If books only want recreational players why have 2 dime plus limits?

[bettilimbroke999]

You could pretty much get rid of the pros by having like 200 dollar limits, why have a 3 thousand dollar limit on halftime lines like BetOnline has if you only want recreational bettors?


(One of BetOnline's rec. bettors hangin out in a bar)

Earl: Hey Joe you like that 2nd half under in the Arkansas State game

Joe: Yea sure fukin A State cant make shit throw 3 dimes on it for me Im busy finishin my beer, acct# B64957, password: juiceisforlosers

Earl: So howd u come out last week?

Joe: Oh fuk u know down another 100 grand, but hey lifes a bitch you know Im due Ill get em next week, now give me a 2 dime over on number of rebounds CP3s gonna have tonight

Earl: You sure about that Joe that -140 kinda steep juice

Joe: Listen dumbass there aint no juice if it wins

Earl: Yup I guess thats logical well alright gl

Joe: Hey for ya go parlay the Clips/Memphis ML for another 3 dimes, Clips are way underrated and Grizz cant lose 12 in a row

Earl: You got it


I mean how many guys do you know that bet 3k on halves just b/c the games on TV?

[Justin7]

Lol!

[Mudcat]

Yep. BetOnline is a great example. WagerWeb is another. It would be kind to call them schizophrenic. It is generally more scammish.

They have the big limits and bonuses - but they also have rules that they can sanction non-recreational players.

Then they define non-recreational players as anyone who takes advantage of their big limits and bonuses.

Free shot heaven.

[Justin7]

Yep. BetOnline is a great example. WagerWeb is another. It would be kind to call them schizophrenic. It is generally more scammish.

They have the big limits and bonuses - but they also have rules that they can sanction non-recreational players.

Then they define non-recreational players as anyone who takes advantage of their big limits and bonuses.

Free shot heaven.

I'm fighting/arguing/discussing things with Wager Web. They will hopefully change their bonus structure, and quit bullying wise guys.

[Tsoprano]

If a square get's on a good roll with $200 plays, going "all in" using those limits tends to wipe out bankrolls eventually.

Plus, lots of squares gamble in hopes to eventually get to that level, so if a book can afford offering those limits...why not?

[mathdotcom]

I deposited recently at WagerWeb for a $500 freeplay. After only a couple bets they closed my account and paid out only (My Balance - $500). Apparently a $500 freeplay is worth $500 cash. Took me months to even get this payout, and on top of that, got stiffed with ridiculous payout fees.

The very generous management group at WagerWeb then said they'd prorate the bonus. Sounds good, but given that after only 3 bets I had completed only a small % of the rollover, this amounted to saving me only enough to cover the payout fees.

I guess they only want bettors stupid enough to bet a freeplay on a -1000 favorite.

Terrible policies, terrible customer service, terrible book.

[bettilimbroke999]

If a square get's on a good roll with $200 plays, going "all in" using those limits tends to wipe out bankrolls eventually.

Plus, lots of squares gamble in hopes to eventually get to that level, so if a book can afford offering those limits...why not?

Maybe so Tsop but I just find it hard to believe some rec bettor that bets 50-200 max is going to give a shit about or ever need 3k half limits. As for why not have 3k limits at a rec book it's b/c the ones betting that huge tend to be advantage bettors like the dude BetO tried to freeroll who got an extra 4 pts on a halftime line and naturally tossed 3k max on it, just doesnt make any sense to have 3k limits at a book thats tryin to attract bettors without a clue, rec bettors dont even bother checking the limits anyway b/c they know their 50-200 bets are gonna be accepted anywhere