HoopsEdge is the WNBA front for RightAngleSports (RAS). Their official support thread can be found here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/40...ervice-782839/

Here are some of the allegations against RAS posted by respected posters like TomCowley:

Their defense:

atrainpsu points out the obvious:

shipitkthx was a customer:

A simple cliffs by Thremp:

I won't quote this post, but TomCowley's post here sums it up very well.

So, my questions:

1) Was 2+2 aware of this past history with RAS?
2) If so, why do they believe it to be immaterial?
3) If not, what is the official statement of 2p2 going forward about RAS?

Thank you.

Of course we weren't aware of their history.

I'll just quote a couple of RAS' responses:

So, here's my question for you. Assume for a minute that this only happened for that one period of time, has never happened since, and they promise to never let it happen again. Should they not be allowed as an advertiser? Serious question.

Also, I beleve RAS has claimed that they offered refunds to any customers affected, and no one took them up on this. I haven't seen anyone claim to the contrary.

This is not the issue for me (though it is rather important when you are selling your word). The fact that RAS says this:

Speaks volumes. No intelligent person on this board can't see right through that results-oriented bull****. It is a ridiculous defense that equates to:

"We regret cheating our customers. But hey, they made money too! So it's OK."

I understand you have issues with their response to this. Are you suggesting they should be removed as an advertiser because of this response?

First, they didn't "offer refunds". They granted refunds to people who specifically asked. The vast majority of subscribers probably have no idea to this day that they could have gotten a refund.

Second, they state that they remain free to bet in any way at any time (including front-running), and furthermore, that they ARE also betting their picks as we speak. It's not an isolated incident (the bad PR of getting caught and called out on it was the isolated incident). It's a self-admitted fundamental part of their business model.

I am suggesting that 2p2 justify why they allow advertisers who cheat their customers and use the defense of "We cheated them but they made money" to obscure the facts.

The plain truth is that RAS cheated their customers in a field where your word is all you have as a professional service. If this is fine with 2p2, then I want to hear 2p2's management say it. That's all.

I'll have to look back through the thread; perhaps you're correct.

I'd like to understand this issue better. Is this common/normal operating procedure for handicapping services? Why is it such a problem?

I don't know if cheating is an accurate description of what happened, but I don't want to turn this into the same semantics argument you've had with RAS.

Instead, let's take advertisers cheating customers in general. Do you feel that if 2+2 takes on an advertiser that is later found to have cheated customers in the past, they should automatically be removed as an advertiser?

My first reaction is that it's probably not something they chose to bring to Bobo's attention when they signed up.

But then again, once you find out an advertising a place has a shady history it's prob worth re-evaluating. Within reason, I don't mean knocking off every advertiser with some small thing (I don't know enough about this deal or understand it fully). But standards for ads probably aren't necessarily standards for things 2+2 might recommend. Strictly my opinion.

Sigh.

Now-deleted posts from the support thread.

Is it really not possible to have a conversation about the issue without this kind of crap?

This has little or nothing to do with my points that I'm bringing up. Maybe others care about this, but I refer you to TomCowley's posts and the ones I've already brought up. If you want to discuss general advertisers cheating behaviors in the past, that can go into another thread.

Who knows? 2p2 management may have decided that it was fine.

ETA: And if they hadn't, what are the proper due diligence methods that 2p2 takes when scoping out prospective advertisers?

Huh? What are you talking about? gmcarroll was pointing out that this thread could not have been policed in the way he wanted by Performify because it was a paid authorized support thread. I also pointed out the same thing.

Is there something factually incorrect about that? 2p2 accepted money so RAS could advertise. gmcarroll notified Perf thinking it was a random tout thread. He was confused on why it was not deleted. I told him it was because RAS paid 2p2 for the privilege.

True or false?

You're asking why 2+2 allowed them to advertise. I'm asking you if you think they should be removed based on what I believe are the facts at hand. Seems pretty relevant to me.

But now you know we didn't.

Certainly nothing that would discover issues like that, and I doubt many forums/web sites are any different.

It's the cynical tone I was talking about. Am I mistaken? I have my doubts, but if I was, I apologize.

And yes, that's true.

I think this is a fair point and should be disclosed if it is the case. I can understand this viewpoint.

Excellent points.

I would never expect otherwise from any Internet site, newspaper, television network, etc, etc.

I'm not saying that 2p2 management should remove them for cheating in the past. I am saying that 2p2 management should justify why they allow them to advertise given their defense of why they cheated their customers. It makes no sense and has no integrity; any semi-intelligent gambler can see this.

Like I said, many people may have problems with them cheating people in the past. I'm one of them. But that's not the main driver as to why I think they should be removed as an advertiser, and I don't think it to be relevant to my arguments.

This is another huge problem. Did you consult with any well-known sports bettor(s) before accepting RAS? Due diligence should have included this if 2p2 management did not understand much in the online sports betting world.

I would hope that 2p2 is held to a higher standard than P5 or Neverwin.

I can't speak for gmcarroll, but I was only talking about why Performify was handcuffed.

Is there any chance this argument is about semantics? PAS has said they regret what happened and that they made mistakes, and also that it wouldn't happen again. I don't see how offering justifications really changes any of that.

No. Nor do we consult experts in any other field when accepting their advertisements. For example, we run ad networks on our community networks; naturally, there's no realistic hope of any such consultation for every advertisement we run.

Fair point. When it comes to poker, this may be an expectation of many people. And I think, for example, 2+2's stance on Cereus ads is indicative that it's a valid expectation. At the same time, I could probably find a few shady things that many poker sites have engaged in. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that 2+2 is going to only have 100% squeaky clean companies advertising.

