[john pavlic]

I have a rollover at Skybook, I looked in their rules, and don't see anywhere where a -300 dog can't be played to achieve a rollover, am I missing something or will that count towards my rollover?

[magnavox]

It will count. Why do you have a problem with that?

[chemist]

The problem I see is that -300 isn't a dog.

[betplom]

Originally Posted by john pavlic

don't see anywhere where a -300 dog can't be played to achieve a rollover

part of the confusion may be that -300 is a favourite and not a dog, +300 is a dog.

[BeatTheJerk]

A -300 Dog Thats A 1st For Me Lol Unless It Was A Typo ............

[HeeeHAWWWW]

Originally Posted by john pavlic

I have a rollover at Skybook, I looked in their rules, and don't see anywhere where a -300 dog can't be played to achieve a rollover, am I missing something or will that count towards my rollover?

Unless it specifically says otherwise it should do. The term "rollover" usually implies lesser of risk or win with US-facing books though, where Euro books tend to specify minimum odds instead.

[JC]

Originally Posted by HeeeHAWWWW

Unless it specifically says otherwise it should do. The term "rollover" usually implies lesser of risk or win with US-facing books though, where Euro books tend to specify minimum odds instead.

Incorrect, unless otherwise specified "Rollover" is based on the total bet amounts whether favorites or dogs. It was the less than stellar books that started the "lesser of" nonsense. By doing that they effectively increase the true rollover but get to advertise a lower requirement. Frankly it is deceptive marketing.

[magnavox]

Originally Posted by JC

Incorrect, unless otherwise specified "Rollover" is based on the total bet amounts whether favorites or dogs. It was the less than stellar books that started the "lesser of" nonsense. By doing that they effectively increase the true rollover but get to advertise a lower requirement. Frankly it is deceptive marketing.

Yeah. Amazing -- thing that was as much clear as anything even two years ago... isn't. Those less than stellar books, later joined by the likes of CRIS etc., completely brainwashed the less intelligent average bettors.

[Justin7]

Many books will use the lesser of "risk" or "win" amount. This means if you bet a team at -300, risking $300 to win $100 will only count as $100 for rollover.

Read the terms carefully when getting bonuses, and you will have far fewer "bonus hangovers". If you can't tell what the terms are from reading the rules, don't deposit... Not until you get an email to prove the terms.

Remember... Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!

[Doug]

some places even don't count a ML over -150 ( or so) at all towards the rollover

[HeeeHAWWWW]

Originally Posted by JC

Incorrect, unless otherwise specified "Rollover" is based on the total bet amounts whether favorites or dogs.

There are plenty of books that don't specifiy, just say "rollover", but still make it lesser of risk/win (eg IAS and intertops). Most specify certainly, but a fair few just assume.

Euro and Aussie books will tend to use terms like bonus requirements, or wagering requirements, and pretty much none of them use lesser of risk/win (I can't think of one offhand). US-facing ones use "rollover", and pretty much all of them use lesser of risk/win.

Thus, you can argue about your interpretation of the word's meaning, but the reality is that correlation exists. That's why I said: The term "rollover" usually implies lesser of risk or win with US-facing books though

[magnavox]

Originally Posted by HeeeHAWWWW

There are plenty of books that don't specifiy, just say "rollover", but still make it lesser of risk/win (eg IAS and intertops). Most specify certainly, but a fair few just assume.

Euro and Aussie books will tend to use terms like bonus requirements, or wagering requirements, and pretty much none of them use lesser of risk/win (I can't think of one offhand). US-facing ones use "rollover", and pretty much all of them use lesser of risk/win.

Thus, you can argue about your interpretation of the word's meaning, but the reality is that correlation exists. That's why I said: The term "rollover" usually implies lesser of risk or win with US-facing books though

At least do a research before posting. Or check the dictionary for "usually" first.

[HeeeHAWWWW]

Originally Posted by magnavox

At least do a research before posting. Or check the dictionary for "usually" first.

I have 172 bookie accounts at last count, and have done bonuses at all of them. Does that count as research?

[moonbeam]

Magnavox have never placed a bet. I guess he just want to play like a little dog

[JC2008]

Originally Posted by HeeeHAWWWW

I have 172 bookie accounts at last count, and have done bonuses at all of them. Does that count as research?

What is the purpose of 172 bookies?

[HeeeHAWWWW]

Originally Posted by JC2008

What is the purpose of 172 bookies?

To get the best price available whenever I bet, mainly. With ewallets I get my withdrawals within days or sometimes hours, so there's no real downside to doing it this way - only really pinnies, betfair and SBO merit permanent balances cos I use them so often. Also this spreads the winnings around, so takes them far longer to limit me.

A lot of signup bonuses doesn't hurt either - also a lot of reload bonuses to "tempt me back", cos I often go a while without using a particularly account.

[magnavox]

Originally Posted by HeeeHAWWWW

I have 172 bookie accounts at last count, and have done bonuses at all of them. Does that count as research?

I don't have the time to go through every book on SBR, but just looking at A rated books I came up with 6-9 against your thesis.

[HeeeHAWWWW]

Lesser of risk/win: Pinnacle, greek, cris, diamond, 5dimes, thepig.
Essentially the same thing: Betonline (higher of 7x freeplay, or 7x winnings)
Don't offer bonus: Wsex, matchbook
Can't get account there: Bookmaker (same grp as cris/diamond though), Legendz (same group as thepig)
Euro and aussie books all use minimum odds: ladbrokes, willhill, canbet, coral/eurobet, betfair and vcbet.

Those all follow the rule I suggested. I'll give you one: Betjam

That's all the A rated books that exist. I'm curious to know where those 6-9 to came from.

[magnavox]

Originally Posted by HeeeHAWWWW

Lesser of risk/win: Pinnacle, greek, cris, diamond, 5dimes, thepig.
Essentially the same thing: Betonline (higher of 7x freeplay, or 7x winnings)
Don't offer bonus: Wsex, matchbook
Can't get account there: Bookmaker (same grp as cris/diamond though), Legendz (same group as thepig)
Euro and aussie books all use minimum odds: ladbrokes, willhill, canbet, coral/eurobet, betfair and vcbet.

Those all follow the rule I suggested. I'll give you one: Betjam

That's all the A rated books that exist. I'm curious to know where those 6-9 to came from.

I don't know if it's even worth responding to posts such as these. You posted couple of things as facts, for which they are not. OK, let's go through your list:

Pinnacle -- base amount;
Greek -- risk amount;
CRIS group -- base amount;
5 dimes -- base amount;
Legendz/Pig -- risk amount;
Jamaica -- risk amount (although up to -200 only);
WSEX -- risk amount
Canbet -- risk amount;
BetOnline -- have no idea, let's make it base amount;
Ladbrokes -- risk amount;
WillHill -- risk amount;
Eurobet -- risk amount;
VictorChandler -- risk amount.

Still 4-9 against!

Even if you leave out crap Euro books it is still slight advantage to risk amount. Let's not even start discussing B rated books, clear win there for risk amount.