Why not have a user-rating for each bookie? Obviously would need to try and exclude trolls from casting their votes, but that's probably possible, using various measures.
The more open the ratings are, the more reliable they will be. I reckon any site that truly has user ratings would be rather unique.
TGT already has a unique, and very valuable, "system" for reporting on bookie payouts. Perhaps this could be enhanced to a full-blown rating 'system'?
A few months ago now I personally pulled the vast majority of my $s bankroll from what I would consider "US facing" sites because of the recent actions by the US authorities against some of them. This was also done by several other key members of the TGT team and it is always true that with the reviews we put our money where our mouths are and nowhere will have a high rating unless we actually trust it with our $s too, for real, it is not just talk. This meant that by definition when we pulled out we had to lower the rating of all. Pinnacle did nothing wrong and all the points you make are correct and valid, but, if we are not happy to play there we are not telling everyone else to. That is why they are 6*s.
Originally Posted by dark_knight
Got it in one.
Originally Posted by Dazed1979
The US authorities appear to be making the "rules" up as they go along. It cost the PartyPoker group (now BWinParty) over $100m in order to get a "Non prosecution" agreement for accepting US bets from 1997 - 2006. That is a staggering amount of money.
Originally Posted by Landprofits
Pinnacle (along with virtually everywhere but we are talking about Pinnacle now) were accepting US bets then and have not signed one of those, so are open to being hit at anytime the US authorities choose to care about it. When they do they can/will arbitrarily seize the assets and bank accounts of the firms involved regardless of where they are based or whos money it actually is in the accounts, google BetEd or FullTilt.
In fact if I was Party I would be asking very loudly and clearly why Pinnacle (et all) have not been charged yet and if they are not going to be I want my $100m+ back then. Not only was the Party Ltd Company fined but ALSO the founders had to pay a seperate amount on top to aviod jail in a seperate plea bargain. They were looking at prison for a long long time this is not a joking matter and remember this was all for action which occoured pre Oct 2006, of which Pinnacle is just as liable, and so it has a dark black cloud over it. For a while everyone assumed the US had let it all go but recent events have blown that theory out of the water. If (When?) the Feds want to go for Pinnacle they can and they will and there will be no warning whatsoever.
Have a plan and stick to it
I'd just assumed that as they stopped taking US customers pretty soon after UIGEA there was no problem. Thanks for the explanation.
Does this mean that most "mainstream" bookies (ie Stan James, Ladbrokes, Will Hill, etc) did not take US bets even pre 2006? I'd always assumed the non US thing was only post UIGEA but I guess not or they'd all be equally vulnerable to US persecution.
Good thread Pier0 but I think most members here base their decisions on what goes on in the chat box and the threads. Also as I see it the ratings are based on potential for profit as much as security and reliability. So I can see why Smarkets might get a 10 based on the 1% deal.
Thanks for the hint about Smarkets though.
With ratings in mind, is not time to change Full Tilt as your best poker site of 2011? It's smack on the front page.
A couple of interesting cues:
Originally Posted by Diamondgeezer
Even though members here are savvier than the average betting forum, if ratings become just an excuse for the site to run its own deals, disappointment will eventually emerge amongst members and that's where in my original post I advised against it.
I really believe this forum is unique and useful and it would be a shame and stupid not to defend it.
Then I find extremely interesting that the ratings represent something different almost for each person that reads them. Andy clearly specified what they are based on but TGT members all have their own interpretation of them (at least in this thread).
I know this is the case as I get exactly the same at Bookmakers Review, where despite having a ratings guide. I receive emails from players that see into a rating value something different.
And I always wonder whether I'm not doing a good job in explaining what the ratings represent or players are too lazy to read the ratings guide. Either way I think is the site's owner job to do more to explain what ratings are.
And now about Pinnacle.
I think I've written about it on MSE just a couple of weeks ago: there are have been persistent rumours that they continued to have agents within the US territory post 2007.
I've personally asked about it to the founder a year ago and again to one of their managers recently and they never denied the rumours.
I don't exclude they were trying to impress me as the ones that outsmarted the US government, but I can't say for sure.
It's risky, definitely but a US citizen wouldn't have to do all that much to appear to be playing from an accepted duristiction. Just blow on over to SBR forums to see confirmation of that.
I know because I can log into anywhere from on US soil. Long term it would raise red flags if from the same connection etc but there are ways and means...
Good idea we will look into getting that set up, can you add any suggestions of what you would like to actually "rate" and how it might work to this thread. Thanks.
Originally Posted by brillo
Have a plan and stick to it
Not directly related to the thread but I do have a question about TGT and Smarkets. If I upgrade to TGT premium membership and I already have a smarkets account will I still get the 1% rate? Or is it only valid for new smarkets accounts after joing TGT premium? Thanks.