[ritehook]

At least one sportsbook (B rated) is "re-imbursing" the cost of funds transmission, not by putting the cost to the client into his account in the form of cash, but by crediting him with a free play for the amount.

Obviously, a free play is not as good as the cash in the account. Only half as good, in fact.

When is the next step to be taken, no transmission funds re-imbursement at all? And the step after that, the book charges you a few bucks to "service" the account?

Post UIGEA, life if hard.

[bigloser]

Obviously, a free play is not as good as the cash in the account. Only half as good, in fact.

.

Nearly always worth 80% often over 95%.

[Mudcat]

I know WagerWeb uses that tactic. Who else?

[ritehook]

Nearly always worth 80% often over 95%.

I don't get your math. (tho I'll admit it's not my strongest subject).

A "free play" is betting with imaginary money, and getting real money only if you win, and only the winning part.

Like: a book gives me $2 in free play. I bet a horse that pays $4.00. The money that goes into my account is $2.00. IE, the profit, not the principle, not the sum I bet, since I never got that.

If they gave me $2 in cash, and I win an even money bet for that amount, I'd have $4.00 in my account, not $2.

Half as much.

[tacomax]

If they gave me $2 in cash, and I win an even money bet for that amount, I'd have $4.00 in my account, not $2.

Half as much.

While that may be true on an even money bet, you need to look at all the available opportunities. What if you placed the bet on a +500 underdog - what would the value be then? Would it still be half as much?

[ritehook]

I know WagerWeb uses that tactic. Who else?

Right, WagerWeb. I was hoping someone else would know of others.

Wagerweb's fairly liberal free withdrawal options are thus offset by this sort of underhanded thing. I don't bet with them, but a friend who does was kind of mystified as to why he didn't see his $43 (**) transfer fee in his account, only added to the free play when he re-upped after tapping out.

He's miffed enough to tell me he likely wouldn't re-up with them again. They never used to do that, he says

Maybe they need the money to pay for the bonus slammers who knocked them up for some heavy money, as was detailed on these boards just a while back.

[ritehook]

While that may be true on an even money bet, you need to look at all the available opportunities. What if you placed the bet on a +500 underdog - what would the value be then? Would it still be half as much?

No. Then you'd be using leverage, taking what is a sort of imaginary money and endeavoring to multiply it into real money by leveraging, which in gambling is to bet on a longshot (like +500).

The more accurate reflection of value on a Free Play, tho, seems to me to be the even money bet. Equivalent value for value . . .

Too bad we can't all do what banks in modern nations do - fractional reserve banking. Leveraged plays with a guaranteed return, creating real money out of thin air. But the best we can do is to bet into things like +500.

[Mudcat]

While that may be true on an even money bet, you need to look at all the available opportunities. What if you placed the bet on a +500 underdog - what would the value be then? Would it still be half as much?

And just to take this a little further for explanation sake: say you have a $50 fee/freeplay and you put it on this +500 dog (to win $250). Then you shop around and find a line on the other side at, say -525. You risk 210 (to win $40) on that.

No matter which side wins, you have made $40 (in other words, 80% of your fee/freeplay amount).

So it doesn't have to be quite as bad as only getting half your money back but I agree that it is a crappy policy. WagerWeb knows that most people don't know how to maximize a freeplay like that so they are nickel-and-diming on those transfer fees. Pretty weaselly.

[tacomax]

Maybe they need the money to pay for the bonus slammers who knocked them up for some heavy money, as was detailed on these boards just a while back.

It's less to do with that and more to do with the fact that books are seeing less volume and consequently can't be as generous in terms of bonuses free deposits/withdrawals etc. anymore.

[ritehook]

And just to take this a little further for explanation sake: say you have a $50 fee/freeplay and you put it on this +500 dog (to win $250). Then you shop around and find a line on the other side at, say -525. You risk 210 (to win $40) on that.

No matter which side wins, you have made $40 (in other words, 80% of your fee/freeplay amount).

So it doesn't have to be quite as bad as only getting half your money back but I agree that it is a crappy policy. WagerWeb knows that most people don't know how to maximize a freeplay like that so they are nickel-and-diming on those transfer fees. Pretty weaselly.

Scalping out the free play is another viable option. But as you say, most of their customers would not likely know the mechanism of doing so (nor have the time and skills to look for such bargains if they did know.)

[pico]

i made a thread talking about the guranteed return for free play. if you can do parlays. you're guranteed 75%-85% depends on how you play it. 90% guranteed is possible, but pretty hard to do.

[ritehook]

i made a thread talking about the guranteed return for free play. if you can do parlays. you're guranteed 75%-85% depends on how you play it. 90% guranteed is possible, but pretty hard to do.

I just opened with a book (and will with a few more within a week) and got a some free play money on my deposit. Is your thread to be found in a search on this forum? I'll check it out.

[Ganchrow]

No. Then you'd be using leverage, taking what is a sort of imaginary money and endeavoring to multiply it into real money by leveraging, which in gambling is to bet on a longshot (like +500).

The more accurate reflection of value on a Free Play, tho, seems to me to be the even money bet. Equivalent value for value . . .

Too bad we can't all do what banks in modern nations do - fractional reserve banking. Leveraged plays with a guaranteed return, creating real money out of thin air. But the best we can do is to bet into things like +500.

See this post on on freeplays and see my Freeplay Value Calculator.

[ritehook]

It's less to do with that and more to do with the fact that books are seeing less volume and consequently can't be as generous in terms of bonuses free deposits/withdrawals etc. anymore.

Agree. Tho WW also dropped some of their very good "loyalty rewards" a few years ago (I was with them at that time) after they lost the lawsuit to CBS (infringement of that prestigious name by Casa Blanca Sports).

So I kind of figured they may be doing the same again, after getting smacked by bonus manipulators.

They should have cut the bonus instead - bettors can easily see this deposit ploy. Even my friend had it jump out on him, and he's an older guy, not the sharpest tack in the toolbox.

[ritehook]

See this post on on freeplays and see my Freeplay Value Calculator.

I was able only to briefly scan these threads, but I'll print them out tomorrow and study them on Sunday nite, when I have some time. Looks pretty interesting, even for a mathophobe like me

Thanx

[RonPaul2008]

If you wait for a decent situation you can usually get around 75% with a scalp or negative scalp. 95% is not easy to find simultaneous - especially post-pinny.

Nearly always worth 80% often over 95%.