[teatime]

Edit by SBR:

Your complaint was filed 1/13/2015 at 6:02PM.

You received a response on 1/13/2015 at 6:30pm that we asked a manager to comment on the complaint.

You further received a response on 1/15/2015 at 12:26PM indicated that the wagering floor said that because 95% of your wagers were reportedly props, you were indeed profiled and that they were not interested in changing your profile.

Have you checked your spam folder, maybe?


________

I sent a report to this site over a week ago, detailing how Looselines (A previously low-rated book that could not pay customers) was putting me on a delay to change almost every line against me AFTER I had submitted my wager. Sometimes they changed it again even after I accepted the first line change (It never was changed in my favor.)

I complained to Looselines and the manager told me that because 70% of my bets were "sharp" (about 70% were on the under on small prop bets, usually in the $25 to $40 range), I just had to accept that I was never going to get the line they offered on the web page.

I heard nothing from sportsbookreview, so I followed up, asking why they would not respond. No response to that, either.

WTF is going on? Is it now acceptable for a bookie to place a customer on a delay in order to change every line against that customer?

The Looselines betting manager actually admitted to that practice-- in writing. I sent the transcript to sportsbookreview so that they could see for themselves.

Is this how offshore bookies operate now? F**k the customer any way they can? Are customers so plentiful that this is now acceptable as a business practice?

This site has Looselines and the associated books rated at B-. How could any book that cheats a customer like that be rated B- ?

And why won't sportsbookreview respond?

[HeeeHAWWWW]

Many books do that, it's not exactly a secret.

The SBR rankings are for security of funds, not whether they accept pro action.

[Optional]

We get lots of complaints teatime.

Some of them are people just making a report or venting about an issue that annoys them rather than a request for anything to be done. If so, they get answered if/when time allows.

Short story, books can and will limit you. As you have found the Looselines manager does not hide this fact nor do they think it is wrong.

Yes it's annoying but all books practice risk management and you would be better to think about why they pegged you as a risk and trying to not stand out that way at other books than getting angry at Looselines or SBR.

I'll chase it up but I'm sure someone would get back to you eventually anyway.

[Playon]

This risk management thing has become totally grazy.

I think old good times are gone mostly because people from poor countries got internet connections, found surebetting, bonus abusing, affiliate abusing and all abusing they could possible find out, anything at all but not fair sportsbetting. Markets were destroyed and bookmarkers (especially British) pulled out from international business offering services and bonuses only for British, while customers from all other countries are limited or excluded. Lowering odds when only 1-5€ bet is placed is just another consequnce. And if try to wager 100€, the whole stake is denied and odds lowered. 10bet and bet365 are doing that. I believe there will more restricted countries in the future, which may stabilise markets for those whom services are offered.

[SBR Forum]

Your complaint was filed 1/13/2015 at 6:02PM.

You received a response on 1/13/2015 at 6:30pm that we asked a manager to comment on the complaint.

You further received a response on 1/15/2015 at 12:26PM indicated that the wagering floor said that because 95% of your wagers were reportedly props, you were indeed profiled and that they were not interested in changing your profile.

Have you checked your spam folder, maybe?

[teatime]

Many books do that, it's not exactly a secret.

The SBR rankings are for security of funds, not whether they accept pro action.

Tell me what other books use the delay to change the line EVERY TIME. No legitimate, honest book does that. They use the delay to prevent steam chasers-- not to change every line against the customer.

Looselines admitted that they would not allow me to have the line they posted. Not on EITHER side. Do you think this is not a "security of funds" issue when a book admits to cheating a customer? If they will nickle and dime a customer on $40 bets, do you think they have enough integrity to be listed as a B- book/

You have no idea what you are talking about.

[teatime]

I see now that I do have a single reply in my spam folder. However, I sent you the transcript of my chat with the manager. That transcript is not the same as what the manager is claiming now, and the management story now not accurate.

I was told that I was going to get a line change EVERY time (and that there might even be a second line change if I was foolish enough to accept the first change) because the prop manager had determined that 70% of my bets were on the "sharp" side. I looked at my bets and they were about 70% on the "under." The prop manager has no idea what the "sharp" side is-- if he did, he would adjust the line BEFORE he posted it. I went busted there, so I doubt the prop manager has any clue as to what the "sharp" side is.

