Book to book transfer
Inviato: 08/10/2004 - 22:43
Forse a qualcuno può interessare.
fonte: The Offshore Wire
The Book to book transfer situation coverage
Ken Weitzner, TheRX founder, broke the news earlier this week : CRIS and Olympic abruptly decided to discontinue book to book transfers to and from Pinnacle Sports.
Such unexpected announcement has generated a number of rumors and a vital discussion on all main forums.
TOW has interviewed officials from two of the above mentioned books to report first hand information.
"Its business as usual here at Pinnacle" was Pinnacle's top officials first comment " we respect everyone's business decision and comply with it". Pinnacle seems to have little if no interest in further commenting recent happenings " Our business is to provide our customers with the widest variety of content possible. We obviously try to provide them with additional services such as book to book transfer facility, which is a cost effective and easy way to move money around for players".
On the other side of the fence officials of one of the two books that have decided to terminate book to book transfers to and from Pinnacle laconically told us that " It is nowhere written that books shall provide this facility and our operation has taken a decision in this respect. We believe Pinnacle is an excellent operation that does well even without book transfers to and from us".
TOW has further looked looked behind fair play tones displayed by involved parties. Granted that this decision is not based on solvency issues, side comments we have gathered lead us to believe that Pinnacle's constant growth is beginning to worry other operators, who fear having facilitated Pinnacle's expansion to the detriment of their own operation by extending book transfer facility to their customers.
It is not a mystery that Pinnacle is the recognized powerhouse of discount juice and has yet to find a serious competitor within its own market positioning. Several books have tried to compete with Pinnacle without success in these last two years.
The real question then is to understand if these kind of decisions are beneficial or detrimental to recreational players.
Book to book transfer facilities are commonly used by professional players, whereas recreational players hardly require such kind of service at this time. However, given U.S. Government efforts in trying to limit or cancel the possibility of transferring money offshore, book transfers could easily become an asset for both recreational players and books in the long run. Punters would obviously benefit from this facility whereas books could charge a nominal fee ( lower than usual transfer fees applied by Neteller for instance ) turning this service into a small profit center ( with single bulk costs opposed to a number of charges applied to different players for the same bulk transaction ).
On the other side this kind of facility directly exposes books to other parties' solvency issue. Albeit not widely known each book that has failed in the recent past has represented a significant liability to other operations who have been victimized the same way stiffed players have, by losing amounts owed on one side and having to honor approved transfers on the other. In fact sharp players tend to favor and deposit with books that have primary operations on their "transfer" list.
One thing is sure : this decision has opened the doors to an important debate on book to book transfers which has only just began and which we expect to further expand in the weeks to come.
fonte: The Offshore Wire
The Book to book transfer situation coverage
Ken Weitzner, TheRX founder, broke the news earlier this week : CRIS and Olympic abruptly decided to discontinue book to book transfers to and from Pinnacle Sports.
Such unexpected announcement has generated a number of rumors and a vital discussion on all main forums.
TOW has interviewed officials from two of the above mentioned books to report first hand information.
"Its business as usual here at Pinnacle" was Pinnacle's top officials first comment " we respect everyone's business decision and comply with it". Pinnacle seems to have little if no interest in further commenting recent happenings " Our business is to provide our customers with the widest variety of content possible. We obviously try to provide them with additional services such as book to book transfer facility, which is a cost effective and easy way to move money around for players".
On the other side of the fence officials of one of the two books that have decided to terminate book to book transfers to and from Pinnacle laconically told us that " It is nowhere written that books shall provide this facility and our operation has taken a decision in this respect. We believe Pinnacle is an excellent operation that does well even without book transfers to and from us".
TOW has further looked looked behind fair play tones displayed by involved parties. Granted that this decision is not based on solvency issues, side comments we have gathered lead us to believe that Pinnacle's constant growth is beginning to worry other operators, who fear having facilitated Pinnacle's expansion to the detriment of their own operation by extending book transfer facility to their customers.
It is not a mystery that Pinnacle is the recognized powerhouse of discount juice and has yet to find a serious competitor within its own market positioning. Several books have tried to compete with Pinnacle without success in these last two years.
The real question then is to understand if these kind of decisions are beneficial or detrimental to recreational players.
Book to book transfer facilities are commonly used by professional players, whereas recreational players hardly require such kind of service at this time. However, given U.S. Government efforts in trying to limit or cancel the possibility of transferring money offshore, book transfers could easily become an asset for both recreational players and books in the long run. Punters would obviously benefit from this facility whereas books could charge a nominal fee ( lower than usual transfer fees applied by Neteller for instance ) turning this service into a small profit center ( with single bulk costs opposed to a number of charges applied to different players for the same bulk transaction ).
On the other side this kind of facility directly exposes books to other parties' solvency issue. Albeit not widely known each book that has failed in the recent past has represented a significant liability to other operations who have been victimized the same way stiffed players have, by losing amounts owed on one side and having to honor approved transfers on the other. In fact sharp players tend to favor and deposit with books that have primary operations on their "transfer" list.
One thing is sure : this decision has opened the doors to an important debate on book to book transfers which has only just began and which we expect to further expand in the weeks to come.
