"ParlayMakers Players Advised to Request Funds"

[the_situation]

Wow...why people even bother with these iffy books when books like Pinny, Dsi, Bookmaker, Dimes, BetJam, Bodog, Betfair etc. are out there just baffles me...

[noyb]

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.

i agree. i'm sure they got one-sided action since they only had a handful of clients, but they were laying off, so no money was lost there; not earned either, that's true, but the 2% GP transaction cost on every bet is a pretty nice hold to have if you have a decent customer base. also, someone with a brain could think profiling your customers long term it shouldn't be that difficult spotting those that aren't as sharp and aren't likely going to make any money off of you anyway (especially if you heavily target a recreational us audience), and adjust whether you hedge fully, partly or not at all based on that.
obviously some of the ridiculous extra promotional offers they made (matching, on request, odds from other sportsbooks) were retarded and did actually make me wonder what kind of people were actually running this place. Also offering Moneybookers made me wonder how they would be making any money on this, but again, if you know your customer it's not that difficult predicting if they are a threat and as long as you are able to detect who's a sucker and who isn't, imo there's money to be made. in the core i also don't believe the business model was flawed. i'm convinced if overhead were low i could have made a place like this earn money if i would have been max.
anyway, i doubt whether the downfall of parlaymakers in the end was really related to their business model. obv something unrelated to pm happened in december at gp (which were the same anyway) and dragged both down the toilet. but again, all this talk about this place was destined to fail: it might have been badly implemented, but i don't agree it was actually a bad idea from the start.

[Bill Dozer]

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

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.

Blaming SBR because PM didn't open at C-/D+? SBR tells everyone who will listen to avoid books below B. Ratings change and PM was one change away from D book.

Parlaymakers was C in 2010. In January SBR was helping slow-paid players get paid. They did get their money and PM was still downgraded.

This was a forum word-of-mouth book. Anyone who played knows they made a high risk investment. For some, it paid off.

[Optional]

From the small number of whinging posts from players that used it, I'd say most of us profited.

If you couldn't find massive +EV bets, daily, on the silly parlay options they offered, then you would probably lose betting +102 on coin tosses.

I lost a little in GP, but being able to instantly transfer winnings into 5D/Greek/BJ meant there was never a lot of risk that way anyway.

I loved parlaymakers.

[durito]

Blaming SBR because PM didn't open at C-/D+? SBR tells everyone who will listen to avoid books below B. Ratings change and PM was one change away from D book.

Parlaymakers was C in 2010. In January SBR was helping slow-paid players get paid. They did get their money and PM was still downgraded.

This was a forum word-of-mouth book. Anyone who played knows they made a high risk investment. For some, it paid off.

I am aware of the risks of playing in shitty books, I have 6 figures in D- books at the moment, but parlaymakers was an obvious disaster in the making if you took one look at their business model. That sbr had them at C suggested to me that you had some sort of additional info about them, ie they had large financial backing or something that could allow them to grow while losing money, because there was no way they'd be making any.

[sharpcat]

From the small number of whinging posts from players that used it, I'd say most of us profited.

If you couldn't find massive +EV bets, daily, on the silly parlay options they offered, then you would probably lose betting +102 on coin tosses.

I lost a little in GP, but being able to instantly transfer winnings into 5D/Greek/BJ meant there was never a lot of risk that way anyway.

I loved parlaymakers.

This is a prime example of why their business model was doomed to fail.

There is no way a book can be profitable with a 2.5% hold when they are moving on air and taking one sided action, laying off their position decreases their profit margin even more. Add into that the slightest bit of incompetence such as accepting any type of correlated parlay or any other +EV play will throw whatever profits they were fortunate enough to see out the window. Pinnacle is sharp and are aware of just about any +EV play you can throw at them, also they are not forced to lay off action they always have the option of moving their line because they are not moving lines on air they are controlling the market.


Many books offering -110 lines are forced to resort to slow paying/stiffing players and some are even forced out of business due to incompetence when faced against sharp players. A bookmaker does not stand a chance offering pinnacle lines if he is not one of the sharpest in the industry (which PM was clearly not).

