Another A book that is only interested in square action

[Sam Odom]

This is an illegitimate policy. It is not legal in Las Vegas.

What is not legal ? (clarify please before I comment)

[MonkeyF0cker]

What is not legal ? (clarify please before I comment)

You cannot systematically have disparate limits for the same wager type.

[SBR_John]

I understand what you were implying. You are also changing things pretty dramatically. You said nothing about the count. Do you actually think the pit knows the count of all tables at all times? Surveillance might. But they aren't ordering shuffles.

This is an illegitimate policy. It is not legal in Las Vegas. Yeah, I can certainly take my business elsewhere (like to a regulated environment with fair rules). And many people are. That's why the offshore industry is in the state it is in.

MF these joints are not in Vegas. Neither are Macau casinos, neither are the places in Barcelona or Mexico City or the Philippines, Panama, Costa Rica, Isle of Man and scores of other countries. What is your infatuation to Vegas? Yes take your business anywhere you want but I assure you the rest of the world will somehow survive and they could care less what is "illegitimate" in Las Vegas.

[MonkeyF0cker]

MF these joints are not in Vegas. Neither are Macau casinos, neither are the places in Barcelona or Mexico City or the Philippines, Panama, Costa Rica, Isle of Man and scores of other countries. What is your infatuation to Vegas? Yes take your business anywhere you want but I assure you the rest of the world will somehow survive and they could care less what is "illegitimate" in Las Vegas.

My "infatuation" with Vegas is that it is a regulated environment with somewhat fair recourse for the player. Since the majority of us are American, I think it makes some sense to compare their polices with the only legal, regulated sports betting market available to us. Are you suggesting that these tactics are legal in Macau? Or most other places with some semblence of regulation?

The rest of the world seems to be catching on. Places in Europe (like Germany and France) are pushing for more regulation. If these sportsbooks don't care what is legitimate in the eyes of a fair regulatory committee then people most certainly shouldn't be sending their funds there. The days of the wild, wild west for Costa Rican sportsbooks are nearing their end. The rest of the world will survive but most of the books that are mentioned here daily probably won't. And it will be because of their own greed and illegitimate policy.

[SBR_John]

There is a whole gambling world outside of Vegas MF and most have been there while box turtles were pooping on what is now Las Vegas.

You can't compare them. Guys all over the world play at these places. You may "feel" these places are no good because they control risks and operate differently than Las Vegas, Nevada. It's a narrow perspective. The truth be known, the Caribbean and costa rica offshores have much more favorable player rules compared to the UK, Europe as a whole and most the rest of the world. They may not be on Vegas standards but still very competitive globally. And business is very good for them especially where they have funding options.

[Chi_archie]

EW, Turtle Poop

surely Fishhead has found a way to tap into turtle poop for revenue, no?

[Cookie Monster]

In sporstbooks there are two ways of seeing things. The "Las Vegas" way (aka regulated), where every line must be allowed with the same line and limits to almost everyone, even egregious errors. And the "offshore" way (aka unregulated), where books may limit any player, even deal dual lines, and are allowed to cancel bad lines. They are the extremes, which one is right?

As the thread is full of blackjack references, it is a pertinent example. Back into 80s, the "regulated" place was New Jersey's Atlantic City, where the casinos were unable to boot anyone out, while Las Vegas (and even better, Reno) had freedom to boot players. What was the results? AC games were shitty 6-8 decks games with low penetration, while Reno 1-deck games were thriving. The dream of every card counter wannabe was going to Navada. Some won money, most lost miserably. Atlantic City became a ghost town.

The point is, you cannot go to an unregulated market expecting to get the benefits of a regulated one. The unregulated offers are good in part bacause the books have a safety net.

[Inkwell77]

but most of the books that are mentioned here daily probably won't. And it will be because of their own greed and illegitimate policy.

This seems to be getting closer and closer to happening. You have New Jersey on the verge of legalizing sports betting.
When that happens the dominoes will start to fall over time.
What incentive will someone have to send money to one of these offshore books once many states legalize?
Low Juice is the only incentive I can think of, and with the ridiculous fees to withdraw combined with the uncertainty of ever even receiving funds that seems like a rather small incentive.

These books have a huge fukkin customer base (currently) yet they are very willing to lose customers because of dumb unfriendly player decisions.... It's all fukkin greed. They know their end is in sight. I would love to see their 5 year plan... lol

Vegas is by no means some utopia of fairness when it comes to book vs player type of cases, but they do have policies in place that are followed in most cases, off shore, not so much (Pinnacle being the one exception).


I will say that there were (and probably still are) definitely cases of books in Vegas limiting sharp teaser action and accepting square teaser action for higher limits. But this stuff is definitely not posted.

