menu

The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same.....Scamdicappers 884 views

Remember these guys, "BBVIPCLUB".

They had a big biography written on their page. All the profit promises, etc. Then they lose thousands of dollars and units, disappear, and now reappear as GOATDOTVEGAS.


5
Post hidden due to low quality. Show it.

IMO, the leaderboard should not show anyone until they have 6 months of picks on record. It won't stop the ID cycling, but it will slow it down.

5

Anybody who asks for that much money, they are trying to take the money and run. I would like to see ppl freely post picks and why they like that game and team.....not just because I think.....I always say why I like a team and I dont charge.

4

There should be a thorough vetting of all business members. Nothing is 100%, but some effort needs to be made to weed out chronic scammers and ID cyclers.

4

bottom line....dont pay for picks. Do you really trust gamblers? Like they are actually at the practice field? cmom!

4

You are not allowed to make two accounts on pickmonitor. If you would report the two accounts, we can resolve this.

3

I agree with Evo's idea to not publicly display any member's record on the leaderboard until such time as they have accumulated a minimum of 6 months worth of selections and a positive ROI (and an additional isolated section possibly for those with ridiculously low ROI's as they are extremely profitable as well from a fade perspective). However, from a time standpoint and keeping members interested in continuing to return to the website, maybe 3 months would be more sufficient.

I vehemently disagree with Evo's idea as it relates to vetting business members at all. Unlike the above idea, business members VOLUNTARILY PAY Pick Monitor who voluntarily accepts the fees/payments to utilize the service, and therefore removing the option to ban those members because they are actively contributing to hopefully improving Pick Monitor on the whole by funding the website to include additional features, etc... that which non-business members provide zero monetary contribution whatsoever to actively assist the business in those areas.

If Pick Monitor was to actively recruit non-business members with excellent results (possibly some with pathetic results as outlined above) to be part of their professional handicapping team, then that would be a different story since those members would not be paying to use the business service (although Pick Monitor could legitimately provide an invitation to be a professional handicapping member, but with the stipulation they are required to pay a monthly / annual fee or donation to Pick Monitor to be allowed such a designation). This way, the member is voluntarily accepting the terms, and if found to be a cheater/scammer, Pick Monitor would have legitimate legal means to remove them from their professional handicapping team and no longer accept the fees or donations from those members that have been found to be cheating/scamming, etc.

Have a great day everyone :)

3

"an additional isolated section possibly for those with ridiculously low ROI's as they are extremely profitable as well from a fade perspective"


This is a bad take. If fading bad bettors was profitable, everyone would be making money. It isn't. Almost everyone after 100s and 1000s of picks will fall into the same variance and lose big on the book's vig. I promise no one can provide a long-term, documented proof of fading a bad bettor that worked and was "extremely profitable".

3

Your point is noteworthy. However, look at some of the worst handicappers on Pick Monitor and you will see a high negative ROI such as sportsfan834 (15,459 picks / -4.01% ROI), speedracer8787 (14,517 picks / -4.03% ROI), Silva Sports (11,967 picks / -3.56% ROI), JMWNBA (1,882 picks / -5.74% ROI), and parleymoney (11,258 picks / -4.69% ROI) to name a few.

How does your argement hold water when many negative ROI's are not only competitive, but earning more profits on the fade over an extended period of time?

2

"I vehemently disagree with Evo's idea as it relates to vetting business members at all."

So you think it is in the site's best interest to continue to allow anonymous scammers to create multiple business accounts?

Why is it too much to ask a seller to verify his identity? To check that he is not using his 10th ID after nine failed ones? If he is legit, there should be nothing to hide.

4

"How does your argement hold water when many negative ROI's are not only competitive, but earning more profits on the fade over an extended period of time?"

None of those records would be profitable to fade against -110 lines. Those are normal ROIs one would expect for a long-term coin flipper.

5

"You are not allowed to make two accounts on pickmonitor. If you would report the two accounts, we can resolve this."

Good luck with this. I used to take the time to report/post multi-accounters and past-posters -- most of whom were business members. The new owner has let me know in no uncertain terms that he will not tolerate public outing of frauds (or even permit mention of them on one's profile page) and will not investigate private reports sent to him.

This thread prob. has about 24 hours left before it gets closed.

2

Please Login or Register to reply.

Ready to start winning?

Yes, Sign me up now No, show me the handicappers first