It was a good business model on paper but in the real world where sharp players exist and are are all over the place, it didn't stand a chance. Even worse the difficulty and lack of funding options made it less likely that recreational players would jump on board.

If Max and the PM crew were running Pinnacle they would fail at that also along with a majority of the wannabe bookies in this industry. There is just not any room for error when your profit margin is so small.

[Igetp2s]

This is a prime example of why their business model was doomed to fail. There is no way a book can be profitable with a 2.5% hold when they are moving on air and taking one sided action, laying off their position decreases their profit margin even more. Add into that the slightest bit of incompetence such as accepting any type of correlated parlay or any other +EV play will throw whatever profits they were fortunate enough to see out the window. Pinnacle is sharp and are aware of just about any +EV play you can throw at them, also they are not forced to lay off action they always have the option of moving their line because they are not moving lines on air they are controlling the market. Many books offering -110 lines are forced to resort to slow paying/stiffing players and some are even forced out of business due to incompetence when faced against sharp players. A bookmaker does not stand a chance offering pinnacle lines if he is not one of the sharpest in the industry (which PM was clearly not). It was a good business model on paper but in the real world where sharp players exist and are are all over the place, it didn't stand a chance. Even worse the difficulty and lack of funding options made it less likely that recreational players would jump on board. If Max and the PM crew were running Pinnacle they would fail at that also along with a majority of the wannabe bookies in this industry. There is just not any room for error when your profit margin is so small.

Ridiculous comment. Taking the same exact wagers as Pinnacle at the current market price is brilliant, not a bad business plan, and should have been successful.

Of course they should move lines on air. The goal is to offer the same price as Pinnacle. What should they do, leave stale lines and get hammered on one side?

Laying off your action at the same price at Pinnacle does not reduce your profit margin at all. You are simply lowering your risk for lower potential return. The % on expected return s the same. That's why increasing limits to like $50k or whatever it was was irrelevant. They can easily adjust their exposure to whatever they wanted regardless of bet size accepted.

I didn't know they accepted correlated parlays. I never noticed that and never tried it. If true, that is the only thing I see wrong in what they were doing.

[Optional]

They were ridiculous when I first started playing in August/September last year. For a while there you could parlay a driver to win a H2H matchup with the race win. (how more correlated could you get) You could parlay the spread and total on soccer for a time too. They cleaned that stuff up slowly, but then the technical errors started...

Did you ever notice both a stale and new line both posted for an event? (with different timestamps but same item number) And you could choose either price and have the bet go through? Seemed to happen a lot on tennis especially.

God knows how many other ways they leaked money.

I felt a bit greedy/guilty shutting up about it at the time to be honest. But it was so obvious yet they kept grading them and paying them out happily, so...

[sharpcat]

Ridiculous comment. Taking the same exact wagers as Pinnacle at the current market price is brilliant, not a bad business plan, and should have been successful.

Of course they should move lines on air. The goal is to offer the same price as Pinnacle. What should they do, leave stale lines and get hammered on one side?

Laying off your action at the same price at Pinnacle does not reduce your profit margin at all. You are simply lowering your risk for lower potential return. The % on expected return s the same. That's why increasing limits to like $50k or whatever it was was irrelevant. They can easily adjust their exposure to whatever they wanted regardless of bet size accepted.

I didn't know they accepted correlated parlays. I never noticed that and never tried it. If true, that is the only thing I see wrong in what they were doing.

If you think it is ridiculous so be it but don't insult me. Since were being harsh I have to say that you seem to be clueless about bookmaking and sharp play, especially if you never noticed any of the correlated plays or pricing errors that OPTIONAL just listed above.

Pinnacle has such a tight profit margin and are with out a question one of the sharpest/toughest books to beat, copying their lines does not guarantee anybody profit that is just nonsense to believe that there is so much more to pinnacle than sharp lines that you probably do not understand.

