View Single Post
Old 10-30-2012, 02:30 PM   #15
PropPlayer
Sports Betting Mod
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southeast Asia
Posts: 3,773
re: SBR Discussion Thread (SportsBookReview / SBRForum)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MicroBob View Post
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?
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.
PropPlayer is offline   Reply With Quote