TGT Reviews 2010+

[nixonite]

I would say I'd have to agree with Joey here, but take it a step further. I would really like to rely on something other than SBR and the like, but the ratings on TGT really need an overhaul.

Strykke is a slowpayer (IMO 2 weeks is definitely slowpay, and paying after a month is rogue book behaviour) with a long history of repeatedly doing this. On the other hand, we have a large Asian handicap specialist (12bet) and a state owned book with no previous record of rogue behaviour (totesport) in the same category. Even worse, we have the likes of BetJam, BAH and WinUnited/ Uwin rated as 6*.

I think Stryyke should be portrayed as they are now, not what they might become in the future......

[Fella]

I would say I'd have to agree with Joey here, but take it a step further. I would really like to rely on something other than SBR and the like, but the ratings on TGT really need an overhaul.

How about having two ratings: one official TGT rating & one "user" rating out of 10 that members could vote on. Cnet (my favourite review site) do this & it's v useful IMO:

Example: Apple iPhone 3GS Review on CNET UK

That would allow TGT to give it's own rating/approval etc but would also give people an accurate idea of how everyone else rated any particular site. Can't ask for much more than that!

In fact TGT is uniquely placed to have such ratings, since it now carries a subscription fee to new users so there is no danger of an angry troll skewing the ratings by creating multiple logons & voting repeatedly.



(Of course to be really really accurate you'd need several ratings per bookie since a bookie like Stryyykkke may be 10/10 in some respects (odds) but 1/10 on speed of payment. But that's probably more involved than is practical & not strictly necessary anyway. If a book averages 9/10 ratings overall it's obviously worth joining. If it averages 1/10 then it probably isn't).

[Andy]

That is pretty much how they are mainly changed ratings at the moment. Initially often before even put on the site we have people who go there and deposit and play around a bit and withdraw, and based on all that come up with a review and rating. It is the best estimation of the site we can get.

In this game things change a lot and quickly so with so many reviews it very swiftly becomes out of date, if anybody ever has a different experiance to what the review says they are encouraged to E-mail reviews@thegamblingtimes.com and at the end of each month all of these are looked at and the reviews changed if required.

Only very occasionally is an existing site reviewed again, it is 99% only the feedback sent in and/or anything major posted on the forum which leads to a review change.

Thanks for all the suggestions.

[Sticky]

i would echo others thoughts, basically, if the matter was left to us to vote i would give stryke 1 or 2 out of 10, waiting for months to get your money is not on IMHO, i would never want to mistakingly advise any newbie to go there for some pathetic 25-100€ bonus only to see their entire float locked up for months with no decent replies other than some copy and paste bull about how the payment will be processed in due time... or whatever other gumpf these crooks come up with

[nixonite]

Didn't realise this had been made into a separate thread.

I like Fella's idea, and in particular the in depth ratings (e.g. odds, payout speed, bonuses etc.), with a final rating that is an average of the other categories. However, I realise it might be a bit involved and require too much work for comparatively little gain. The User vs Site idea is good too, but how does one change ratings given to a book, if the situation changes? A 10* book today is a 1* book tomorrow.

I think the best thing this thread does is illustrate the pitfalls of 'rating' a book, particularly as things change so quickly (Heroes etc.) that you're almost expected to be a clairvoyant and anticipate problems arising before they happen.

[Nintendo2k]

I can't remember when the last TGT review update was sent out by e-mail, but the e-mail I received today shocked me a bit tbh. I am not sure when the actual review took place, but from what I gather none of the phoenix bookies have paid out within 48 hours to moneybookers (or neteller for that matter) for a while now. Since I last played there they have also stopped offering interbook transfer with Matchbook, and when I enquired about it they had no plans of bringing it back either.