A 2.5% profit margin on bets placed is not near enough to cover all the fees, bills, salaries that a book would have to pay let alone to cover all the money they are losing to guys like OPTIONAL who are bending them over backwards due to their incompetence.

[sharpcat]

They were ridiculous when I first started playing in August/September last year. For a while there you could parlay a driver to win a H2H matchup with the race win. (how more correlated could you get) You could parlay the spread and total on soccer for a time too. They cleaned that stuff up slowly, but then the technical errors started...

Did you ever notice both a stale and new line both posted for an event? (with different timestamps but same item number) And you could choose either price and have the bet go through? Seemed to happen a lot on tennis especially.

God knows how many other ways they leaked money.

I felt a bit greedy/guilty shutting up about it at the time to be honest. But it was so obvious yet they kept grading them and paying them out happily, so...

Did you have to register with the government for a license to print money?

[Streakster777]

Is it possible that this was their business model? To make or steal as much money as possible (operating at a loss or not short term irrelevant) and just open under a new book and start the whole scheme all over again? It just seems to me that when some books fail, the owners are not claiming bankruptcy or losing any money out of their bank accounts. I guess they can just say their "business" failed and therefore their personal assets are untouchable? I wish all books were regulated legally.

[Optional]

Did you have to register with the government for a license to print money?

I'm not really as clever as I am making myself sound. I only tried them because of a freeplay offer initially. And to be really honest, having only really used Betfair prior and hardly ever played a parlay before, I didn't twig to how "unusual" some of the bets were until a couple of people questioned me about parlays I posted.

Then I sent just a $100 deposit as I didn't trust GP not to disappear, and the exchanger I used took almost 6 weeks to deposit it.

So in the end I only got a few weeks at it, and with small bets.

So really, I'm the dumbass who saw the opportunity but failed to jump on it.

Maybe that's why I'm talking about it. Those that really sent Max broke are probably smart enough to deny everything.

[Optional]

Is it possible that this was their business model? To make or steal as much money as possible (operating at a loss or not short term irrelevant) and just open under a new book and start the whole scheme all over again? It just seems to me that when some books fail, the owners are not claiming bankruptcy or losing any money out of their bank accounts. I guess they can just say their "business" failed and therefore their personal assets are untouchable? I wish all books were regulated legally.

Not a chance.

Max may not be perfect, but I have no doubt he had genuine good intentions for the business.

[noyb]

Not a chance.

Max may not be perfect, but I have no doubt he had genuine good intentions for the business.

they were still paying long after things went downhill. if they had plans to scam upfront they would have run in december or sooner, not trying to prolong the inevitable well into february paying out decent sums all this time. still, simply closing the website without a word and with (presumably) people still being owed doesn't make them standup guys either.

[AimingHigh]

They were ridiculous when I first started playing in August/September last year. For a while there you could parlay a driver to win a H2H matchup with the race win. (how more correlated could you get) You could parlay the spread and total on soccer for a time too. They cleaned that stuff up slowly, but then the technical errors started...

Did you ever notice both a stale and new line both posted for an event? (with different timestamps but same item number) And you could choose either price and have the bet go through? Seemed to happen a lot on tennis especially.

God knows how many other ways they leaked money.

I felt a bit greedy/guilty shutting up about it at the time to be honest. But it was so obvious yet they kept grading them and paying them out happily, so...

Woah. I should obviously learn to investigate new books more carefully before dismissing them. Thanks for the lesson in my ignorance. I never bet parlays, but if I'd seen parlays like that, I'd have had to reconsider my ways.

[BrianLaverty]

Adding on to what Optional said....

I would do live betting for the MLB playoffs last Fall... I would bet there wasnt any runs in whatever inning.

Well, the betting ticket didn't specify what inning it was... so i just kept betting it, and would go to the live chat and ask them to grade it... for a certain inning that didnt have any runs. I did this numerous times and they never caught on at all.....