[Sam Odom]

Inkwell77 , if/when I can open a legal online trading acct with say MGM from Cali that is where I'll be. See ya CR

[SBR_John]

As the thread is full of blackjack references, it is a pertinent example. Back into 80s, the "regulated" place was New Jersey's Atlantic City, where the casinos were unable to boot anyone out, while Las Vegas (and even better, Reno) had freedom to boot players. What was the results? AC games were shitty 6-8 decks games with low penetration, while Reno 1-deck games were thriving. The dream of every card counter wannabe was going to Navada. Some won money, most lost miserably. Atlantic City became a ghost town.

The point is, you cannot go to an unregulated market expecting to get the benefits of a regulated one. The unregulated offers are good in part bacause the books have a safety net.

...thread over.

[MonkeyF0cker]

In sporstbooks there are two ways of seeing things. The "Las Vegas" way (aka regulated), where every line must be allowed with the same line and limits to almost everyone, even egregious errors. And the "offshore" way (aka unregulated), where books may limit any player, even deal dual lines, and are allowed to cancel bad lines. They are the extremes, which one is right?

As the thread is full of blackjack references, it is a pertinent example. Back into 80s, the "regulated" place was New Jersey's Atlantic City, where the casinos were unable to boot anyone out, while Las Vegas (and even better, Reno) had freedom to boot players. What was the results? AC games were shitty 6-8 decks games with low penetration, while Reno 1-deck games were thriving. The dream of every card counter wannabe was going to Navada. Some won money, most lost miserably. Atlantic City became a ghost town.

The point is, you cannot go to an unregulated market expecting to get the benefits of a regulated one. The unregulated offers are good in part bacause the books have a safety net.

The comparison between NJ and NV isn't fair in comparison to CR and NV. There is absolutely zero recourse for a player to recover funds from a CR sportsbook. That has never been the case between NJ and NV. There are almost no benefits to the unregulated CR model over the NV model outside of bonuses. We end up fighting over inherent fairness issues. The "safety net" that you're referring to is often called theft here. There is a fair way to do things and there is the CR way of doing things. This thread isn't extreme. It's asking for FAIR risk management. Thats it.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Inkwell77 , if/when I can open a legal online trading acct with say MGM from Cali that is where I'll be. See ya CR

Exactly. The only reason many of the CR books are solvent is because people have no other options. If they had options, very few people would be playing there.

[Trident]

The comparison between NJ and NV isn't fair in comparison to CR and NV. There is absolutely zero recourse for a player to recover funds from a CR sportsbook. That has never been the case between NJ and NV.

Was not always the case in NV, in the 80's two stand alone Books one which was a major player closed and bettors were left holding worthless tickets and phone account balances. Casinos in NV are now required to have a bond in place if they operate a Race & Sportsbook.

I had a phone account at Gary Austin's that I never was able to recover my money from and the state did nothing about him walking away with everyone's money.

[The Kraken]

Like politics and religion, there seems to be no middle ground to meet on here. There's the players and books, each trying to take the others money.

I don't see a problem with books limiting players or limiting teasers or parlays. This business isn't regulated by morals and ethics but rather by cash flow.

The beauty is if you don't like, no one is forcing you to play there.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Was not always the case in NV, in the 80's two stand alone Books one which was a major player closed and bettors were left holding worthless tickets and phone account balances. Casinos in NV are now required to have a bond in place if they operate a Race & Sportsbook.

I had a phone account at Gary Austin's that I never was able to recover my money from and the state did nothing about him walking away with everyone's money.

He didn't walk away with money. The book was sunk.

There has always been recourse. Sadly, you didn't get your money in that instance and fortunately, bonds prevent that from happening again. But players were able to file suit.

[Kindred]

I'm a square and even I think -120 on 6 point teasers is fuckkin lame..

[MonkeyF0cker]

Like politics and religion, there seems to be no middle ground to meet on here. There's the players and books, each trying to take the others money.

I don't see a problem with books limiting players or limiting teasers or parlays. This business isn't regulated by morals and ethics but rather by cash flow.

The beauty is if you don't like, no one is forcing you to play there.

Then don't complain when you get stiffed, because you're endorsing it.

[Inkwell77]

I don't see a problem with books limiting players or limiting teasers or parlays. This business isn't regulated by morals and ethics but rather by cash flow.

The beauty is if you don't like, no one is forcing you to play there.

Is there such a thing as business ethics? Do you believe in regulation?
If you don't believe so then I guess you're right, let the books do whatever they want, no ethics, no regulation of any sort.

I think a decent comparison is a women/men pay scale for the exact same job and a square/sharp set of rules for the exact same action (placing a bet).
In the US the courts have decided a person should not be paid less then a co-worker when doing the same job with the same experience.
The offshore sportsbooks have decided that they will give one type of player a set of rules (square lets say) and not allow another player (sharp lets say) access to those same rules.

