[Foosball Champ]

I made a deposit of $650 with bet phoenix on Saturday February 26, 2017 and received the 100% freeplay bonus with a 16x rollover. The next day bet phoenix cut my bet limits in half, from $500 to $250 per game on all sports. I don’t feel that this fair or equitable as I made the deposit relying on the fact that my limits being $500, as they have been for the past 10+ years. I feel that bet phoenix should relinquish the hold on my funds and not hold me to the rollover was made the presumption of $500 limits. Or they should return my bet limits to $500.00. Thanks.

[SBR Forum]

Accepting a bonus isn't grounds for risk management to be disabled, $250 is still reasonable with the amounts involved.

[ezeemunee]

i agree with foosball. when there's a bonus and rollover tied to a deposit, the wager limit at the time should apply as well. I don't have a problem if risk-management decides to change the wager limits upon completion of the rollover but it it very unfair for them to change it during an active bonus/rollover situation. what if they had changed it to $5 instead of $250...then it makes the rollover damn near impossible for foosball to complete in a reasonable fashion.

[jtoler]

That is pure fraud.

[Foosball Champ]

It truly feels like a trap. $250 bet limit with a $22,000+ rollover. How is that reasonable?

[SBR Forum]

It truly feels like a trap. $250 bet limit with a $22,000+ rollover. How is that reasonable?

That's more than a third of your deposit. There is a point which limit reduction should prompt the book to just prorate the player's balance or cut him loose, but right now don't think that's the territory you're in. The house would lose money in a hurry if it didn't manage risk with their large bonus model.

[jtoler]

That's more than a third of your deposit. There is a point which limit reduction should prompt the book to just prorate the player's balance or cut him loose, but right now don't think that's the territory you're in. The house would lose money in a hurry if it didn't manage risk with their large bonus model.

Who do you think youre fooling.

[ace7550]

I gotta side with Foos on this one too. I would be pretty annoyed if the amount of bets to reach my RO doubled the moment I made a deposit. They should have disclosed that they were going to decrease the max bet before you made a deposit.
Other sites do this too but they usually give you a warning before your deposit.
With the nature of online sports gambling a good book should always disclose every piece of information they can and be totally transparent.
Lowering limits after a deposit without warning. It's a pretty low brow move.

[dealer wins]

After a few $250 bets your limit will be cut again, try to get out now!

[Foosball Champ]

They also slashed my racebook limits from $200 to $10. More ridiculousness.

[ezeemunee]

this "bait and switch" tactic employed by sportsbooks is completely unfair and should not be allowed. I have no problem with books and their "risk management" policies, but if they're gonna adjust players limits, they need to inform players as such BEFORE they make a deposit. personally I only deposit a fraction of what my wager limit is. there's no point in having more money in a book than you can use to wager.

[Jared Brooks]

this "bait and switch" tactic employed by sportsbooks is completely unfair and should not be allowed. I have no problem with books and their "risk management" policies, but if they're gonna adjust players limits, they need to inform players as such BEFORE they make a deposit. personally I only deposit a fraction of what my wager limit is. there's no point in having more money in a book than you can use to wager.

I totally agree with this. Full disclosure should be the standard otherwise it's just scummy.

[Optional]

If taking a bonus was some sort of contract a book could not impose limits on that account, we would not be seeing bonuses at all as the few bad apples would exploit that unfair loophole to the fullest.

If the book imposed an unreasonable limit that makes it impossible to complete a bonus rollover there would be grounds for complaint though.

[Jared Brooks]

If taking a bonus was some sort of contract a book could not impose limits on that account, we would not be seeing bonuses at all as the few bad apples would exploit that unfair loophole to the fullest.

Could you explain this idea in more detail?

My feeling is that a book that offers a 100% freeplay with 16x rollover should just guarantee a standard limit. If they are overexposed with a standard limit then they should specify that limits will be (standard limit)/2 or (standard limit)/3 if playing with bonus, or otherwise just increase the rollover.

If they aren't clear it can be very misleading to new bettors.

[Alfa1234]

Could you explain this idea in more detail?

My feeling is that a book that offers a 100% freeplay with 16x rollover should just guarantee a standard limit. If they are overexposed with a standard limit then they should specify that limits will be (standard limit)/2 or (standard limit)/3 if playing with bonus, or otherwise just increase the rollover.

If they aren't clear it can be very misleading to new bettors.

I believe Optional means, you could open an account, take a large bonus and then exploit the fact they cannot limit you by chasing steam all the time. It would be like unlimited free money if you arb those bets all the time without risk of limitation while also clearing the bonus in the meantime.

[Buffalo Nickle]

If bonus books did not cut limits to $250, they would all be broke. Every thread about BetPhoenix is about them cutting limits to $250. Get a clue.

[temple2010]

Just try calling them and see if they'll fix the problem. I've been playing there for a while and my limits are $1,000 a game and I just made a deposit there in january for the 200% bonus.