[Igetp2s]

If you think it is ridiculous so be it but don't insult me. Since were being harsh I have to say that you seem to be clueless about bookmaking and sharp play, especially if you never noticed any of the correlated plays or pricing errors that OPTIONAL just listed above. Pinnacle has such a tight profit margin and are with out a question one of the sharpest/toughest books to beat, copying their lines does not guarantee anybody profit that is just nonsense to believe that there is so much more to pinnacle than sharp lines that you probably do not understand. A 2.5% profit margin on bets placed is not near enough to cover all the fees, bills, salaries that a book would have to pay let alone to cover all the money they are losing to guys like OPTIONAL who are bending them over backwards due to their incompetence.

Sorry for not noticing that they allowed correlated parlays. I guess I don't go to new books and try to see what their software will let me get away with when it's clearly wrong. And I don't bet tennis so I didn't notice the stale lines. Sorry about that. I guess that means I'm clueless as you said.

That is sheer incompetence on their part, and would obviously lead to any book going broke. Having stale tennis lines and allowing correlated parlays is a big problem.

That being said, it has no bearing whatsoever on whether a business plan that exactly replicates Pinnacle lines, and only allows legitimate bets, would be successful. If you can do that, and can lay off any unwanted risk at no cost, there's no reason you couldn't be successful.

[sharpcat]

Sorry for not noticing that they allowed correlated parlays. I guess I don't go to new books and try to see what their software will let me get away with when it's clearly wrong. And I don't bet tennis so I didn't notice the stale lines. Sorry about that. I guess that means I'm clueless as you said.

That is sheer incompetence on their part, and would obviously lead to any book going broke. Having stale tennis lines and allowing correlated parlays is a big problem.

That being said, it has no bearing whatsoever on whether a business plan that exactly replicates Pinnacle lines, and only allows legitimate bets, would be successful. If you can do that, and can lay off any unwanted risk at no cost, there's no reason you couldn't be successful.

Not sure if you see this as a good business model from the perspective of a US citizen hoping to find a book offering Pinnacle lines or if you are looking at it from a business perspective of being profitable.

What you fail to see is the most important point of all and it is not the correlated parlay issue it has to do with relying on a line feed to feed you accurate lines which is not possible. The only ones who are guaranteed to have a feed to pinnacles exact line is pinnacle themselves and guess what pinnacle has no concern with whether or not you are getting a perfect feed of their lines.

I am very familiar with the feed that parlaymakers was receiving as I have seen a few other places supply the exact same feed and as optional stated they are constantly feeding 2 completely different lines for a game which can some times be up to 4 full points off on a bball point spread. How is a book supposed to ensure that these bets do not slip through? hire someone to review every single bet 24 hours a day before they are accepted? how does a book afford to pay for office space, a line manager, someone to review every single bet, software engineers, customer service reps, sponsoring, processors/accounting, etc. when they are only holding about $2.50 per every $100 in action they are taking?

As far as correlated parlays go there is nothing "wrong" with betting a correlated parlay there are many types of CP's that all have different degrees of correlation. Some books are more lenient than others in how much correlation they are willing to allow and it is up to them to ensure that their software only accepts what they feel is acceptable. if the software accepts it I have to believe that the book is ok with me betting it. Obviously with the racing parlays they were 100% correlated so there is no reason for a bookie to be that freaking incompetent, they should not be booking bets if they have no clue what they are doing.

There also are many other pricing errors that book makers have no business offering aside from correlated parlays and if that bookie is not sharp enough to catch them and know about them before sharp players do they should not be booking on the internet, especially if they are dealing pinnacle lines, and even more so if they are dealing with a feed that is not up to the second and guaranteed to be accurate.

Incompetent college level bookies taking on all of the sharpest players in the world on the internet with .08 cent lines fed from a feed that is delayed and known for feeding very bad lines is not in any way a good business model.

[noyb]

How is a book supposed to ensure that these bets do not slip through? hire someone to review every single bet 24 hours a day before they are accepted?

when placing a bet there was, at least in my case, always a few second delay in which time, i can only guess, their software actually placed the exact same bet on the pinnacle-website. if there was a change in the bet at pinnacle compared to the bet they offered you got an error on pm. so while their feed might not be perfect they did have an automated check in place before your bet was confirmed.
again, i'm not 100% sure they were hedging everything, but i am 100% sure they were hedging my bets on non-us sports as max bets at pm moved the line at pinny. i didn't went looking for ways to **** them over as some of you apparently did but i never got a line at pm that had moved at pinny a few seconds before. so, they had some big flaws obv but this wasn't one.

