I think you need to have a certain amount of categories and a weighting for each category, since what is important to some may not be important to others. An algorithm can then be used to come up with an overall rating. Reviews are almost always based on personal experience and expectations.
For example, people who are used to sticking £5k on a bet would not rate the limits of M88 (£250 I think) as highly as somebody who only ever does £100. Similarly, somebody who only ever bets on the big 5 or 6 European football leagues, won’t care as much if a bookie offers Singapore 2nd Division matches. People who do this full time will probably want a bookie which can be arbed during the day whereas people who only have 1 or 2 hours a week may prefer reloads where they can stick their bets on and not have to worry about how good the horse odds are during the afternoon.
A few thoughts about how I'd review a bookie:
- Will they let me bet with them?
- a. What range of countries are allowed?
- b. How quick are they to limit/gub?
- c. Do they close accounts mid way through a WR?
- d. Are they partner friendly?
- Are they reliable/stable?
- a. What are the chances of me not seeing my money again?
- b. How are they regulated?
- c. Will they settle bets according to their rules?
- d. Do they give adequate notice of palps pre-event or do they only palp winning bets?
- What are the odds like?
- a. Are the odds arbable or do they track an exchange?
- b. How quick are they to cut their odds?
- What are their limits like?
- a. Will they let me have £20K on an EPL match?
- b. Do they show the limits offered before depositing?
- Do they offer reloads/special-offers?
- a. How often do they have special offers?
- b. Do they offer reloads and if so, how frequently?
- Markets offered?
- a. What sports and leagues are offered?
- b. Do they allow in-play betting?
- Website useability ?
- a. How easy is it to find the relevant market?
- b. How fast is the website?
- c. Which browsers does it work in?
- d. Do they offer an application for mobile betting?
- e. How often does the website go down for maintenance?
- Payment methods?
- a. What payment methods are offered?
- b. Can I have more than one deposit method?
- c. How fast are withdrawals?
- d. What are the despot/withdrawal limits?
- Customer Service?
- a. Do they have a working live chat?
- b. What methods can they be contacted by?
- c. How fast are they to respond?
- d. How knowledge are their responses?
- a. Do they send out offers by e-mail/phone/mail?
- b. Do we have to visit the website all the time?
Obviously some criteria are correlated. We would all obviously like to have Interwetten/CashPoint odds with Laddies/SBObet limits, but personally I’d prefer Interwetten odds with M88 limits. Regular £250s on a 2.5/2.3 arb would do me fine. On the other hand, average odds with constant special offers and reloads would also be attractive.
I would also suggest that if you do go along the lines of letting forum members review the bookies, then also let people add comments so that reviews are not just a number and have allowed people to provide a reasoning behind their rating.
Remember, Remember the 04th of November 2010 – the day Interwetten died
Remember, Remember the 24th of March 2012, the day TGT won the Scoop6!
i dont want to hijack the thread but thought the question deserved an answer... comeon are/were no different to any new book IMO. there is a risk, i think we all know that, whether they offer a genuine SUB and get battered and hence run out of money is one thing setting books with the sole intention to get deposits in but with no intention of paying out is another, but really, when you bet at a new book can you ever be sure? Basically, IF i had been asked to rate comeon when they came on the scene i could only rate them as 1* i have no other personal experience to go on or suggest otherwise. Even though i am gubbed to high heaven at Bet365 i know they are a top book.... i dont think getting gubbed (unless its after 1 or bets) should be a determining factor in rating a book. After all it is a tool they use to protect their business, which means they stay in business... which is what we want really isnt it? rather than posting stupid arbs that last for 3 days but when everyone wins the book has no money to pay but hasnt gubbed anyone or reduced limits? ... anyway i digress??
Originally Posted by r2d2
The rate of getting gubbed is definitely a rating factor IMO. There's the likes of Tote, who limit you to shreds the minute you deposit with Moneybookers, and the likes of Globet or Bet365, where plenty of people have found themselves unable to complete the wager because they were gubbed to shreds. Of course we do want bookies to stay in business, but we also want to know if there is a risk or likelihood that you couldn't even make a profit from the SUB.
Originally Posted by Sticky
An important one for me...
Change in Terms and conditions.
Do they alter the goal posts, amend bonues / sub's..
Covered I suppose in how reliable they are...
