"ParlayMakers Players Advised to Request Funds"

**bigugly** · 02-21-11, 11:24 PM

Looks pretty bad.

**Santo** · 02-22-11, 01:39 AM

A curious, and probably redundant question, but for the sake of argument would anyone hold them liable for:

(1) Bets pending on GP accounts during the day or so when GP collapsed.
(2) GP balances derived from PM Bets.

Assuming (3) it is impossible to prove that they were effectively the same company.

**kmarinouofm** · 02-22-11, 02:58 AM

according to their website its now $2500 or less backed by SBR.. wow

**oiler** · 02-22-11, 03:27 AM

sounds like the walls are coming down,,,timber

**thespeculator** · 02-22-11, 06:12 AM

it is too bad , sounded like they had a good option , but like they say when it is too good to be true

**Doug** · 02-22-11, 12:43 PM

You'd have to go into a place like PM expecting it to be high risk, esp. when the limits skyrocketed, plus they advertised at EOG initially.

**Dark Horse** · 02-22-11, 12:52 PM

Agreeing to binding SBR arbitration. lol Should have been a red flag right off the bat. Why use SBR to establish credibility?! Another red flag? The sudden limit increase to 50K. Max is a f*cking con artist.

**BigDaddy** · 02-22-11, 12:58 PM

doug although i agree with you 100%

parlaymakers was here long before they ever advertised at EOG.

dark horse yes that binding arbitration bullshit was just bullshit

if you have no money what good does it really mean.

**bigugly** · 02-22-11, 03:59 PM

I wonder how much he might have gotten away with.

**Igetp2s** · 02-22-11, 10:13 PM

Has anyone gotten a payout recently?

**Doug** · 02-22-11, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by bigugly

I wonder how much he might have gotten away with.

Zero, IMO ! PM had like 5 customers. I'm not sure if Max got the GP monies ?

**Legions36** · 02-23-11, 01:53 AM

What i would like to know is where is SBR on this matter and why wouldn't they require to have a binding arbitration to leave a deposit for players or something.

**LVHerbie** · 02-23-11, 02:02 AM

Doesn't sound good... Hope everyone gets paid...

**brumbies** · 02-23-11, 02:27 AM

Parlaymakers is gone. Their website is unavailable. How many customers did they have anyway? When I first heard of them, it reminded me of a Ponzi scheme. The most telling sign was that they only used GP. I saw this coming. Good luck to existing players!

**mikeanite** · 02-23-11, 04:17 AM

ya the website just vanish.. i was gonna deposit there awhile back. good thing i didn't. if website like this vanish, what can the customer do?

**sideloaded** · 02-23-11, 05:59 AM

LOL at SBR giving them a C at first just to see everyones money stolen from them.

**jgilmartin** · 02-23-11, 11:55 AM

I don't think I would blame SBR here; it's not as if they can go into a sportsbook's offices, demand to see financial statements, and then give all the executives polygraphs. I think starting a book off at C makes sense, and then adjusting the rating based on player feedback. That said, it does totally suck for the players who had money there. I feel bad for you guys.

**Legions36** · 02-23-11, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by jgilmartin

I don't think I would blame SBR here; it's not as if they can go into a sportsbook's offices, demand to see financial statements, and then give all the executives polygraphs. I think starting a book off at C makes sense, and then adjusting the rating based on player feedback. That said, it does totally suck for the players who had money there. I feel bad for you guys.

So what is that whole SBR binding arbitration crap. I thought it guarantees u something like in the range of 2500. Total bs now noone will believe that binding crap anymore. I can only imagine how much money people lost here. SBR shoulda made better preperation than to put up there word in this deal and maybe taken a deposit from Parlaymakers for people, so this wouldn't happen.

**BigDaddy** · 02-23-11, 12:09 PM

it didnt mean shit.

all it meant was if sbr said pay that pm had to pay at least 2500 of a dispute no matter what

well it doesn't meant shit when no money is posted up and they have no money.

it just sounds good to all the suckers that believe that type of shit.

thats the bad thing about this whole mess.

**JoeVig** · 02-23-11, 09:33 PM

Doesn't look like Max009 has posted here since the car drove off the cliff.

**bookie** · 02-23-11, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by JoeVig

Doesn't look like Max009 has posted here since the car drove off the cliff.

Since he pushed it down the hill, and stood chuckling as he watched it go over the cliff.

