This thread originally was titled “Should SBR be linked in the FAQ” but has now turned into a discussion on all things related to SportsBookReview.com / SBRForum.com (SBR). The reason for now having a dedicated thread is from at least sometime in 2006 until May 28, 2012 our own Sports Betting FAQ recommended joining every sportsbook SBR had rated well.

For many years SBR was considered the go to website for information on which sportsbooks were reputable and which are not. There are now however many issues, and not all players are aware of these. Taking SBR recommended list as the gospel may now be harmful to player’s bankrolls. This was recently the case with BetIslands (Here is a good overview article and this is a good topic to further search).

Additional SBR discussion is covered in this thread. Note: A decision has been made regarding the FAQ, but this is how the thread had started. Its post are left unedited below as the discussion now continues for all things related to SBR that any posters wish to discuss.

When I edited the FAQ I linked SBR into it more than they were before, and regret having done so. My personal opinion is these guys while perhaps reputable in years past now simply abuse their status in the industry and it is not good for the books, players or anyone other than SBR. I could write an even longer post but will focus on simple examples of points instead.

Issue #1 False Reporting

SBR has misrepresented the facts many times in their disputes. IMO there are some "okay" sportsbooks that SBR has bashed over and over again without disclosing the facts properly due presumably to affiliate issues.

I'll however choose a book I don't like as the example.

Many years ago at WagerWeb there was a player who had an angle where he'd call up a book just before kickoff and get lines on a bunch of games. Their system had an error where if the lines were open on the reps screen they could place the bet (they didn't close once rep opened them - closing just stopped them from being opened). The player stayed on the phone until teams had either scored or were in scoring position and made first half bets on them. Justin7 concluded 75% of the players bets were made when he had a massive edge, and all but a couple were past posts. This was a lot of wagers. WagerWeb in this case seemed to handle it fair. However, the SBR newswire reports it MUCH different, and was a knowing omission of facts against a book they didn't like.

Okay I think WagerWeb robbed trixtrix and isn't a good company at all. But, at the same time there are many fabrications and misrepresentations of disputes against countless books on their newswire. Anyone interested could spend time researching them against the forum threads and see how spun so many were. Even if a book might not be desirable, give us the facts. Layering dishonest reporting on top does not help us evaluate sportsbooks.

#2 Pushing Problem Books

Go to google.com and enter a search for... site:sbrforum.com betonline this goes on for pages and pages. This book has habitual slow pays, hacking instances, attempted balance confiscations, I mean it goes on and on with negative experiences. Notice they are touted and recommended on both SBR websites.

#3 Not Reporting Complaints of Sponsors

Every tiny little issue about certain books are reported on their news wire - SBR makes their profit ranking for these books marks and then recommending other books who SBR is paid by. From item #2 above having now seen all the complaints on SBR forum - look at BetOnlines news page at SportsbookReview.com. Check for their other sponsors, they don't cover complaints against sponsor books. However there was a $30,000 Heritage casino dispute, a BetIslands dispute over a golf bet, several 5dimes casino issues, and a plethora of BetOnline complaints which go unreported. (Imo opinion it is pick on those not willing to pay us - and cover for those who do).

#4 Handling of Complaints Against Sponsors

I could write a book here, but their dispute analysis and forum admin Lou has many times insinuated a player was a scammer, when later the player got paid because posters called BS. This wasn't before banning or screwing with posters for saying wait is this player being robbed and asking legit questions. I'll cover this in point #5. There are many other issues. The Heritage casino dispute tons of false spin in that thread. 6 months ago a simple grading error, Lou didn't get right and sided with the sponsor BetIslands.. let me move on point #5 to explain more.

#5 Threads Regulated, Deleted, Post Times, Bans and More

If you disagree with SBR's ruling on legit disputes against their sponsor book you risk being placed on their slow server extension which makes using their forum near impossible. If you continue you risk 6000 per post timer. If you continue will get put on post moderation or just banned. This is not for being disruptive it is tactics they use when many believe their sponsors are not acting fair or the ruling was wrong and are discussing it., Posters could say much more if it was a D+ book, but if people are getting swayed and it's causing a PR hit for a sponsor expect they will clean things up and regulate their forum. In some cases when things turn really bad against them entire threads are just deleted, many of the most fair player advocates are banned from posting at SBRForum.

#6 Shill Fest

Much of the public opinion about books comes from players getting free plays or some how other incentive to post. This blatantly obvious with certain books. Guys posting their for their SBR points or w/e don't know much better see everyone ranting and raving about certain books, they think these books are best and spreading it and are now in the in crowd. There are several issues with sponsored books, maybe save it for a follow up post. Just the results of posters poll imo are largely scewed by shills.

#7 Issue with Linking to Other Sites

Lou made an issue over me just mentioning 2+2 before. Also anyone linking to related threads from other forums they take issue to. This said why does 2+2 want to send people to this site. They might have some value here and there still but the power others in the industry give them imo is harmful to the books and players while benefiting SBR's pockets only.