[mathdotcom]

John,

If you believe your argument, why do you have an issue with unregulated sportsbooks that choose to limit their risk by not paying winners?

"They can do whatever they want and if you dont like it, too bad" is indeed how I view it as a bettor. What else can I do?

The point is that the more offshore books stray from Vegas norms (honoring bets, paying winners) the lower their SBR rating generally is.

What we are seeing here is the equivalent of a blackjack game where you can only double down whenever it's -EV, something most would consider unethical. If you want to limit risk then set better lines and/or lower limits for both sharp and square bets.

This is a growing and disturbing trend offshore, but fortunately the people running these books are pretty stupid so we will continue to find opportunities...

[Kindred]

Like politics and religion, there seems to be no middle ground to meet on here. There's the players and books, each trying to take the others money.

I don't see a problem with books limiting players or limiting teasers or parlays. This business isn't regulated by morals and ethics but rather by cash flow.

The beauty is if you don't like, no one is forcing you to play there.

Yeah the books don't have a big enough built in advantage..they have a license to print money but that doesn't mean it should be a level playing field. We need to make it easier for the books by banning anyone who might have a chance, and only allowing net depositors to play..That should help these poor books with their cashflow problems

[indio]

.There are almost no benefits to the unregulated CR model over the NV model outside of bonuses.

Perhaps the dumbest comment I've ever read.

Many futures pools offshore have less than 10% theoretical holds, and don't mind a large wager. 5Dimes currently has Champions League futures with a hold of less than 6% for a 28 team menu. Good luck finding anything like that in Vegas. Vegas, more of a corporate entity than a sportsbook, feels the need to offer 40%+ holds, to lower exposure by fleecing the suckers. Yeah, you have recourse to get paid when you have a winning bet that's 50% worse than implied probability. If you like to bet on golf, you will NEVER bet in Vegas, that's how much better your odds are offshore.

And I can't recall any Vegas sportsbook taking $1,000 + wagers on Brazilian soccer matches.

Lot of winning gamblers who can't get a bet down in Vegas without a beard, and isn't that the topic that started this thread?

[PAULYPOKER]

Show me a book who is interested in winning customers

and I'll show you a book filing for bankruptcy...............

[SBR_John]

John,

If you believe your argument, why do you have an issue with unregulated sportsbooks that choose to limit their risk by not paying winners?

"They can do whatever they want and if you dont like it, too bad" is indeed how I view it as a bettor. What else can I do?

The point is that the more offshore books stray from Vegas norms (honoring bets, paying winners) the lower their SBR rating generally is.

.

That's generally true but has nothing to do with Vegas. We are not going to lower a good or even a bad book because they decide not to accept $5000 teasers from sharps. In fact, it would bother me more if they had such weak risk control that they did. Look at the books that have gotten themselves in trouble the past couple of years and I know you know the ones. What was the common thread? As you're mumbling "over booking sharps" I'm nodding my head. It may not be good for you personally but risk control is better for the books, players and industry regardless of whatever the regulation is in vegas, Manila or Macau.

[indio]

Good God we can tell you vote "R" every election. What a crock of shit. Just one of them many reasons 99% of Americans hate the 1% because making good money is never enough, you have to make the most possible no matter who gets fuked over. Then you wonder why the GOP gets it's ass kicked every election.

The GOP had landslide historic victories in the 2010 election, taking a large majority in the House and majority of Governorships. That was 1 election ago. So when you say they get it's ass kicked in every election, you embarrass yourself even more than usual, and that's tough to do considering most things you say are equivalent to the drool that oozes out the corner of the mouth of a sedated lobotomy patient. And, I know you're just another leftist sheep, but can't you come up with something a little fresher than the tired 99% vs. the 1% slogans? I mean, you might as well say the bourgeoisie vs. the proletariat, that's how redundant that phrase is.

I seem to recall, were you the one who claims to bet 5k a game on college hoops? Perhaps you should up your medication.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Perhaps the dumbest comment I've ever read.

Many futures pools offshore have less than 10% theoretical holds, and don't mind a large wager. 5Dimes currently has Champions League futures with a hold of less than 6% for a 28 team menu. Good luck finding anything like that in Vegas. Vegas, more of a corporate entity than a sportsbook, feels the need to offer 40%+ holds, to lower exposure by fleecing the suckers. Yeah, you have recourse to get paid when you have a winning bet that's 50% worse than implied probability. If you like to bet on golf, you will NEVER bet in Vegas, that's how much better your odds are offshore.

And I can't recall any Vegas sportsbook taking $1,000 + wagers on Brazilian soccer matches.

Lot of winning gamblers who can't get a bet down in Vegas without a beard, and isn't that the topic that started this thread?

Notice that I said "almost no benefits." Then, you go on to list some fairly obscure wagers. LOL.