Yes Brillo, that certainly is a determining factor but IMO is more to do with the fact you are using Moneybookers as you method of payment. I dont think any "mug" punters even know what it is. So yeah they are gubbing early on but only by being shrewd. If you deposit by card i think you would have a very different experience, particularly with 365? Globet were not a great experience for me but not for gubbing reasons, just didnt really rate the book or the service, cant comment on tote.
Originally Posted by brillo
I'm with sticky, gubbings shouldn't effect the rating. (Unless maybe if bookies are unreasonable if you have wagering requirements eg bet770)
I agree with the rest of your post but a couple of points, whether their odds are arbable or follow an exchange shouldn't effect the rating IMO, perhaps a better thing to review is how much vig/juice do they put on their odds? Also the frequency of special offers shouldn't effect a rating either IMO. Depends if this rating system is coming from a bonus abuser view? I'd prefer the rating just to tell me how safe a gambling site is, perhaps next to a gambling site rating users can vote on a separate rating out of 10 how good they are for bonuses & promos and a link to bonus chat?
Originally Posted by horsekeeper
1. Sign-up and reload bonuses, special promotions and loyalty programmes.
2. Customer support (including live chat).
3. Reduced juice (good betting odds) and high wagering limits.
4. Transaction policies (methods of deposits and withdrawals, cost of deposits and withdrawals).
5. Location (Western Europe or Asia, USA, Malta or some banana republic).
It is NOT all to do with Moneybookers - - - I only mentioned that as an example. Globet and B365 (again, only examples!) can pull the rug from under you in mid-wager, completely and utterly regardless of your funding method.
Originally Posted by Sticky
Escapes me why people wouldn't want to see this sort of stuff reflected in the rating, but hey-hoh.
I think you are raising a good point there - - different people could rate the same book differently, depending on their intended use. Perhaps we want more than one rating.
Originally Posted by blowingbubbles
Personally, I can't see any reason why on TGT we would expect to find ratings for mug punters use (though suppose it depends how you define a mug punter, lol). Arbability, OTH, should, IMO, be of huge interest to a large proportion of TGTers.
As an example, BSQ are a rock-solid book for mug punters who want to get their tenners, or occasionally a bit more, on their favourite footie team. They are, however, rather dodgy for the bonus hunter, and next to useless for the serious arber. So how would you rate them?
NB. There are already some good rating sites out there - not much point replicating what they are already doing (e.g. SBR, BMR). The uniqueness that a TGT-user rating system could bring to the table is that it would be from a broad user community, interested in mainly "advantage play" of some sort or another.
Creating a credible ratings guide takes a long time and is a thankless task. As soon as it's published it's out of date. That's the good news!
My opinions: favourability to AP'ers is not usually the foundation of viable business models so I think any ratings system which weights things like arbs and promos as important as the basics of safety (licence, regulator, the jurisdiction, the reputation and so on) will look different to other systems for all the wrong reasons. In fact, I would not let either have a bearing if I was designing a ratings system.
Arbing: the opinion formed of how good a book is for arbing is highly related to the knowledge and skills of the person trying to arb. Unless you know the skill level of everyone using this criteria to rank a site, ratings will be affected yet no conclusions can be drawn from those affectations. More importantly, why would anyone accurately reflect their evaluation of the 'arbs' criteria in their rating when it's counterproductive for arbers to reveal slow moving books?
User-ratings: if users were rating books themselves then couldn't a bulk of users unduly affect a rating? For example, 90 sign up to 100% bonus and arbs galore. They rate. 10 sign up a week later to 50% bonus and lines tightened. They rate. Even using the same criteria, understanding it and accurately reflecting their experiences (probably won't happen) the rating would be more in line with what stopped being the case the week before. TGT can quickly update a review, a link discussing payouts or bonuses, or a rating. I'm not sure how a user submitted rating/review can be re-engineered by the users when their rating is no longer based in reality.
IMO, I would stick to TGT doing the reviews but settle on a method for doing them and then its transparent as to how a rating was achieved. Though I like Smarkets, I find a rating of 10* instantly renders the reviews section incredible. To me it would be preferable to have them rated correctly (in line with the guide) but to have them appear first in the guide in a box named "sponsored" or something along those lines so they get to come up first but users aren't left scratching their heads.