100 bills sitting in their office, or all of it in neteller, etc. To come up with a very large amount of cash or cash equivalents within 1 business day may be difficult...need to transfer money from place to place - bank, neteller, western union, etc, etc...never mind normal things like verifying minimum play requirements for bonuses, auditing accounts for improper activity, etc. And to keep all their money in one place would probably not be wise anyway.

So, I guess my point is, just because payouts aren't done instantaneously doesn't mean they don't have the "cash on hand". when a large % of your players are requesting money it can become complicated. Probably their staff was also tied up taking action on the weekend games as well as taking calls from panicked customers, leading to further delay...

My personal estimate is that only about 15% of the books are solvent and I think i am being generous.

I agree that if there is what you call a "run" that 2 business days is great to take care of everyone from just an administrative point of view. WHile the money isn't in $100's, it should be accessible.

Books should have more money then just the deposits. That's my point.

Of course any book that is solvent could fold and walk away if they wanted to. A thief is a thief. It doesn't matter wht business they are in.

You never candy coat it Jay. I think your 15% is generous. If you had to protect your own assets, and heard a shop you posted up in was delaying paying the agents/credit players, would you pullout or wait to see if Roberto had an agenda?

Walk of Life said:

Grazzie, Roberto. Apprezzerò il suo tempo e lo sforzo di rispondere a queste domande... SCHIFOSA...

Click to expand...

Walk,

Complimenti per il tuo italiano!

Originally posted by Jay C:

I've posted this many times before but I'll post it once more. There is no such thing as a run on the bank at a legitimate book. If a book has less on hand than customer deposits, it is insolvent. Books are not banks, they are businesses that are supposed to be holding players money to be paid on demand. They are not supposed to operate their business with these funds.

Too many of these places start out with little to no capital, and by plan operate off of customer deposits. Maybe it works for a while but it is a recipe for disaster.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%, Jay C. I actually have posted:

However, I must also say that if this sportsbook is not properly funded, they would have probably run into trouble sooner or later. In the current market, any under-capitalized operation wil be taken out of business.

Click to expand...

Am I here to defend ASAP? Hellz no!!! The fact of the matter is that they probably deserve to be out of business if they can't pay upon request on a timely manner.

Click to expand...

Now, ASAP has paid this time; are they really a safe book? I still think that it's safer to recommned that no newbees post up with any sportsbook that has not been in business for at least 2-3 years. Risk management should be something for those players who understand all the risks involved of playing with a newer book.

I'd stick with top quality books as a general rule.

Click to expand...

So, I think it'd be redundant for me to say that I agree with you.


Lockmaster;

You posted:

Very difficult call, but I would rather have any info, from Roberto or whomever, then left in the dark. Sometimes the walk of life is down the razor's edge. Falling to either side is wrong. But what exactly is right? You tell me.

Click to expand...

I know it's a difficult call, Lockmaster. And I'm not questioning the issuing of the 'pre-warning' per se, I asked Roberto about his motivations. A simple
question that can be answered simply as well.

Concorde;

Grazie, caro... ma il mio italiano è piuttosto povero. Posso indovinare soltanto il giusto grammaticale, realmente.

Mein Deutsh is viel besser... und Ich hab' Deutsh fur uber 5 Jahre nicht gesprochen...

:toast: :toast:

WALK is on the LOOSE....and fired up...look out below hope all is well walk

Jay is right, most books are just surviving period

Walk of Life,

Everyone in this biz, including you and I have had motives when we post...

Regardless of the motive, Roberto did have it right when he warned everyone about ASAP...

Now what is your MOTIVE questioning ROBERTO?

Please respond...

Thanks,
Ken

Thank You The Shrink, for asking the question everybody wanted to ask.:aktion033