KC & Pitt - A "SHIT BOOK" Shows Balls

sd2 · Dec 31, 2005

On poster always refers to Nine.com as a "shit book."

Yes, this book caters more to the small bettor (two dollars or less), but this book, of the five I checked in the last quarter of the San Diego/Denver game, was the only one that had a line posted on both KC and Pittsburgh (both teams now need to win to get in the playoffs, and KC need a Pitt lost as well).

All the other four books had the KC and Pitt game off the board, waiting for the result. Including, yes, including Pinnacle.

True, immediately when the Denver/San Diego game went official, Nine upped the number on both teams by 2 1/2 and 3 pts. But those who saw that the Chargers goose was cooked early or midway thru the fourth quarter could have got their bets in at 7 1/2 and 13 1/2. Not so with the other books.

I don't shill for any book, and have complained about Nine on this board a few times. But I'll give credit where credit is due.

Muddy · Dec 31, 2005

No
You are wrong
Nine.com was not the only book

ChuckSims · Dec 31, 2005

First off the small limits allowed Nine to do this. They also chased away all bettors that have a clue.

Just think if Pinnacle left Pit -13½ on the board. Not only would the educated bettors have emptied their pockets on Pitt leaving Pinnacle in a bad situation but the dope who allowed that to happen would have been fired on the spot.

Santo · Dec 31, 2005

I managed to get out of my +1200 Det ML during the last 5 minutes at an average of -977 (inc 5% comission) @ Betfair. Got to love Brits who don't know the nuances.

Not small money either.

sd2 · Dec 31, 2005

I didn't say that Nine.com was the only book that had numbers up during the SD/Denver game. I checked five books - including those perennial favorites Pinnacle and Mansion - and none but Nine had it up. Probably some others did, the ones I personally checked did not.

Of course they are not going to take what Pinnacle might. But, my friend, that's academic. You couldn't empty your pockets at Pinnacle during the game, as they did not have the numbers up. For those of us who are comfortable betting a nickell or less, Nine came thru, Pin and Mansion did not. It would have been very easy for the "shit book" to also take the games off the board, as two other smaller books did (like ABC Islands).

And up to two minutes ago (8:10 PM EST) Mansion and Pinnacle still did not have lines posted on KC or Pitt.

Hey, the "shit book" showed me something here. A Brit book, according to another poster, also did. But another European book, Mansion, did not. I'll slam any book that deserves it, but also give the kudos if they show a bit of class now and then. Woudn't be without Pin, but like Nine.com also.

cincy_ · Dec 31, 2005

Chuck Sims said:
First off the small limits allowed Nine to do this. They also chased away all bettors that have a clue.

Just think if Pinnacle left Pit -13½ on the board. Not only would the educated bettors have emptied their pockets on Pitt leaving Pinnacle in a bad situation but the dope who allowed that to happen would have been fired on the spot.

Small book or not, it doesn't matter. For nine.com, $1,000 is a bigger % of their handle than it is for Pinny. A limit bet is a limit bet and it has the same effect on both books - and maybe even more harmful for nine.

That being said, nine.com was pretty dumb for allowing that line to stay up.

ChuckSims · Dec 31, 2005

Good point Cinci. I agree, does not show balls, but stupidity. You can do those things when you have 100% losers clientele.

Duke1 · Dec 31, 2005

Agree with other posters. Please dont think nine is taking a lead on a game, being an innovator, or is showing any guts. They can leave a line up, because most of their clientele dont have a clue. If you are a poster that enjoys playing at this type of book, then keep on doing so. But dont come in later complaining they revoked your bonuses, kicked you out, are confiscating your winnings because they think you are part of a syndicate, conducting an audit on your account, etc.

cincy_ · Dec 31, 2005

Duke 1 said:
Agree with other posters. Please dont think nine is taking a lead on a game, being an innovator, or is showing any guts. They can leave a line up, because most of their clientele dont have a clue. If you are a poster that enjoys playing at this type of book, then keep on doing so. But dont come in later complaining they revoked your bonuses, kicked you out, are confiscating your winnings because they think you are part of a syndicate, conducting an audit on your account, etc.

Let's not go too far. They have kicked people out, but they wouldn't confisticate winnings or revoke bonuses or conduct audits to mess around with you. They have great dog lines and I think their customer service is great. I trust them with my money.

They are trying to market to non-professionals and a lot of people don't like that - but that is their business model and they can do what they want. If they had sharps in there, they woudn't have been able to keep that -13.5 up.

I would rather have a book with square lines not cater to sharps than get burned and then go broke.

sd2 · Dec 31, 2005

I increased my original $100 deposit at Nine by about 600 percent, which does include their promo 100 percent bonus that come thru the rx. I'm still there, but I never have at this book bet more than $200. Which is fine with me. Not all of us are rolling dimes.

If they do kick me out, reverse the bonus, etc, I will be here to scream bloody murder. Hasn't happened yet.

If a book is run as tightly as the naysayers claim Nine is run, I doubt it's "stupidity" to leave up a possibly vulnerable line. Any book with experience has a justifiably negative opinion of 98 percent of their customers - I think they were just offering a service, so clients with other outs will stay put.

In any case, at least half the time over many years, a team that "has to win" in the last week of the NFL does not, or does not cover even if they do win. It's usually a gigantic trap. I did bet into one of the "has to win" teams, but only because I liked them for other reasons as well.

JamesHunt · Dec 31, 2005

Sounds like my kind of book. Happy new year everybody.

cincy_ · Dec 31, 2005

sd2 said:
In any case, at least half the time over many years, a team that "has to win" in the last week of the NFL does not, or does not cover even if they do win. It's usually a gigantic trap. I did bet into one of the "has to win" teams, but only because I liked them for other reasons as well.

I agree.

Not only that, has to WIN is different from has to COVER, especially when it's 10+ points.

Duke1 · Dec 31, 2005

I didnt mean to say that Nine would do all the following (audit, revoke bonuses, confiscate winnings, kick players out etc) to their players. But there is a certain type of "book" that employs these practices, and I group Nine into this category. Again, they are under the VIP umbrella which makes them safe, but I wouldnt play with them. I also have problems with the MyBookie Fiasco from before when they tried to make a player settle a large amount for 20-30%/ on the dollar and I associate Nine with Mybookie. Just my opinion, but I will stick with the Pinnacles, Olympics, Betjm, Hollywoods, etc of the offshoreworld where I know I will get my money anytime I ask without any problems or hassles

KC & Pitt - A "SHIT BOOK" Shows Balls

Search

sd2

New member

Muddy

New member

ChuckSims

New member

Santo

New member

sd2

New member

cincy_

New member

ChuckSims

New member

Duke1

New member

cincy_

New member

sd2

New member

JamesHunt

New member

cincy_

New member

Duke1

New member

Forum statistics

Share this page