My Proposal

I think because SBR has been relevant so long there will be some that disagree with this. If enough do agree however, and mods here would like me to I'd like to edit the FAQ again removing SBR references. An update can be added that points to this thread on the reasons why. Please share thoughts whether you agree or disagree with removing SBR from the FAQ.

I'm all for them being removed, or at least a warning stating something like "sbr was reputable in 2009 and prior. Nowdays they're barely a step above con operation."

Idk why the fk when anybody take their word as being a watchdog for players when they steal 10k from Boot, attempt to extort books like BP and put rickysteve on post review for pointing that out clear as day, promote Cascade to an A rating before they crash no less than 2-3 months later, have no idea what WSEX financial status really was or whatever it was they failed at that caused all the people who deposited to their A rated book to be **** out of luck forever. The Betonline saga is the biggest disgrace currently going there. That and having sponsor bias in casino disputes with ez and heritage.

I'd also add as another reason for not linking them, is to question what is there to gain from sbr? Jmo, but anybody who posted there ever worth reading is long gone or on post review to where they boycott an refuse to drive traffic anymore.

Also, Lou might be the biggest idiot I've ever seen at any forum. It's all barelt above a con operation at this point to me, but sbr doesn't care. For all the few sharps that posted there that are long gone or refuse to drive traffic to this place anymore, there's always the next slew of college kids coming along that will find sbr somehow.

I'd echo the above question of what's really to be gained by continuing to link there. I haven't seen anything worthwhile on the SBR forums in the last 12 months anyways.

I think this post should be added

I just use their page that shows the prices for various games. If there's an equivalent page doing it even better, hook me up and I'm fine if they don't exist here anymore.

The reason why I say this should be added is because anyone posting here in the sports betting forum knows about sbr, and they need to know that sbr's ratings are based on how much the book is paying them

Call me, I agree. Removing sbr is not enough. I advocate a big freaking warning, basically the op of this thread, in our faq. sbr today is not the same as it was before and that should be explained....which is much more informative than simply removing their name.

Do others think that is going too far in an faq?

oddsportal.com covers a lot more books (be warned not all reputable) but will need to get used to the difference in display. It's a drill down for example if looking at +7 / -7 can see what each book has for this price. Then if looking at +6.5 / -6.5 can view this separately. One advantage is that it covers alternate lines from some books where SBR doesn't. For example bet365, Pinnacle and some other will show when viewing +7/-7, +6.5/-6.5, +6/-6 where at SBR will only see one line from each book.

Also, you need to log in to get all the books (see less when not logged in) and also doesn't include some of the sportsbooks SBR does. It does however cover a ton more sports and leagues and a lot more books.

If hung up display format where can view everyone from the same page oddstracker.com is good, functions similar to SBR.

There are other free services too plus even better paid ones.

Everything written is true. However they remain a players best (only?) chance for redress of grievances and thus should remain in the FAQ as a resource to the player with the disclaimers included.

Update: FAQ Updated to cover same suggestion TomG made that I agree with.

I say remove SBR link and replace it with bookmakersreview , they have more accurate ratings . Enough of this scammeres . Remember when BP used to be a sponsor ? SBR managed to cover up some serious thefts .As soon as BP stopped paying them they downgraded them write away , downgrade didn't really helped case by that time players funds were gone .
So how much more should we allow them to steal ?

BOL .

my feelings about sbr in general and lou specifically are well known, and the sentiment is a good one but i just can't imagine there are many people who would find themselves browsing the faq that haven't heard of sbr.

basically, OP this was your baby i'd say just do whatever you want. post #12 looks good.

i still read the sportsbooks and industry forum now and then, and it's a probably a good thing i can't post there anyway. lou and shari aren't very good people. karma will get them.

I don't think it's going too far, but the issue is flow - if it's too long it needs to be placed down at the bottom imo. But really I don't think SBR does the industry much good: but 1) paying posters $1 per day or w/e it is and letting them bet with it 2) having a complaint resolution process 3) few other minor things - are what legitimises the business side. Imo the business side is ugly. Perhaps players shouldn't care but really imo they should:

1) Book gets hammered with whatever their name is having SBR rank #2. Less of their marketing works. The funds then sucked into the black hole of which tons goes back into SBRs scheme, pockets, and on to what in some cases is sportsbooks no more reputable than the book being slammed (and in some cases now maybe even less). Quite a few are losers only books that suck money out of the market. Maybe that book could of been a better option that would have have grown or w/e but they didn't have much chance because they didn't pay SBR tribute/dues or w/e.

2) Legit reputable book can only remain relevant if they keep their SBR advertising deal - SBR can crush them. SBR has a ton of leverage in the terms. This is a joke: but maybe that's why they have to steal betpoints? Again, that sincerely is a joke but the ability to increase the take and force books to pay their price or follow their terms or whatever else sucks if they're not acting fair. No doubt is money that could of went into these legit sites creating a more healthy and balanced market.