As for 95% of my action being on props, that is just not true. Absolutely not true, especially if the $ amount is included. The prop bets were mostly in the range of $25 to $40. I bet full game sides for $100 and maybe a bit more on each. There was no "steam chasing" or anything else. Just smallish bets, and certainly not anywhere near 95% of my action was on props. Not a chance.

Looselines is not being honest about what they are doing, or about what my bets were. They gave me a very different explanation of why I would never get the posted line, and I sent you that transcript of the chat. Now they say I was betting 95% props, which is not true.

If you think a book that uses the delay to change every line against a customer is worthy of a B- rating, your ratings system is worthless.

[teatime]

If a book wants to limit somebody, that is very different than what Looselines is doing.

They put me on a delay. At first, I thought it was just a slow internet connection. Then, I started noticing that every time I submitted a bet, I got "line change" and EVERY line change was worse for me. So, obviously they were using the delay to cheat me. Yes, Looselines could just "limit" me, even to $0 on bets. That would have been an honest approach, even though most prop bets were already low at $25 to $40.

But Looselines chose to try to cheat me rather than being straightforward and just limiting me. I have had lots of "line change" messages at other books. Lines do change, and many times I have been the beneficiary of line changes that were in my favor. As long as the "line change" is not targeting individual customers, there is no problem.

But Looselines was specifically targeting me with their line changes. In this case, we have some weasel bookie sitting at the desk waiting for my $25 bet to show up on his monitor so he could quickly change the line to try to cheat me... That is what was going on. That is a dishonest practice. Period.

Not sure how or why you would defend this, and no book that does that is deserving of a B- rating. If they will do something so petty as this, there is going to be trouble ahead from this book. You can be sure of it

[Optional]

If a book wants to limit somebody, that is very different than what Looselines is doing.

You're wrong. This is simply a different way to limit you.

Vent away, but don't kid yourself you are being 'cheated' or anything sneaky is going on. As you described they are quite open about it.

I do agree it sucks that we have to put up with 'risk management' at all. In a perfect world books would have to takes bets at published odds from all comers but unfortunately this industry does not work like that.

Think of it as a badge of honor for being such a good bettor, then work out why they IDed you as a risk and learn to avoid being profiled at other places.

http://www.sportsbookreview.com/sbr-...winning-50086/

[EVfollower]

BetDSI changes the lines on me as well so I stopped using them. Was up $4k overall through just 2nd half wagers college football/basketball betting and now anytime I try to bet more than a couple hundred on 2nd half I am told line has changed to a worse figure. If line is -110 then $500 gets me -115 and $1500 gets -125 for example.

I tried both bets ($500 and $1500) within 10 seconds of each other and they had the different changes based on the risked amounts. I tried $100 the third time just to see and yup -110 was offered.

I tried again 5 minutes later, refreshed the line, still same line at -110 and still the "line has changed" BS occurred. Top book that can accept high limits, my ass.

[teatime]

Sorry you seem to be misunderstanding what Looselines is doing.

They are NOT limiting me. My bet limits were unchanged, and there is a reason for that-- If they limit me, or cut me off completely, how would they be able to cheat me out of $3 to $5 on every bet? They wouldn't. So, instead of limiting me, the just have some flunkie sit and change the lines on every bet I make. Every one.

This is not about dealing 2 lines. This is not about a book "limiting" sharp action or professional action. As I explained, if they limit me, they would not be able to cheat me on every wager. They have to get me to MAKE a wager. If they want to limit or boot someone, that is an entirely different matter. But a booted or limited customer can't be cheated a little at a time, can he?

As for them being "open" about it-- are you kidding? They did not tell me in advance they were going to try to cheat me on EVERY bet. It was only after a lot of bets where the line was changed against me that I was certain it could not be coincidence. I had to get them to admit it, and since it was mathematically impossible to have so many lines moved against me, they really had no choice but to fess up.

So, you are the one who is either misunderstanding or deliberately covering for what is a very dishonest action by the book-- they are not honoring ANY of the lines they offer me. They change every line to cheat me out of maybe $4 on a $40 bet.

When the offered line is 6.5 -115 and I submit my $40 bet, the next page says "line change" and the new price is 7 -125. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHICH SIDE I WANT. If I wanted the other side, it would give me a "line change" to 6 -125. I am not allowed to have ANY line offered. I get screwed on every one. Every line gets changed on me. You think that is a common practice? I bet you cannot name one reputable book that does that. Just name one.

