SBR's rating of BetRoyal is proof positive of his crusade against Royal. It is self-serving ratings like this, and others that attempt to prop up shoddy books that SBR has a financial incentive to support, that have made a once-useful site meaningless.
SBR has not become a laughingstock, it's worse - it's become irrelevant.
UT
SBR has not become a laughingstock, it's worse - it's become irrelevant.
UT
Is it part of the crusade when Royal tried to charge the guy $6000 in Western Union fees to withdraw $5000? I'm glad the guy ended up getting his money but any book that would treat any customer with the car salesman BS that they did to that guy is lucky to get a D- in my eyes. They tried to bend him over and have their way with him. Crooks at their finest. I'd give them an F.
Past problems can't just be swept under the rug, D- seems harsh. I think C- would be appropriate. Not high , but passing, SIA should be at least the same.
One thing SBR is definetley good for is providing the URL for most known books. Some books are rated too high, IMO also. It has it's uses.
One thing SBR is definetley good for is providing the URL for most known books. Some books are rated too high, IMO also. It has it's uses.
I would be happy to hear the critics of the D- rating suggest what the rating should be and make their case as to why.
Below are a few of the highlights which the D- rating is based;
1. Royal went through a slow pay period in Jan to March
2. Royal went through a slow-pay period from June to August (2nd for this year and also went through a nasty slow pay period in 2003 in which the Rx pulled them down) BTW, thats 3 slow-pay periods in 18 months. That alone will land a book at D- or lower.
3. Royal lied to SBR in the summer claiming they had a full account of player funds in their bank account. After confronting Royal with our source (an employee working at their bank) they were forced to admit the account was empty.
4. Royal is currently being sued by a player who was stiffed out of $50,000. This could be a serious no-pay verdict.
5. Pinnacle, after accepting transfers for 6 years with Royal, quietly stopped ALL transfers with Royal and complained they too were slow paid.
I just don't see how any responsible party could possibly rate them higher than D-. But if there is a case to be made to the contrary then please put it forward for debate.
Below are a few of the highlights which the D- rating is based;
1. Royal went through a slow pay period in Jan to March
2. Royal went through a slow-pay period from June to August (2nd for this year and also went through a nasty slow pay period in 2003 in which the Rx pulled them down) BTW, thats 3 slow-pay periods in 18 months. That alone will land a book at D- or lower.
3. Royal lied to SBR in the summer claiming they had a full account of player funds in their bank account. After confronting Royal with our source (an employee working at their bank) they were forced to admit the account was empty.
4. Royal is currently being sued by a player who was stiffed out of $50,000. This could be a serious no-pay verdict.
5. Pinnacle, after accepting transfers for 6 years with Royal, quietly stopped ALL transfers with Royal and complained they too were slow paid.
I just don't see how any responsible party could possibly rate them higher than D-. But if there is a case to be made to the contrary then please put it forward for debate.
Buzzsaw: Royal seems to care, they have stretched their resources to bail players out of failed books, myself for example from Blue Marlin. They pay now, from what I hear.
I wish them the best, but they face strong competition from the likes of Pinny, Oly, Skybook, etc.
I don't bet with them presently, but I could give them C- , for intent. I think they truly mean well, yet face an uphill battle. That rep of previous slow-pays is a tough hill to climb !
I wish them the best, but they face strong competition from the likes of Pinny, Oly, Skybook, etc.
I don't bet with them presently, but I could give them C- , for intent. I think they truly mean well, yet face an uphill battle. That rep of previous slow-pays is a tough hill to climb !
This whole rating jargon seems far fetched in my opinion. What moves a book from D- to D+ and back to D- every week. There seems to be more involved in these ratings than meets the eye. A slow pay book should never be given the same rating as a book that has no slow pays. What makes a new book riskier than a book that has slow payed people in the past and may still be slow paying.
If a new book for example comes into SBR with a D rating and has never slow payed anyone
why should it find itself with the same rating as a book that has had numerous complaints?
Myself, it is very hard to understand the twisted system that SBR uses but can only wonder if these ratings are extortion related. Even though extortion is something I understand given my name!
If a new book for example comes into SBR with a D rating and has never slow payed anyone
why should it find itself with the same rating as a book that has had numerous complaints?
Myself, it is very hard to understand the twisted system that SBR uses but can only wonder if these ratings are extortion related. Even though extortion is something I understand given my name!
