Arbusers

luctens for a smart guy, that wasn't a very smart remark, you say yourself you don't use them so how can you comment, you make it sound that covering all these sports and markets is simple and straightforward when there is no one else in the entire world who even comes close to attempting what they do, that is the crux of the problem they are attempting too much.

max you "business" brain will tell you that a product fast in decline cannot increase prices, big improvements would have to be seen first, this weekend same as all the recent ones, decline continuing apace, sad but they will be gone soon, it was a good attempt by them and for a good while they pulled it off, like other "stars" of the alert service past arbitragepro, beatbookies to name two, they get neglected, they then fail to attract new subscribers, the neglect continues, they slowly die.

arbarama wrote: luctens for a smart guy, that wasn't a very smart remark, you say yourself you don't use them so how can you comment, you make it sound that covering all these sports and markets is simple and straightforward when there is no one else in the entire world who even comes close to attempting what they do, that is the crux of the problem they are attempting too much.

I don't need to use Betburger to make that comment. I am very simply stating that if an arb finding platform cannot cope with 65 bookmakers and 25 sports, then that's simply not good enough. Anybody with any common sense can see that.

If you think 65 bookmakers and 25 sports is the ceiling of what an arb finding platform should achieve, then you've got extremely low standards.

The very simple message is that if Betburger had good enough and scalable enough infrastructure, then the 65 bookmakers and 25 sports they've got now would work fine, with the availability to rapidly expand to many additional bookmakers, but if they've reached the ceiling of their systems' capabilities at 65 bookmakers and 25 sports, then it's simply that their fundamental infrastructure obviously wasn't of the standard that it should have been in the first place.

[/quote]
I don't need to use Betburger to make that comment. I am very simply stating that if an arb finding platform cannot cope with 65 bookmakers and 25 sports, then that's simply not good enough. Anybody with any common sense can see that.
[/quote]

wow, you do have a very large ego, not only do you not use betburger but seems you're an expert, you also don't know me but can question my "common sense"

not going to get into a debate with a know-it-all, you don't even subscribe, none of your business really

wow Luctens just been checking your posts, get a life, that's got to be unhealthy spending so much time on a forum, you with all that "common sense" of yours too, surprised you've got any time for arbing, you question my common sense but I wouldn't take your yearly arbing earnings x3 if i was offered them, seems you're not so smart after all.

luctens wrote:

arbarama wrote: luctens for a smart guy, that wasn't a very smart remark, you say yourself you don't use them so how can you comment, you make it sound that covering all these sports and markets is simple and straightforward when there is no one else in the entire world who even comes close to attempting what they do, that is the crux of the problem they are attempting too much.

I don't need to use Betburger to make that comment. I am very simply stating that if an arb finding platform cannot cope with 65 bookmakers and 25 sports, then that's simply not good enough. Anybody with any common sense can see that.

If you think 65 bookmakers and 25 sports is the ceiling of what an arb finding platform should achieve, then you've got extremely low standards.

The very simple message is that if Betburger had good enough and scalable enough infrastructure, then the 65 bookmakers and 25 sports they've got now would work fine, with the availability to rapidly expand to many additional bookmakers, but if they've reached the ceiling of their systems' capabilities at 65 bookmakers and 25 sports, then it's simply that their fundamental infrastructure obviously wasn't of the standard that it should have been in the first place.

I agree with you. A pro arbitrage platform should be able to handle 100+ bookmakers and 50+ sports.

arbarama wrote:

I don't need to use Betburger to make that comment. I am very simply stating that if an arb finding platform cannot cope with 65 bookmakers and 25 sports, then that's simply not good enough. Anybody with any common sense can see that.
[/quote]

wow, you do have a very large ego, not only do you not use betburger but seems you're an expert, you also don't know me but can question my "common sense"

not going to get into a debate with a know-it-all, you don't even subscribe, none of your business really
[/quote]
As I've already said, I don't need to use Betburger in order to put forward an extremely common sense view on the matter.

And it is extremely easy to question your common sense, given that you seem to think it is in any way understandable and acceptable for a system to be faltering in such a bad way just on the back of a relatively low load like Betburger has. You really do set poor standards.

arbarama wrote: wow Luctens just been checking your posts, get a life, that's got to be unhealthy spending so much time on a forum, you with all that "common sense" of yours too, surprised you've got any time for arbing, you question my common sense but I wouldn't take your yearly arbing earnings x3 if i was offered them, seems you're not so smart after all.

I am on this forum for an extremely small amount of my time, and even for that extremely small amount of time, it is simply none of your business what I do with that time of mine.

And your last comment is completely and utterly pointless, as you haven't got a clue what I earn arbing.

The only real question in this thread is:

Do you all find the service still good enough to warrant a subscription and does it make you enough money to offset the subscription cost?

As long as the above is answered by a "yes", it does not matter how good or bad the service gets.  Personally, for me it's a big "yes" and I have not noticed a decline in the speed or quality of the service.

Question 2 is: Is there a better alternative available at an equal or lower cost?

As long as the answer to that is "no", they should not worry about anything.

Simple economics, if you are the best quality/price wise, even if that "best" is not very good, and your service is "good enough" you'll continue selling it.

That does not mean subscribers can't complain about stuff and ask them to improve it, but whining and saying "you'll go under if you don't improve quickly blablabla" makes no sense if you guys are still using it, because clearly you haven't found anything better yet and clearly the service still makes you enough to warrant the fee it costs you.

My 2c.

You made some good posts here guys.

I'll give Q1-yes and Q2-no here as well.

I'm committed to Betburger and have been for quite a bit of time, even though I complain here and post issues daily. I think it's important to keep them updated with every issue and be specific (I've been guilty of not doing this myself in the past). The main thing I have a problem with right now is the lagging in play when an event has happened on one side already but it is still displaying. I haven't got a screenshot of this but will post one in the coming days. That's a big issue as it's pointing to several suspended markets or markets that have already changed.

cristi13 wrote: Can you make an option for "auto open in new view" when you click on an arb?(like the old interface worked) It would save a lot of time when chasing multiple arbs and don't have time to copy the bet.

Please be so kind to specify where exactly do you see this option in our old interface. 
We'll be waiting for your reply.

betburger wrote:

cristi13 wrote: Can you make an option for "auto open in new view" when you click on an arb?(like the old interface worked) It would save a lot of time when chasing multiple arbs and don't have time to copy the bet.

Please be so kind to specify where exactly do you see this option in our old interface. 
We'll be waiting for your reply.

It happens when you click on the "% arb".

betburger wrote:

cristi13 wrote: Can you make an option for "auto open in new view" when you click on an arb?(like the old interface worked) It would save a lot of time when chasing multiple arbs and don't have time to copy the bet.

Please be so kind to specify where exactly do you see this option in our old interface. 
We'll be waiting for your reply.

That is probably the only reason I have not made the switch to the new version yet, because I miss that little popup window too much...I would love that option as well.

betburger wrote:

cristi13 wrote: Can you make an option for "auto open in new view" when you click on an arb?(like the old interface worked) It would save a lot of time when chasing multiple arbs and don't have time to copy the bet.

Please be so kind to specify where exactly do you see this option in our old interface. 
We'll be waiting for your reply.

Also what are the benefits of  "auto open in new view"?
Why doesn't it satisfies you as it is in the new layout?
Thank you in advance.

It's easier to keep the small popup on top and drag it to another screen while placing a bet, saves some time.

PS: did you just add the option?  I believe it's now there right next to the delete button...