[teatime]

I understand that many books are afraid to take action from anybody other than a total idiot. (Apparently, Looselines DID take bets from professionals and it took them a couple years to pay) And it is annoying, especially when they are in the forums talking big about not being afraid to take a bet.

But I was making $25 to $40 bets on props, and $100 bets on sides. Also, it is not true that I was betting 95% props. Looselines just made that up. My action was probably close to a split between props and sides. And it was not as if I was getting rich-- my account was maybe a week old. At one point, I may have been $300 to $400 on the + side, but that is about it. I don't think I even had the account a month before I went busted, and I certainly would never reload with them.

What I find disturbing is that this site seems to pretend what Looselines is doing is "limiting" a player. Books that "limit" a player don't try to cheat the player by changing the line EVERY TIME, forcing the customer to always pay more. That this site thinks that is the same as putting betting limits on a customer shows a complete lack of understanding of how honest books operate.

[teatime]

I am still waiting for the name of just ONE other book that does this.

You believe it is just another way to limit a bettor-- OK...Who else does it?

Nobody.

You call in to make a bet, and asked the clerk what the line on a game was, and then were told, for instance, that Ohio State was a 7 1/2 point favorite...You immediately tell the clerk you will take Ohio State for $100...and the clerk tells you that you cannot have Ohio State at 7.5 -110, but you can have them at -8 -115....

If you want the other side, you get told you cannot have the dog at +7.5 -110, but must accept +7. It does not matter which side you want to bet-- AFTER you have been told the line, and AFTER you have told the clerk which side you want, the clerk tells you that you aren't getting that number. AND IT HAPPENS EVERY TIME. This is EXACTLY what Looselines is doing. They didn't just start doing it with me-- it is a stealing habit they have.

Now, explain to me how a book that does something like this deserves a B- rating. If the book says my limit is $5, so be it. But refusing to honor either side of the line they post, and pretending that it is just a "line change" is a dirty way to do business.

No book that does that should ever be rated above an F. Here's one thing you can bet on: Looselines and Jazz are going to be back on the list of books to avoid before long, because no book that is so desperate that they would stoop to this level has the integrity to do what is right at crunch time.

And don't forget to mention the name of just one other book that operates like that.

[ADR51]

You are crying little bitch...you dont like the book, get the penetrate out and play somewhere else.

[teatime]

You are crying little bitch...you dont like the book, get the penetrate out and play somewhere else.

Why don't you just GFY? You are a little maggot with nothing to offer.

Or are you working for Jazz/Looselines? You have 8 comments and now you just HAVE to stick your nose into something you know nothing about. F**king loser is all you are.

[BAUS]

1Vice pretty much uses these tactics.

Regardless, take your cash out and move on. Part of the game within the game.

BAUS

[teatime]

I have never, ever heard of 1Vice, but I just looked at the list here and they are rated a C-. Not a B- like Jazz/Looselines.

I don't have any cash at Looselines now, and my point is this:

This site is supposed to be a "watchdog" site, or so they claim. But the moderator at this "watchdog" site does not seem to understand the difference between "limiting" a player and trying to cheat a player.


There are no top tier books that use a delay to target certain customers like what Jazz/Looselines is doing. Looselines never "limited" me. My betting limits were unchanged. There is a reason for that-- they wanted me to think it was just a "line change" and they wanted me to accept the new (always worse for me) number, which I often did. But I was NEVER going to get the line on the screen, no matter which side I selected.

When I confronted them after about a dozen consecutive line changes on a dozen different bet attempts (Including trying to switch my bet and bet the opposite side), the manager told me that was the reason for the delay-- to change the number whenever I wanted to make a bet.

Limiting a player does not involve cheating a player. The player still gets to bet the number on the screen, but maybe for much less money. I was not allowed to have the number on the screen, and the delay was to change the number of whatever bet I tried to submit. That's the difference.

[lecubs28]

they are in the forums talking big about not being afraid to take a bet.

I have never seen anyone from their group posting on the forums. What are you talking about?

I think you don't have a valid complaint here. Sometimes a book will just close your account completely and not let you bet anything at all. In this case they are at least letting you bet money, just at a worse line.

[Optional]

To be fair, I understand why this tactic might annoy Teatime (although personally I can see advantages to this over being limited to 10 bucks or booted). But it's tough to be sympathetic toward an obnoxious graceless know-it-all who rants on attacking everyone and demanding he is correct no matter what else is said for 9 days and counting.