Nobody will agree on 10 books, let alone 400. Most will accept Pinnacle and Oly at the top, others think CRIS is better than OLY, some prefer Hollywood, or Grande, or WWTS, or WSEX, or Skybook. All I can say is the books that make everyone's lists of good books, ARE good books ! No consensus will list ESB, and other scam books high !
I rate SIA much higher than most, Bet $3.65 lower, and so on.
I rate SIA much higher than most, Bet $3.65 lower, and so on.
I too believe d- is harsh at this time. I myself have been hard on Royal in recent times but have direct knowledge that certain improvements have been implemented. My major concern was about management having access to sufficent funding at all times and a more professional and timely dealing with vendors and agents. Both issues have been adressed the right way.
Albeit I understand some of SBR's concerns I do not agree on two major issues he posted which I believe are deceiving, to say the least.
Funds : a trusted third party has been appraised about available funds, which exceed three times players escrow . The account John has "verified", blatantly violating local banking laws, is the operation account ( payroll and so on ). No sports books holds its eggs in the jurisdiction they operate from. Not one, including VIP, Pinnacle and so on. Posting otherwise is a lie, and John should refrain from that.
The case he mentioned about the player and his Court case is over a year old. I was at helm of Royal when the case occured. I have explained the nature and content of that case to many parties, including SBR. He seems to be the only one who doesn't understand it, which is not a big problem, at least until he uses it to fit his anti-Royal agenda.
I was in Curacao last week and word on the street is that this player, who is aware he does not have a solid case, has promised SBR a "cut" on the collection.....its a rumor, but its out there.
Before John chimes in and spews his venom let me summarize the case :
The player made several deposits via credit card and placed a number of wager circumventing limits. All wagers exceeding the limits were cancelled prior to the game going off the board and the player was informed accordingly. His wagers within the limits won and he received his payout ( 20 dimes ) after 48 hours of the event.
While reviewing his account ( a normal procedure with any book when anomalies such as circumvention of limits occur ) Royal found out that the player had an history of chargebacks on losing bets ( and in one case even when winning ) with several books, including, but not limited to bet365, bowmans ( here the player deposited with credit card, got his payout via neteller and then charged back his initial credit card deposit ) and VIP.
Given the circumstances Royal's management decided to refund the player's credit card's deposits. All were refunded. Royal holds reference of such transaction which the player never acknowledged. So much for the case.
I personally believe that Watchdogs should always try to dig as deep as possible before making statements which may hurt their reputation.
Most recently SBR posted a note on his Web site about Royal adressing the book as "deadbeats". Provided Royal has indeed gone through some extraordinary changes over the past two years no player has ever been stiffed. Some had to wait an unreasonable amount of time for their payout in the past, but ALL have been paid. On top of that Royal has provided a great service to the Industry rescueing over 500 players through several bailouts. Ignoring this fact is proof of a one sided agenda. Adressing Royal as "deadbeats" is an unacceptable lack of respect. I believe SBR owes Royal an apology for that.
Albeit I understand some of SBR's concerns I do not agree on two major issues he posted which I believe are deceiving, to say the least.
Funds : a trusted third party has been appraised about available funds, which exceed three times players escrow . The account John has "verified", blatantly violating local banking laws, is the operation account ( payroll and so on ). No sports books holds its eggs in the jurisdiction they operate from. Not one, including VIP, Pinnacle and so on. Posting otherwise is a lie, and John should refrain from that.
The case he mentioned about the player and his Court case is over a year old. I was at helm of Royal when the case occured. I have explained the nature and content of that case to many parties, including SBR. He seems to be the only one who doesn't understand it, which is not a big problem, at least until he uses it to fit his anti-Royal agenda.
I was in Curacao last week and word on the street is that this player, who is aware he does not have a solid case, has promised SBR a "cut" on the collection.....its a rumor, but its out there.
Before John chimes in and spews his venom let me summarize the case :
The player made several deposits via credit card and placed a number of wager circumventing limits. All wagers exceeding the limits were cancelled prior to the game going off the board and the player was informed accordingly. His wagers within the limits won and he received his payout ( 20 dimes ) after 48 hours of the event.
While reviewing his account ( a normal procedure with any book when anomalies such as circumvention of limits occur ) Royal found out that the player had an history of chargebacks on losing bets ( and in one case even when winning ) with several books, including, but not limited to bet365, bowmans ( here the player deposited with credit card, got his payout via neteller and then charged back his initial credit card deposit ) and VIP.