How many futures bets do you make per year? I make about five. It's generally not worth the opportunity cost for professionals. If someone is actually betting a "bet that's 50% worse than implied probability" then why the fukk would they care about hold?

Yes. If someone is betting golf or Brazilian soccer, there are benefits to betting offshore. So, you've named 0.002% of the American betting public. Excellent points.

[MonkeyF0cker]

That's generally true but has nothing to do with Vegas. We are not going to lower a good or even a bad book because they decide not to accept $5000 teasers from sharps. In fact, it would bother me more if they had such weak risk control that they did. Look at the books that have gotten themselves in trouble the past couple of years and I know you know the ones. What was the common thread? As you're mumbling "over booking sharps" I'm nodding my head. It may not be good for you personally but risk control is better for the books, players and industry regardless of whatever the regulation is in vegas, Manila or Macau.

You're still not understanding the point. Why can't they simply limit everything to the same amount?

[Emily_Haines]

The GOP had landslide historic victories in the 2010 election, taking a large majority in the House and majority of Governorships. That was 1 election ago. So when you say they get it's ass kicked in every election, you embarrass yourself even more than usual, and that's tough to do considering most things you say are equivalent to the drool that oozes out the corner of the mouth of a sedated lobotomy patient. And, I know you're just another leftist sheep, but can't you come up with something a little fresher than the tired 99% vs. the 1% slogans? I mean, you might as well say the bourgeoisie vs. the proletariat, that's how redundant that phrase is.

I seem to recall, were you the one who claims to bet 5k a game on college hoops? Perhaps you should up your medication.

Like I care what you think.

Romney was crushed and that is a fact.

Without the confederate states your party would be irrelevant.

Plus you don't even have 200 to be a pro.

Go fuk yourself.

[tto827]

Like I care what you think.

Romney was crushed and that is a fact.

Without the confederate states your party would be irrelevant.

Plus you don't even have 200 to be a pro.

Go fuk yourself.

And with out unintelligent inner city folk, your party would also be irrelevant. Also if Obama is not black he does not win this election, period.

[Emily_Haines]

And with out unintelligent inner city folk, your party would also be irrelevant. Also if Obama is not black he does not win this election, period.

Not true

Virtually any democrat would have won

[tto827]

Not true

Virtually any democrat would have won

That's a debate that no one can win, campaigns would have been very different, who cares. Obama is in office, you were right that he would win, let's just hope America made the right decision.

[Fishhead]

Vegas doesn't give a bonus when you deposit.



When a book offers a "bonus" they have to recoup that somehow.

[Fishhead]

Monkey and Mathy with outstanding work in this thread in an effort to make offshore joints at least somewhat accountable for their increasing shady actions.

Once again we find SBRjohn doing everything he can to dispute the facts, but how can some not blame him, his pockets are enriched daily by many of these offshore thieves.

[SBR_John]

Monkey and Mathy with outstanding work in this thread in an effort to make offshore joints at least somewhat accountable for their increasing shady actions.

Once again we find SBRjohn doing everything he can to dispute the facts, but how can some not blame him, his pockets are enriched daily by many of these offshore thieves.

Ball sucking adds nothing to the conversation. How about you specify the points you agree with and don't agree with?

[raiders72001]

CRIS

Square teaser limits: 15k
Sharp teaser limits: 5k

This is even at CRIS -120 for 6pt teasers

DSI

Square teaser limits: 15k
Sharp teaser limits: 1k

Yet another example of a book posting a line but basically only taking action on the square side. Throw CRIS in the same basket as 5D and Heritage.

Thumbs down

A lot of books are taking teaser precautions including Pinnacle. One guys is banned from betting teasers at Pinny. Many books won't put up lines of 1.5 - 2.5 and 7.5 - 8-5. If they do, then the payouts are worse than past years.

[Santo]

This mirrors a thread not long ago on OGD/Peeps, except here I'm not such a lone voice. The comparison between regulated and unregulated industries is fallacious, as is an attempt to set out Vegas as the end-all for regulated industries. Posters are highly critical of the European model, and the essence of the OGD discussion was that the longer an industry is regulated the less player-friendly it becomes, and that's not a model we should be pursuing. However, if you don't want to go down that line where the operators lobby and pursue greater freedoms to prohibit certain types of bets (as per the 'right to refuse service' that exists in other industries) then a laissez-faire type regulatory environment, as you see in the offshore industry, is what you're left with -- and in that case something like (but not necessarily) SBR, or Casinomeister, is the best advocate for players there is (having previously seen the failures of mediation through forums (RX, MW) and arbitration panels (MW, TOW)).

I don't disagree with those pushing for an ideal where players are able to bet as much +EV as they can find and never be banned, but I don't believe that such an industry is realistic under either the regulated (NV, NJ, UK, AUS) or unregulated (CR, Antigua, Netherlands Antilles) model...