As for sports handicappers, I don't know if most posters would hold 2+2 to a higher standard here. And I'm also far from convinced that RAS would violate such standards.

Fair enough, my apologies.

Except in the same breath, they say that it is still happening, and will continue to happen, and is an integral part of their business model. They're only sorry that the people they were dealing with at the time made it so obvious to the world- they're not sorry at all about front-running. They're only sorry they got caught front-running by being so obvious. Read the thread in full please.

Because books don't take unlimited action, and when a person or person has bet enough, the line moves. Anybody in the future who wants the same side will have to bet into a worse number. And books take very limited action on WNBA (and college basketball) compared to what they'll take on NFL. There's a finite, quite small, amount of the best number to go around. When RAS front-runs it, their clients can't bet it anymore (or bet it for as much, collectively). And forcing customers to take just half a point worse on a basketball spread is about a -4% hit to their expected ROI, which is obviously nontrivial.

I have no particular knowledge of the RAS situation specifically, but a fair amount of the general issue:

If a tout is playing his picks before giving them out, the line will tend to move by the time they come out in a way that is unfavorable to the bettor who paid for the service. You could argue that this is sort of OK if the tout reasonably believes his picks will still be +EV even after those line movements, but the counterargument is that those who have paid for the service reasonably expect that the service will not be working against them, which is literally what the tout's own bets will be doing to the extent (which is significant in the WNBA) that the bets move the line. Moreover, given the edges that are available in most sports, it's pretty likely that any line movement will obviate any edge the tout might have.

If a tout is free to play the sold picks after giving them out, he will probably be tempted to, at least occasionally (and, as TC points out, all the time once he's decided to burn his business), give out picks that are coin flips or even backwards relative to his own views. The customers playing his picks will move the line; he can then take advantage of the improved (from his perspective) lines by going the opposite way from what he advised.

These techniques will be much more a problem in a market like WNBA than NBA or NFL, because the lines will respond to much smaller action.

From what i just read (not a lot, and I'm assuming TC summed it up fairly), RAS has not promised not to do these things. Assuming this is correct there is more here than just a business that cheated customers in the past; there's one that has cheated customers in the past, promised it won't cheat in that particular way again, but left open other possible ways to cheat them. (All of which is a little odd when you consider that they might as well just go ahead and say they won't do it, whether they're going to or not.)

I had some constructive thoughts all written out, ready to click post. Then it suddenly occurred to me, "Why the hell am I helping this person, a deluded charlatan at best?"

Also I'm still pissed about my prior post being deleted. When did 4 become TheRx?

Moved this one from the SB thread, as it really doesn't belong there.

And is this post's deletion really worth asking about not just once, but twice?

I didn't delete it, but I don't see what it has to do with a support thread for PAS.

TC responded to this better than I ever could, so I'll let him do the talking.

Ad networks != Authorized Support Threads. The one is very easily seen as simple banner ads, the other shows that 2p2 almost sanctions it by allowing direct advertising using the forum.

Yes, I agree.

Perhaps I haven't been completely clear. I have read the whole thread, and I understand they PAS haa said that front-running is something they still do. The issue that they have expressed regret for, etc, was in 2008:

As for the front-running, thanks for the explanation, atakdog. That's more or less what I thought, but I wanted to get a more in-depth explanation.

Can anyone tell me if front-running a common phenomenon among sports handicappers?

Of course not. And I'll admit it's a rather extreme example I came up with quickly. But I'm sure I there are plenty of other non-poker ads we've run/are running where the expectation wouldn't be that industry experts would've been consulted. Just like I don't think people are usually consulted on poker site ads; it's just that it's a topic that 2+2 management would be more familiar with, and would be able to screen out the very worst without further consultation.

This is interesting, and something I've thought about quite a bit. Is there a big perception out there that support threads are a "sanctioning" of sorts?

What's interesting about it is that if we ran banner ads without the thread, it's likely the issue never comes up, and posters are none the wiser.

I don't think 2+2 can have a set "policy" with these things, you almost have to go case-by-case.

Obviously reject known scammer types, I mean DutchBoydPoker is never going to get adspace. But the rest... again they're advertisement, not Consumer Reports endorsements. If folks have a beef with a particular advertiser--which invariably they're going to with pretty much any gambling-related ads for sure--they can say so like in this thread. In grevious cases maybe a given contract won't be renewed or possibly terminated.

But you can only expect so much. It's one thing to turn away known crooks wanting to advertise, but it's another to full-on investigate them (as if you're paying them for something). I know radio ads aren't much different and I imagine other media are pretty similar. There are some standards to keep but it needs to be reasonable. This is a gambling site after all, some of the advertisers 2+2 would like to have are probably not options but poker- and gambling-related advertisers are and there's probably a pretty high rate of problems among them.

In this case, it's 110% obvious that it's sanctioning the product. Starting a thread advertising picks for sale is an instant deletion and ban (as it should be). Then you let RAS come in and advertise picks for sale where literally nobody else can, so, uh, yeah, you're sanctioning the product here when you let them do that.

To me, it's 110% obvious that 2p2 never sanctions any products or services on the forum other than 2p2 books. People get to plug their stuff here if they pay a fee. Perhaps 2p2 needs to do a better job letter people know that anyone who gets to promote themselves here only gets to b/c they paid--there's been confusion regarding Sponsored Coaches recently as well--but to me it's always been clear that 2p2 endorses nothing here but their books.