Given the circumstances Royal's management decided to refund the player's credit card's deposits. All were refunded. Royal holds reference of such transaction which the player never acknowledged. So much for the case.
I personally believe that Watchdogs should always try to dig as deep as possible before making statements which may hurt their reputation.
Most recently SBR posted a note on his Web site about Royal adressing the book as "deadbeats". Provided Royal has indeed gone through some extraordinary changes over the past two years no player has ever been stiffed. Some had to wait an unreasonable amount of time for their payout in the past, but ALL have been paid. On top of that Royal has provided a great service to the Industry rescueing over 500 players through several bailouts. Ignoring this fact is proof of a one sided agenda. Adressing Royal as "deadbeats" is an unacceptable lack of respect. I believe SBR owes Royal an apology for that.
Last edited:
With all due respect, virtually every sports book offshore had had problems at one time or another. It's been over 5 months since we have heard of any slow pay or no pay regarding ROYAL SPORTS. My God, Pinny just bounced some checks... Shouldnt they be downgraded according to your ratings???Buzzsaw said:
ROYAL has gone long enough without any new incidents.. Therefore, I respectfully would rate them HIGHER than a D-
My 2 cents...
THE SHRINK
I agree with the poster who basically said; we could never agree 100% on each rating for a sportsbook. It's too subjective.
Roberto (TOW), as long as you have family(as in more than one!) working for Royal Sports I think you should recuse yourself from defending them.
I can not accept the arguement that all books go through hard times and slow pay, that's simply not true. Yes, Royal has made it a few months now without a new rash of slow pays, should they be a B or even a C rated book now? I honestly don't believe so.. not yet. The SBR rating is certainly not a forgiving one. We still hold the incident where SBG cheated the Shrink against them. They point out that was years ago and there have been no others since. Books that cheat and slow pay should have long sentences.
Roberto (TOW), as long as you have family(as in more than one!) working for Royal Sports I think you should recuse yourself from defending them.
I can not accept the arguement that all books go through hard times and slow pay, that's simply not true. Yes, Royal has made it a few months now without a new rash of slow pays, should they be a B or even a C rated book now? I honestly don't believe so.. not yet. The SBR rating is certainly not a forgiving one. We still hold the incident where SBG cheated the Shrink against them. They point out that was years ago and there have been no others since. Books that cheat and slow pay should have long sentences.
IMHO,
The SBR model for defining books is a good one on principal. It falls apart when opinions and comentary are added along with who pays the kid and who does not for sending sign ups there way.
I look forward to the day that the books rate each other, banks do it, insurance companies etc etc. They decide who they will and will not do business with. Maybe a site wth verified book owners rating each other. a no brainer site, (cick here to rate the following categories) that i would visit daily.
When the PPH shops decide that a min count is required it will certainly thin out the crowd. Right now anyone can start a book and take peoples money and run...
The current rating on BR is too low. As stated, every book, even the majors screw up due to financial, human error, machines etc. if they can stick it out then they deserve to get some credit for it.
SBR is not a valid reference point any more.....
Canuck
The SBR model for defining books is a good one on principal. It falls apart when opinions and comentary are added along with who pays the kid and who does not for sending sign ups there way.
I look forward to the day that the books rate each other, banks do it, insurance companies etc etc. They decide who they will and will not do business with. Maybe a site wth verified book owners rating each other. a no brainer site, (cick here to rate the following categories) that i would visit daily.
When the PPH shops decide that a min count is required it will certainly thin out the crowd. Right now anyone can start a book and take peoples money and run...
The current rating on BR is too low. As stated, every book, even the majors screw up due to financial, human error, machines etc. if they can stick it out then they deserve to get some credit for it.
SBR is not a valid reference point any more.....
Canuck
John,
Good response...
But I hardly consider blatant cheating by a sports book to be in the same category as a slow pay or no pay...
One is <b>deliberate</b> in the case of SBG where I highly doubt the slow pays by ROYAL were designed to intentionally hurt the player...
There is a BIG DIFFERENCE....
Ken
Good response...
But I hardly consider blatant cheating by a sports book to be in the same category as a slow pay or no pay...
One is <b>deliberate</b> in the case of SBG where I highly doubt the slow pays by ROYAL were designed to intentionally hurt the player...
There is a BIG DIFFERENCE....
Ken
