More Reviews Feedback Sought

[boris]

How about do a ratio of 3:1 list/non-list books?

I think the advertised ones should be done first, not because they are necessarily paying, but they are the ones that visitors will look at first, thus they should be able to get the information they want about the book, rather than just blind faith.

Throwing in the occasional non-list book will keep our eyes open elsewhere and not make us "Major/Devil says... we will follow".

Besides, there are some books that don't advertise at all.

My two cents.

[The Philosopher]

OK, first I wanted to thank those of you who offered feedback on my question of whether we should give priority to Major’s List books in the developing sportsbook reviews section of the website.

Talk about a non-consensus! Each suggested option received about the same amount of support. Thus you failed in your collective mission of preventing me from having to think this through more completely myself and come to my own decision. I trust that next time you’ll be considerate enough to all think alike.

About the only thing we established is that it’ll be impossible to satisfy everybody’s preferences. But the option I’ve decided on is a compromise of sorts that I’m guessing most of you will find quite reasonable.

I am going to review the “Roll Call” books. As you all know since you read every word of the site religiously, “Roll Call is a list of advertisers and non-advertisers that have shown a good track record OR MajorWager.Com knows the owners to be stand up people with a solid record for paying their customers promptly.” The Major’s List, in turn, is the subset of these books that happen to buy advertising on the site, and that are secured for up to $500 per customer account by the site.

I’m happy with this approach, because I like the idea of favoring books that the Major and the Devil believe are solid (since I’ll have basically no direct access to such information myself), but I’m not comfortable giving preference to those who happen to buy advertising here. This way, I’ll be reviewing books that receive at least some degree of endorsement from Major Wager, but not just those that Major Wager derives financial benefits from.

This does of course instantly make the “Roll Call” section of the website more significant, since now it carries with it the additional weight of determining which offshore sportsbooks are to be treated as reviewable. It becomes even more important now for the Fellahs to keep that section updated and accurate. If you haven’t checked it out already, I suggest you do so now, and if you see any books that you believe don’t belong there, or if you notice any glaring omissions, let the Major and the Devil know.

Here’s a question about the “Roll Call” that I’ll toss out right now. To what extent are “Victor Chandler,” “Superbook,” and “Premiere League” relevantly distinct books, and to what extent are two or all three of them little more than different names for the same book? In other words, how ought they appear on the “Roll Call” (currently the second and third are listed there, but not the first), and thus how many different books are there among the three to review? I seem to recall Pokerjoe has knowledge of these books, so perhaps he could help me out on this one.

By the way, I am not absolutely ruling out ever reviewing a non-Roll Call book. I would say that if at any time a significant number of you express a desire to have a certain non-Roll Call book reviewed, then I am open to adding it to my list, assuming the Fellahs have no reason to veto it.

[turkoman1963]

Philosopher,

Roll Call is a great place to start...

I think reviewing one of the Chandler books would suffice, just as you don't need to review M & M and Bet Green, since they share the same shingle as well.

Finally, since you will not be reviewing more than a couple (if that many) books a month, I say, GET STARTED! By the time you've reached 20 or so books, it will be 2003! I'll have already tapped out five or six times since then...

[The Philosopher]

Already started Turk. Several in the pipeline already.

One of the books I happened to choose at random is one that I’ve played at extensively already, and is in fact one of the four I reviewed for this site more informally before the present project commenced. So since I already have a lot of the information for that book that I intend to include in my review, there won’t be anything like the lead time on that that there will be on the others. The tech folks are creating the reviews page now according to a draft I submitted, and when that’s ready to go, I’ll write up a new and improved review of that book to fit the new format.

So while I’m still guessing early May for most of the first batch of reviews to be posted, it looks like you’ll see one quite a bit before that, maybe in the next week or two. That’ll give folks a chance to let us know what they like and dislike about it, and we can adjust accordingly. Whatever adjustments we make, I’d prefer to do them early and stick to them, because I’d like the reviews to all be as consistent and as close to identical in format as possible.