[Optional]

when placing a bet there was, at least in my case, always a few second delay in which time, i can only guess, their software actually placed the exact same bet on the pinnacle-website.

I think they were just double checking the line from the RSS feed had not changed.

If they were doing this auto-laying off stuff people keep suggesting, then they would be fully aware of every time someone bet a bad line, as their attempt to hedge would be rejected at Pinny.

[sharpcat]

when placing a bet there was, at least in my case, always a few second delay in which time, i can only guess, their software actually placed the exact same bet on the pinnacle-website. if there was a change in the bet at pinnacle compared to the bet they offered you got an error on pm. so while their feed might not be perfect they did have an automated check in place before your bet was confirmed.
again, i'm not 100% sure they were hedging everything, but i am 100% sure they were hedging my bets on non-us sports as max bets at pm moved the line at pinny. i didn't went looking for ways to **** them over as some of you apparently did but i never got a line at pm that had moved at pinny a few seconds before. so, they had some big flaws obv but this wasn't one.

Well if they were hedging their action with pinnacle it would be an even worse business model as they would not be making a penny in that case

When a bookie gets +113 on the astros and than bets -113 on the marlins he does not make a penny. A bookie only lays off action if he is over exposed on a game, there is not any profitable reason for a bookie to lay off action.

[noyb]

I think they were just double checking the line from the RSS feed had not changed.

If they were doing this auto-laying off stuff people keep suggesting, then they would be fully aware of every time someone bet a bad line, as their attempt to hedge would be rejected at Pinny.

i can't be sure ofcourse, but in those days i did bet a couple of obscure sports: volleybal, danish basketball, that sort of stuff. the line at pinnacle was not moving, i bet the parlaymakers price for the max, refreshed the pinnacle price, which had now moved. this could be a coincedence, but not every single time.

also, i did bet a palp once on some obscure soccer league, which they did spot somehow (and consequently voided)

[noyb]

Well if they were hedging their action with pinnacle it would be an even worse business model as they would not be making a penny in that case

When a bookie gets +113 on the astros and than bets -113 on the marlins he does not make a penny. A bookie only lays off action if he is over exposed on a game, there is not any profitable reason for a bookie to lay off action.

for moneybookers-players you're obv right and i wondered about that myself. but for gp-players (assuming these guys also owned gp, which isn't really an assumption anymore but a fact at this point) 2% fee on every winning bet guaranteed. no real need to make anything on hedging then, is there?

[Optional]

Another good one I just remembered.

With Cup soccer matches, in fixtures where there is extra time/shootout to get a result, their software would sometimes give you the 1x2 market lines for the team to progress market.

[sharpcat]

This thread was a good one.

http://forum.sbrforum.com/sportsbooks-industry/349923-parlaymakers.html

I love how Max unknowingly entertained a 3 page long conversation in a thread where 90% of the posters he was responding too were players who have all been likely to have been limited at more than 1 book in their lifetimes. The requests for higher betting limits repeated throughout the thread is hilarious.

I steered away and never played with PM because I did not like gpay and the "too good to be true" feeling, but I can see why the sharks were circling around Max with his XML feed and 2 team (correlated) parlays at +280.

[scott235]

Blaming SBR because PM didn't open at C-/D+? SBR tells everyone who will listen to avoid books below B. Ratings change and PM was one change away from D book.

Parlaymakers was C in 2010. In January SBR was helping slow-paid players get paid. They did get their money and PM was still downgraded.

This was a forum word-of-mouth book. Anyone who played knows they made a high risk investment. For some, it paid off.

Fair and true. I took the risk with a very small deposit, and was ready to accept the consequences.

[pirate]

I thought I'd avoid the risk and have instant deposits to GP....Now GP is not in business