[ace7550]

I have yet to see anyone post a legit reason why a book shouldn't disclose the fact that they are going to change your limits if you take a bonus. It's not wrong for them to do so long as they disclose it. If they don't disclose it then it's wrong. Simple ethics.

[jtoler]

I have yet to see anyone post a legit reason why a book shouldn't disclose the fact that they are going to change your limits if you take a bonus. It's not wrong for them to do so long as they disclose it. If they don't disclose it then it's wrong. Simple ethics.

I always laugh at the nuthugging posters who defend books even when there is a clear wrong going on.

[Foosball Champ]

it's comical the way that these books say that "you're a non recreational player and upper management has decided to cut your bet limits in half." Then when you ask them to define non recreational player they can't. Or ask to speak to the person who slashed your bet limits, they won't even give you a name.

[SBR Forum]

it's comical the way that these books say that "you're a non recreational player and upper management has decided to cut your bet limits in half." Then when you ask them to define non recreational player they can't. Or ask to speak to the person who slashed your bet limits, they won't even give you a name.

Hi Foosball,

Just curious, but is this the first time you've been limited at a sportsbook? You may want to wear it as a badge of honor, although it's frustrating.

[evo34]

That's more than a third of your deposit. There is a point which limit reduction should prompt the book to just prorate the player's balance or cut him loose, but right now don't think that's the territory you're in. The house would lose money in a hurry if it didn't manage risk with their large bonus model.

"Manage risk?"

By auto-cutting limits immediately after a deposit? That's sad, on multiple levels.

[HedgeHog]

By no means am I supporting BP on this matter, but normally I would need to deposit at least $1000 in order to get $500 limits from a bonus book. JMO, but I think $250 limits are reasonable on a $650 deposit with 100% bonus.

[patswin]

they did the same me a few years back. busted out and have not returned

[ezeemunee]

it's reasonable for a player to expect to play with his existing limits at the time of his deposit when accepting a bonus. it is unreasonable for a book to grant a bonus then slash limits as in this case. betphoenix typically has outrageously high rollover for their bonuses as it is...like 18X or more sometimes. by halving a players limits...the book can essentially double (or more if the player happens to win on the free play bonus) the rollover for the deposit/bonus in effect. totally unfair IMO...

[piterp]

Some bookmakers have restriction on stake when turnover bonus for example 10bet
https://www.10bet.co.uk/promotions/s...welcome-bonus/ point nr 11

But limited stake with no reason is unfair

[Foosball Champ]

Can you believe that sbr upgraded the rating on this book to a b rating ? Wow

[Buffalo Nickle]

Can you believe that sbr upgraded the rating on this book to a b rating ? Wow

Why not? They put $250 limits on guys after they deposit which it hard to beat them.

[Courtesywipe]

Can you believe that sbr upgraded the rating on this book to a b rating ? Wow

Yeah, I really don't get it. Don't get it at all!

[ronald]

Accepting a bonus isn't grounds for risk management to be disabled, $250 is still reasonable with the amounts involved.

Except they will be reduced to $50 in short order. Stay tuned.

[thomorino]

I"ve used betphoenix and their sister site skybook - they are legit but a book for recreational players. You can't go to these small books designed for recreational bettors and get a 100% bonus and try to make 10k in a week after making a small deposit - being able to bet 250 a game is not a big deal if you deposited less than 1k.

[HedgeHog]

I"ve used betphoenix and their sister site skybook - they are legit but a book for recreational players. You can't go to these small books designed for recreational bettors and get a 100% bonus and try to make 10k in a week after making a small deposit - being able to bet 250 a game is not a big deal if you deposited less than 1k.

This^

[HedgeHog]

It truly feels like a trap. $250 bet limit with a $22,000+ rollover. How is that reasonable?

Then pass on the bonus. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to take it. The $250 betting limit is based on your $650 deposit. That is more than reasonable.

[SportsMushroom]

Then pass on the bonus. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to take it. The $250 betting limit is based on your $650 deposit. That is more than reasonable.

i read many posts on this forum that make me lose faith in humanity, how can noone understand what they read?


if he was given the option he would have passed on the bonus, thats the point, he was never given the option, he took the bonus and accepted the rollover based on 500$ limits, his limits were cut by the book right after deposit and without warning, its a bait and switch unless they accept to return the deposit

[TheMoneyShot]

Hi Foosball,

Just curious, but is this the first time you've been limited at a sportsbook? You may want to wear it as a badge of honor, although it's frustrating.

If the terms are listed on the books website... it's fair and reasonable. If a book doesn't post it on their website... it's not fair or reasonable.

Most reputable books are posting extensive "BONUS DETAILS" on their page.

Mickey Mouse Books aren't posting anything... and waiting for you to take the bait.

How is it fair... if you are a legitimate $500 a game player... and a book cuts you in half?