Of course there's no doubt tons of shady affiliate sites and many promoting far less reputable books. However in the grand scheme of things they are not high level harmful to the industry overall (are so only on a visitor by visitor basis). The issue with SBR is their size and the way they've billed themselves. They have tons and ton of players fooled, and forever people have been quoting their ratings. The FAQ at 2+2 before last edit said join every book well rated at SBR. Casinomeister posters refereed to SBR ratings forever when sports came up. There was a thread recently on their own forum about how much books need to care about SBR rating. If you search "SBR Rated" (with quotes) and go through Google search will see they're mentioned all over. You can find a few 2+2ers in other sub forums going off about what a book with a poker room is rated at SBR.

It's only the abuse of the power they have that makes it an issue (and GM has allegedly bragged about this power in chat) It might not be quite the same, because Google is a public company, but there are things Google can't legally do that other small engines could. SBR reps themselves as much different than they are and is a mass percentage of the industry that thinks it's all the up and up legit and they are the nuts. Not sure how to word it but there's some deeper issue here, with SBR largely in the position to play the mafia roll - position is one thing playing it another - but...

There's of course benefits to be had with dispute resolution etc. But touting this empires ratings imo isn't a good idea. If there was a thread about a book and people said hmm Bookmakers Review rates them 3- which is good but there's this serious complaint in Internet Poker at 2+2 etc. this is healthy discussion. The way people throw around SBR ratings in conversation is not. Abuse of Power? It seems a lot of their ratings are how much a book pays imo. They're misrepresenting complaints or posting partial details on some books. They have an entire forum loaded with complaints about BetOnline yet no complaints about BetOnline or any other sponsored book show on the news wire the same they do for non sponsored (and BetOnline trumps all with most complaints out there). All sorts of issues.

So re: warning. I'd much rather have next hotshot saying SBR rating is this or that, met with 15 responses of dude those ratings are paid. So a warning imo is yes healthy and perhaps deserved. Where to fit it where FAQ still flows, not sure, probably referenced and added to the bottom or something short written if not. Perhaps someone could come up with something there. I don't see a warning to be at all out of line or a bad thing for anyone but them.

it's your faq, i feel like you should do it up however you want. sounded like MB agreed.

sbr stumbled on that sbr points system and it became a goldmine for them. have you ever thought about how big the actual number of accounts at books that they were getting a big % of? it's huge. or, it was huge and now with all the legal stuff going on in the last few years their income is certainly dropping and they're having to find new ways to generate income.

they had to be the biggest affiliate at multiple books for a time there. they were probably just printing money. now, that source of income is drying up so their being forced to lean more on the books for ad revenue and shady backroom ratings deals.

Thanks but really is not. No idea who started that, might of been tech, but perf did awesome stuff with it. I came back posting here and seen a few times in big red bold about: all US players should have matchbook, and scanned and seen other things outdated. Then questions I know were asked many times not covered so just spent quite a while editing and adding to it, but really is community's FAQ. I was just the latest one to rewrite parts, add new, and make edits etc.

Once upon a time sbr actually had the right intentions in mind for the players, but that was before they became more worried about being a pizza delivery service. Everything went to **** once they implemented the point system

i bet john would disagree about the point system. **** made that man rich.

When they became a sportsbook themselves, player advocacy became a complete conflict of interest.

Yeah they went from bashing and downgrading sportsbook on correlated parlay thefts, to pulling their own stiff job on a 10k" if bet" glitch. Like I said, there's always the next batch of college kids coming along each year to click their banners and sign up. They have zero incentive to be what they started as.

Prop, I agree with wiper...which pretty much never happens. I'm perfectly comfortable letting it be "your" faq. This has happened in other forums on here...mod gets out of the way while knowledgeable poster constructs the faq. Up to you for best strat I say. I appreciate you seeking input and/or approval but ultimately I think "your call" is what I prefer to go with. You know way more about all this that I do.

You're willing to listen to other opinions. I don't hear any major objections to your latest suggestion. Let's go with it until you change your mind perhaps if convinced by others.

Also, I think the best startegy to expose this stuff for semi novices and noobs is to keep the conversation going. Use this forum to express your disagreement with the issues that get censored, deleted or banned over there. I'm perfectly comfortable with that. If they are scummy on some of this stuff then expose them however you feel is best. I think your judgment on any of this is likely quite good and I would like for this forum to serve as a means to help other posters find their way and learn what's real and what's garbage. The faq is a start...but continued discussion is probably good too I suspect and I would like to encourage you to do that here.

FWIW I fully support OP's position. SBR has become a questionable ratings guide for books over the past few years. There is good info, especially historical complaints, but there is also some really questionable stuff there and it seems to get progressively worse.

I agree with TomG.
SBR has gone to bat for me a couple of times when other places pulled shenanigans.

However, they do have some real flaws. It's good training for the murky, conflicted world we live in.

SBR has helped me when a book wouldn't communicate with me at all. however they seem to be getting progressively worse.

SBR is the meh you can have sex with. they're good to keep around.