Excuse me

[DOGS THAT BARK]

What am I missing here. I was looking at a book and they have these posted as odds not to win a major next year.If you excluded Tiger and bet all other not to win major the worst case scenario is 7wins 4 losses.Whats the catch I am not seeing?

Outright 31 Dec 02 23:59
Winner
Not To Win Major 2003
J Rose
-111
R Beem
-111
D Love
+100
R Goosen
+110
V Singh
+110
D Toms
+110
P Harrington
+110
D Duval
+115
S Garcia
+120
P Mickelson
+125
E Els
+125
T Woods
+325

 

[bettingmad]

I'm not seeing the catch either.... if say you put $1000 on each your total stake is $11,000 but any seven winners returns more than your stake as the minimum return on any player is $1901 so even if they were all -111 (which they aren't) the minimum would be $13,307.... but all 11 could be winners (i.e. Tiger grand slam, etc)
Got it.... the catch is they take your money and fold before they are due to pay you out!!!

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Thats the way I see it. I thought I was having a brain fart at 1st.
I sure would hate to tie money up with book forthat long that make offers wager like that.Don't think they will be here for long.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The book is gamebookers.com Maybe you can see something I am missing.

 

[hoss]

i've checked this out too + it is definitely there

The problem is the book (don't think they sponsor here - if they do i'm sorry!) - I thought Gamebookers were quite big in the US, but I had a look at the site + they are owned by a London based company 'Gatcombe Park holdings' (isn't that where Princess Anne lives?!). I had a look at their Company web page + it seems it's run by a variety of Eastern Europeans I've never heard of in the UK Industry...

maybe better to stick to those each-way doubles.......

all that glitters......has usually fallen off a Christmas Card

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

:nooo:

Dear Sir,

We would like to thank you for your priceless feedback.

Our bookmakers have looked into the matter and found out that you were
right.

Best regards,

Yours truly, service @ gamebookers



[wchoehn@premiernet.net - Thu Oct 17 07:38:52 2002]:

> In your golf proposition of "Not to win a major in 2003" excluding
> Tiger you have 11 players listed.If a person bet all 11 not to win
> a major the worst he is going to do is 7 wins and 4 losses and is
a
> quaranteed winner. My question is how do plan to stay in business
> with props like this???
> wayne DBA DOGS THAT BARK

 

[bettingmad]

DTB,
What did you tell them for?? You should have let them leave it up there... might have given some other company a similar daft idea... then if that was somewhere that I had faith in to pay me out, I might have played a little. :nono:

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

now Steve

I gave 2 days for any with inclination to wager prop but biggest reason is they are on top of my list of books to add for coming season and I'd like to see them stick around if you know what I mean. They are exactly what I like in a book.
good software
take Neteller
have place only wagers in outrights
innovative on lines with uniques wagers(some not to sound)---
and linesmakers not real sharp :lol:

 

[bettingmad]

DTB,
You've shot yourself in the foot.....
They would not have had to make payments on that dodgy Majors book until next August's US PGA and so would be around at least until then. Think of all that cash they could have been holding which might have encouraged them to offer you even better place only props, etc. Then all you had to do was withdraw your funds before the US PGA just in case

 

[milpalm]

I've had an account with Gamebookers for a couple of years now and I've had no problems getting paid. The thing about Gamebookers is that they rarely produce their own odds. Try comparing their prices for the EMC World Cup with the ones put up by Sportingbet. When they do price up on their own they often make mistakes.

 

[bettingmad]

Milpalm.
I have never heard anything wrong about gamebookers payments but wondered if this particular stupid book might put a strain on them when they would have had to pay out quite a bit of cash that they would have been holding all year.

If they are so inept I will have to check them more regularly

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Glad to hear that milpalm Thank You. I will in all likelyhood add them at conclusions of foots when the non survivors are weeded
out. I like little books like that who step out occasionally with unique lines,quite like $plays however it appears $plays have been cloning cascade lines of late @-115 vs -110 and not sure if they will step out again or not, if not they are history as they off zilch otherwise.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Steve I am thinking they probably were not too exposed as one would have to tie up a considerable amount of cheese for an extended amount of time on that many wagers to make it worthwhile---and considering the amount of books that fold each year I know I would never remotely consider that risk.