Did anybody ever find out if GP really got hit, or was it all one big invention?

**Dark Horse** · 02-23-11, 09:49 PM

If Max had any integrity he would be posting here.

SBR, I think we need to know the precise relationship between PM and Gol-dp-ay. If people linked their financial accounts to G-P that could really become a ~~max~~ mess.

**brumbies** · 02-24-11, 03:45 AM

I wonder why if I type gold-p@y, it got edited to GP.

**bookie** · 02-24-11, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

If Max had any integrity he would be posting here.

I agree with that. Because something was invested in that site and Max seemed willing to go back and forth with players I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. I was wrong. Even if he's out of money he could post and tell us as much and be making plans for restitution. I think most of us know that most offshores have been in trouble at one time or another, it's how you handle it that says who you are.

**xstud** · 02-24-11, 11:31 AM

In one way you have to give PM some credit though.. they shut the site down. If they were truly big pieces of shit they would continue to have a functioning site and take deposits. I used them but it was an operation that you could tell was operated on a very shoestring budget, when livechat went bye bye and you had no way other than e-mail to reach them that is when I bailed.

**noyb** · 02-24-11, 12:26 PM

i disagree. i don't feel to need to give them credit for something that's even more despicable than closing the site without notice altogether. it's amazing how these kind of places keep bitching the forum crowd is too hard on them, they are such like-able guys and never slow-paid anybody and that their total lack of track-record doesn't mean anything as they are clearly here to stay... and then.. a few months later they're gone without a word. max didn't exactly strike me as a crook and i'm sure he did his best to make parlaymakers work, but when things get tough you can't just bail.

**steve18** · 02-24-11, 12:37 PM

Another one comes crumbling down.

**SBR Lou** · 02-28-11, 02:41 PM

Parlaymakers has been lowered to F, and will remain on the scam sportsbook blacklist until its few remaining players are paid. Any new ventures taken on by Parlaymakers Max and company will also assume the rating of F.

There's an SBR report about this published today.

**durito** · 02-28-11, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Lou

Parlaymakers has been lowered to F, and will remain on the scam sportsbook blacklist until its few remaining players are paid. Any new ventures taken on by Parlaymakers Max and company will also assume the rating of F.

There's an SBR report about this published today.

They never should have been a C. Who made that rating? Were they too busy with sbr points to do any research? Did you look at their business model? It had a 100% chance of failure and I told "max" that right here on your forum.

**donkdown** · 02-28-11, 03:43 PM

So they r an F now how does this help us get our money. Fck this Im getting my money back one way ir another.. Yea c is why I joined fck this now Im out 4190

**bookie** · 02-28-11, 04:36 PM

Should the owner of Parlaymakers surface with a new venture, that new venture would assume the F rating held by Parlaymakers. (from report)

Do you guys know who the owner of Parlaymakers is so that you can make that assessment? If so, can't you talk to him about getting player information to see if anybody might give players a 10X type bailout as has often been done in the past?

**sharpcat** · 02-28-11, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by durito

They never should have been a C. Who made that rating? Were they too busy with sbr points to do any research? Did you look at their business model? It had a 100% chance of failure and I told "max" that right here on your forum.

Shocking right?

How could a book who offers pinnacle lines and moves on air with a delayed XML feed fail

Pretty clear from the get go that credit wagering had a business model that was 10X more likely to succeed than parlaymakers.

**sideloaded** · 02-28-11, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by sharpcat

Shocking right?

How could a book who offers pinnacle lines and moves on air with a delayed XML feed fail

Pretty clear from the get go that credit wagering had a business model that was 10X more likely to succeed than parlaymakers.

Why the hell were they a C?

**Igetp2s** · 03-01-11, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by sharpcat

Shocking right? How could a book who offers pinnacle lines and moves on air with a delayed XML feed fail

Pretty clear from the get go that credit wagering had a business model that was 10X more likely to succeed than parlaymakers.

Not quite sure I understand your post. How do you know they were on a delayed XML feed? Didn't they have a few seconds delay after confirming your wager to check the Pinnacle line, and reject it if it moved?

Honestly, I don't understand how they failed. If Pinnacle is making money, then how does offering the same lines make you likely to fail? And if you get 1 sided action, you can always lay off some of it at Pinnacle or at an Exchange to minimize risk. To me it seems like a pretty good business model. Unless they're offering stale lines, which I don't think they were, I don't see what the problem was.

Maybe I'm missing something.