A while ago they even changed their banking site to include: "Payout requests may take up to 7 to 10 business days. ". Note that it says business days. But from players I talk to, but who for various reasons don't post here, report that they have been falling way behind schedule on ewallet payments. Withdrawals are as far as I know never free to moneybookers either. To be fair they do still pay fast through certain methods, but I don't think those are methods the TGT user base really wants to use.

The e-mail also says that BP entered the TGT ratings guide at 8*. I hope that is a typo and that they haven't actually been upgraded to 9* since the review took place.

I can't really understand why they would enter the guide at 8* (or 9*, as they are rated now). That is better/the same as Pinnacle, Bookmaker/CRIS group, WillHill and so on.

I know it isn't always easy or even fair to measure bookies up against each other as they may cater to different markets. Normally I wouldn't complain, but I honestly think this rating is so out of line that I had to post about it.

Btw.. I am pretty sure BetVenus should be included in the Phoenix group.

[Andy]

Hello Nintendo thanks for the comments.

but from what I gather none of the phoenix bookies have paid out within 48 hours to moneybookers (or neteller for that matter) for a while now.

They did in January, nobody has sent any differently to reviews@thegamblingtimes.com since then but as soon as reports are recieved that it is taking longer then that would be updated. In future when a review is edited at all (and this has started now) the date of the last edit/update will be put at the end.

But from players I talk to, but who for various reasons don't post here, report that.

The TGT reviews will be based on initially the report from the reviewers we send (who have no vested interest in the sites concerned at all they get paid a flat amount by us either way) which are as acurate as we can possibly be. From then on they are altered when we get reports E-mailed in to reviews@thegamblingtimes.com by TGT members that they are out of date/incorrect. We dont, cant, and wont change them just because of what anybody else says for obvious reasons.

The e-mail also says that BP entered the TGT ratings guide at 8*. I hope that is a typo and that they haven't actually been upgraded to 9* since the review took place.

Pinnacle is 9*s, Phoenix is 8*s, that has been corrected now (You are right it was entered into the database as a typo the two went in the wrong way round).

Normally I wouldn't complain, but I honestly think this rating is so out of line that I had to post about it.

I wish more people would complain or at least comment on it. Things cannot be fixed or at least made better unless we know it is wrong or there is a problem.

Btw.. I am pretty sure BetVenus should be included in the Phoenix group.

I spoke to them on live chat today and specifically asked the direct question "which are the sites connected to BetPhoenix" and that one was not mentioned, but I can go back and ask again.

Thankyou very much for all the comments.

I dont write the reviews as such although do have the final say on it I suppose I am not dodging that part but it really is very good/important for people to say so when they are wrong so they can be fixed. You are right though the eventual rating is still only an educated guess like every other rating site but in terms of factual comments they should always be correct.

[Nintendo2k]

How recent is that BetTrojan review Andy? It would maybe be helpful if there were dates present on some of the reviews, and maybe have the opportunity for the users to report payouts. It could be useful for some of the more obscure bookies like Wagerweb, BetUS, BetTrojan and such.

[Andy]

How recent is that BetTrojan review Andy?

It would be old, very old, maybe a year? But we have had no reports that it is wrong which is why it may not be up to date. Is it wrong? I will look at it before the end of the month myself.

It would maybe be helpful if there were dates present on some of the reviews, and maybe have the opportunity for the users to report payouts.

Yes I agree, everytime a review is added or updated from now on the date it was changed is added at the end. When reviews are inaccurate please E-mail reviews@thegamblingtimes.com and they are taken into account and where appropriate the review is changed.

It could be useful for some of the more obscure bookies like Wagerweb, BetUS, BetTrojan and such.

Yes I agree.

[Nintendo2k]

No I don't think it is inaccurate. I just registered there and have been looking up some info, but not much available really. They are reduced juice and offer a nice 20% freeplay bonus so could be a useful account. Footy odds are horrible, but not planning to use them for that anyway.

Judging from their funding methods I am guessing that they target ROTWers more than americans. Gonna try them out soon.

Thanks!