- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Gooner ,the numbers presented to me was 132 + for this particular group of DEPOSITING PLAYERS.They also fudged the numbers for referbingo.Grant was kind enough to provide me the true data for the past 6 months .The numbers i have from seller was 15x what Grant said .Again there was neteller payments but either these numbers were mixed with other websites or else the seller won some money .I dont play at any revenue giants groups so not sure what the payouts to players look like.
Now we are getting somewhere …
:thumbsup:Although the key thing that you needed to hear was about new depositing players each month – preferably for the last 12 months – as you are not getting the benefit of their previous success.
However it is significant if they claimed to have 132 players at Revenue Giants – and then Revenue Giants said the number was 1/15th of that !!!
:huh:Of course – the difference may be explained by one significant event.
– Did the recent US gambling ban have an impact?
– Did Revenue Giants close all US accounts ?
– I would not be surprised if 90% of players were Us based …Could that explain the difference? Did you check that?
I have no real interest in the $$$$ side – it can be a red herring because it may be made up from a couple of big players – as wins/losses and profits can change markedly each month.As an example I have a Sportsbook with 1,700 active customers – and it still can lose money some months. That is gambling for you – hardly the steadiests of incomes at individual outfits – but with a portfolio of 10 or 20 sites you can make a living.
:thumbsup:
And finally …Were there similar claims for other places ?
How many?
Are they all showing a similar drop?Do you think that this might be the reason that the person is selling the site – and that the answers were truthful … while avoiding the REAL question ?
That probably WOULD NOT BE FRAUD but it is sneaky.
:Cry:Grant is from referbingo not revenue giants
Revenue Giants will not tell me anything which i can understand to a point .Since these programs still accept usa players it should not affect the stats.The person said they were selling because of the USA LAWS.Since I am not american I havent really read the fine print of the laws in terms of portal owners so took that at face value.I would accept a 70% drop but not 93% ,it is actually closer to 99% LOL.
Well – I could see a US focused site being hit very hard by the law changes.
The numbers at one of my US facing casinos (that has subsequently banned them) did drop from $4,000 per month to around $400 per month. (a 90% drop)
We are building up again – through Canadian and European players – but this one single event was a massive hit.
90% … it IS possible if the site was particualrly American based.
(I’m sure several affilaites here will know of similar profit reductions)
:omg:I switch to microgaming on alot of my sites too for this reason. This website had about 40% USA traffic but most of the programs allow usa players.A few programs has to be hurting such as playtech and wagerlogic for the loss in USA player.Everyone has their poker face on now and from a business point of view it does not help to show how vulnerable the industry is right now.I applaud you for admitting to a 90% loss ,so many are afraid to speak like that.
I can accept losses ,that’s why the tax man allows us to write them off on our returns but I really hate being cheated.:cuss:
As for 90% loses i can say it does happen , a few of my sites have seen 90% losses of income , but then again some of the sites i promote that still accepted usa players saw jumps of 200% .
the27offsuit wrote:As for 90% loses i can say it does happen , a few of my sites have seen 90% losses of income , but then again some of the sites i promote that still accepted usa players saw jumps of 200% .Oh yes – there have been opportunities too eh mate?!!
:kisser:We’ve started work with two new groups that (*ahem*) have no such restrictions, and have seen very good early returns …
:shhh:But generally listed UK companies have banned US players – and they’re currently seeing major drops in income.
:notify:I am confused.
Did or didn’t the site come with the old accounts?
This sale did include affiliate accounts. The sellers inflated the numbers Dom. If I am not mistaken these same sellers were involved in other “alleged” Shenanigans regarding Bingo Skins and Portals with equally grandiose numbers. This is like Deja Vu in that respect.
Ahhhh! ( Lightbulb comes on)
Indeed, someone needs to stop these crooks!
Smooth cyber criminals they are! This was the point I was trying to get across. To a certain extent casinobonusguy was warned. Only option left is to drive home the message about these crooks.
greek39
Related to this post how does one go about accurately auditing someones claims, and do always people get lawyers involved in drawing up purchase contracts (above a certain threshold)? I can imagine the proper auditing and legal work could become quite expensive, but given the area quite necessary, particularly when dealing with big numbers.
No this is not the ‘same group’ professor is speaking of ,at least i dont think so.Maybe you guys can enlighten me on this other group ?It has nothing to do with onlinebingofinder.com /roger that was 150.00 template who happened to be stolen.I just parked the site and still trying to figure out from 1and1 who really owns it lol.
And old tags were not included for revenue giants but considering I WAS SHOWED 132 sign ups ,many depositors and income from bingo hall alone at $1000.00 of which $570 was NEW MONEY then it looked like a good deal.Greek I have only been a member of CAP since October so I was not ‘warned’ about anything .In fact I had already done this purchase before signing up for CAP.Dominique who I have known to have a high standing in the gaming community directed me to CAP from another forum and I love her dearly for helping me find this place.This is our first year in the gambling portal business , we started a few websites on our own but then we decided to buy existing business as we didnt have the time or the SEO knowledge 4 months ago to get one off the ground ourself.Now we have learned so much mainly from this group that we are getting a bit more confident in our gaming business.
Our main business is FOREX ,as investors by nature we thought we would pick up a few sites as people began to sellback in the fall.One of our business has sold 1.6 million USD in foreign currency online since 2005.We are use to people trusting us with tens of thousands of dollars and we give people the same trust back when we buy things online.This website had a long solid reputation ,it was not a website established overnight and it was recommended to us when it became available for sale on Ebay.I used an escrow company to handle the sale and I think i did everything ‘by the book’ as I asked for and received what appreared to be screenshots of stats from affliate programs.I also got the raw logs pulled and the traffic was legit .
To JohnV , A lawyer will draw up a standard contract for $300.00 .We did the original contract and my lawyer modified it to include both the husband and wife ,although the wife legally owned the site but they wanted the money to go to the husband.Then we also had the escrow company get a digitally signed copy from them before the money went through .So we have actual physical contract plus we then got a digitally signed copy too.
In future I will ask for the seller to give the affiliate company permission to send me stats directly.I think that is really the only thing we could have done differently.
Quote:And old tags were not included for revenue giants but considering I WAS SHOWED 132 sign ups ,many depositors and income from bingo hall alone at $1000.00 of which $570 was NEW MONEY then it looked like a good deal.Ok I am totally confused now. If the affiliate accounts werent included then I am lost as to what income was “expected”. And if the accounts were not included then I can understand why the casinos/Bingo couldnt discuss those accounts.
Were you assuming you would acheive a similar number of sign ups as what was presented for the past?
