User Reviews of Surebet Scanners

I consider the AllBestBets scanner, with its instant 3-second analysis period and detection of live surebets, the best among its competitors today. A successful find by the developers is the sound signal, which makes it possible to react promptly when a surebet appears. It duplicates the text alert, which is very convenient. I have not encountered such a complete breakdown of middles and odds anywhere else. And a bonus for the service is its loyal attitude toward surebetters.

Although my gaming experience, both positive and negative, working with various bookmakers is quite extensive, I didn't want to get involved with surebets for various reasons, primarily because of the hassle of finding them. I radically changed my views with the appearance of the AllBestBets scanner. I like the different ways of presenting surebet situations, and the lines of various bookmakers are updated every minute. I place only prematch bets on hockey, football, and sometimes tennis. I use the mid-priced PREMATCH Professional plan for 50 “euros” per month. That's a lot of money, but it justifies itself: comprehensive functionality, including the convenience of quickly finding close odds at different bookmakers. You can monitor middles simultaneously. With the launch of the AllBestBets scanner, playing became easier and more productive.

All the positive aspects of working with AllBestBets are spoiled by annoying service failures. In particular, due to a software update, its operation was temporarily suspended, the surebets disappeared, and a bet did not come through. The service sorted out its equipment problems, but who will sort out mine?

I haven’t encountered such a broad overview of the necessary information on a single resource anywhere else. The odds from different bookmakers are presented in a broad range, as fully as possible for clear comparison. The scanning is fast and thorough. Moreover, it identifies surebets hidden by other servers. The filtering system works clearly, with selection by age, odds, and profitability. There’s always a complete list of bookmakers at hand, including the three where I have accounts opened. It’s encouraging that the scanner is constantly evolving and improving while remaining equally understandable to beginners and professionals.

What can one say about how good the AllBestBets service is if its genuinely profitable plans “bite”? You will not earn much with the free 1-% version, and there are also time delays there, especially for live, at 15 (!) minutes; agree, it is a losing proposition from the outset. Taking the “one-day plan” for $2,49 is only teasing yourself, since you will not have time to place anything properly. You have to use information from other scanners, not as deep or high-quality, but cheaper.

My opinion is this: live surebets in the AllBestBets scanner are very attractive. 4 tariff packages + a free one are designed for players with different starting capital. 9 sports and a mass of sporting events are displayed, which is intriguing. You can always try out the functionality by subscribing for just one day. And if you are already paying money while betting professionally, you know what you are paying for: information is provided on more than 50 bookmakers and sports disciplines. Respect to the developers.

A terrible surebet scanner. The obvious disadvantages are the high subscription price, the available free version is completely uninformative, and low-margin bets are unlikely to help reveal the service's potential. Add to that the inconvenient interface. The service also causes my netbook's browser to freeze. Support is not very good; not only do you have to wait a long time, they may also be rude. What about the vaunted “the customer is always right?”. And the Russian language on the site is useless too—no more than 10% of the site has been translated. Overall, “2” out of the possible “10”.

A fairly decent service, but in my opinion, not convenient. And the prices “bite.” 400 euros for a subscription? No way, that's expensive. Maybe the amount is reasonable for some bourgeois, but in our country it is downright frightening. On the other hand, I liked the fast updating of surebets, especially in prematch. I haven't encountered anything like that before, but since I mostly bet live, this “feature” is merely a pleasant bonus.

Interesting surebet scanner. Everyone complains that it is expensive. But here, gentlemen, think for yourselves – professional tools are always more expensive than “Chinese mass-market junk”. What I liked: fast updates, reasonable technical support, built-in calculator. But it seems to me that the service is aimed at professionals – the tools offered for the subscription price will interest only those who live on betting rather than bet from time to time.

OddStorm even appealed to me when I tested the free version.
But problems began when I decided to buy a subscription. For some reason, the money
did not reach them at first, so I contacted technical support. At first,
the operator did not understand at all what I wanted. When they understood, they said everything was
“okay”; they could see the money. They credited it. But they did not even apologize. Overall,
satisfactory, but I’ll look for something better.

«Позитив» has good functionality. The calculator clearly shows the profitability of a bet with the set odds and available bankroll. The filters work well and remove the clutter from the game. Working with the paid plan is definitely more interesting: appealing bets, good odds, constant surebet movement, and an audio signal when they are updated. You can set the profitability of a situation for scanning yourself, as well as the odds and many other things. It is convenient, comfortable, and ergonomic.

By trusting the Positivebet surebet scanner, I ended up in unpleasant situations twice, losing money. Once it showed an incorrect surebet, confusing the football clubs “Dinamo” from Zagreb and Moscow. Another time, an incorrect surebet appeared for a match between the youth and senior national teams. Perhaps the resource is overloaded. I have to double-check it.