How long do you have to win before books ban you?

[bettingman6]

Are there any books that will ban you if you say make 15 bets over 5 days and go 11-4?

[ByeShea]

I doubt you can afford to find out.

[bettingman6]

I doubt you can afford to find out.

I don't use any of the notorious banning books like Heritage or 5dimes. I use bookmaker and betonline/lowvig. And I'm not in the middle of a hot streak right now anyway. I've gone at best .500 over the last week and might be a tad bit worse.

I was just curious about how quick the trigger on the anti-pro books is.

They might unintentionally ban a lot of long-term losers, if their trigger is too quick.

[Sam Odom]

If one is Sharp , Sammy means really Sharp , he will have several outs

Spread his bets around

[danshan11]

you are using the wrong data to try and decide when a book will ban you.
books have algos they use to ban people and most include, beating the closing line sharp betting, stale lines and more, wins and losses do not usually have a big role in the limiting or banning process. I also read they really dont dig on max bet live bettors who win at a high rate.

[brooks85]

Are there any books that will ban you if you say make 15 bets over 5 days and go 11-4?

I would imagine there are books out there but I wouldn't think any of the respectable ones would after just 15 bets.

if you join and you bet like a pro then of course you'll end up on their radar but I can't think of anyone getting limited after just 15 bets.

[Joey Vigs]

11-4 I love this place

[bettingman6]

you are using the wrong data to try and decide when a book will ban you.
books have algos they use to ban people and most include, beating the closing line sharp betting, stale lines and more, wins and losses do not usually have a big role in the limiting or banning process. I also read they really dont dig on max bet live bettors who win at a high rate.

Doesn't sharp betting mean that you have a high win %?

[bettingman6]

11-4 I love this place

William Hill in Britain and Nevada is infamous for banning long term losers after they have a 4-1 day. Forget about 15 bets.

The books aren't necessarily logical in deciding who to ban.

[bettingman6]

Anyway, it makes some amount of sense that they'd be less harsh on live bettors since live betting is a pretty square thing. You don't have any time to think about your bets when you're live betting. Plus the books will have guys who are watching the game live and know what calls the refs are making, what substitutions are being made, how tired the teams seem to be, etc. while you won't have the slightest idea unless you're watching the game yourself. And you won't have the ability to watch a game unless it's being televised in your local market.

[brooks85]

Doesn't sharp betting mean that you have a high win %?

Anyway, it makes some amount of sense that they'd be less harsh on live bettors since live betting is a pretty square thing. You don't have any time to think about your bets when you're live betting. Plus the books will have guys who are watching the game live and know what calls the refs are making, what substitutions are being made, how tired the teams seem to be, etc. while you won't have the slightest idea unless you're watching the game yourself. And really how many of us can afford some ridiculously expensive packages where you can watch out of market NBA games. And if you're betting on minor conference college football or basketball games, you probably won't be able to watch the game regardless of how rich you are, since the game probably won't be on anywhere.

perhaps, perhaps not but mainly it shows what you're picking to win; sharp bets.


To dan's point, if you have a big win record but there is no rhyme or reason to it then they certainly will just wait you out because odds are you'll come back to Earth.

However, if you have a big win record and it's full of you beating the line, stale lines or it could just be sharp betting you're going to stand out. Long run these are winning methods so they do not want to wait you out.

[Sam Odom]

If one is Sharp , Sammy means really Sharp , he will have several outs

Spread his bets around

If you're one step above a Sharp... hire Runners or the equivalent

[cincinnatikid513]

if you need to ask this question you have nothing to worry about being banned

[bettingman6]

perhaps, perhaps not but mainly it shows what you're picking to win; sharp bets.


To dan's point, if you have a big win record but there is no rhyme or reason to it then they certainly will just wait you out because odds are you'll come back to Earth.

However, if you have a big win record and it's full of you beating the line, stale lines or it could just be sharp betting you're going to stand out. Long run these are winning methods so they do not want to wait you out.

If you're, say, 560-440, that's probably a large enough sample size to conclude you're a sharp. If you drop to 550-450 in your next 1000 bets, you'll still be beating the book.

And if the book can't figure out a rhyme or reason to your bets, that could just mean you're smarter than the book. I mean, if you saw Billy Walter's bets (before he went to prison), would you really be able to figure out a "rhyme or reason" about why he's betting the way he is? Probably not.

[brooks85]

If you're, say, 560-440, that's probably a large enough sample size to conclude you're a sharp. If you drop to 550-450 in your next 1000 bets, you'll still be beating the book.

And if the book can't figure out a rhyme or reason to your bets, that could just mean you're smarter than the book. I mean, if you saw Billy Walter's bets (before he went to prison), would you really be able to figure out a "rhyme or reason" about why he's betting the way he is? Probably not.

it could be but it also could just be one hot year so it really depends on the kind of bets you're making. If they are beating closing lines then you will definitely stand out.


And you're right if you had a way to bet and the books couldn't pick it up you'd be onto something but that is just the thing. It's 2019 now, you'll probably find there isn't anything to "be onto." I'd say the books know everything there is to know by now.

In the past decade the best thing was MMA. Books were clueless at first. Not anymore.

[bettingman6]

perhaps, perhaps not but mainly it shows what you're picking to win; sharp bets.


To dan's point, if you have a big win record but there is no rhyme or reason to it then they certainly will just wait you out because odds are you'll come back to Earth.

However, if you have a big win record and it's full of you beating the line, stale lines or it could just be sharp betting you're going to stand out. Long run these are winning methods so they do not want to wait you out.

I find beating the closing line to be overrated honestly. Let's say the line is -8 when it should be -10. You realize this so you bet on the favorite. However, other bettors are irrational and bet overwhelmingly for the underdog, causing the line to fall to -6. Did you really take a bad line at -8? In reality, you didn't- you just took a line that was less good than you could have gotten had you waited. However, it's basically impossible to predict how other bettors will bet and which way the line will move.

[Biff41]

If one is Sharp , Sammy means really Sharp , he will have several outs

Spread his bets around

Am assuming Books also look at volume of lost profit they are incurring and the amt. of your bet. Sammy advice good for 2 reasons.

[joey sangria]

I won about $11K from Youwager this football season. I haven't been banned (yet), but they took away all my bonuses- everyone of them.

[danshan11]

I find beating the closing line to be overrated honestly. Let's say the line is -8 when it should be -10. You realize this so you bet on the favorite. However, other bettors are irrational and bet overwhelmingly for the underdog, causing the line to fall to -6. Did you really take a bad line at -8? In reality, you didn't- you just took a line that was less good than you could have gotten had you waited. However, it's basically impossible to predict how other bettors will bet and which way the line will move.

the data suggests differently. if you look at the line over an extended period of time you will see the line is very efficient, best way to see this is take a team for a season and see what 1pt movement your way would have done to your success. usually a guy goes 8-8 for a season and if they had 1pt they would win 1 more game and also get 1 push. so 8-8 loser becomes 9-6-1 and you are a winner. Line is very important

example Pats if you bet the line every game on pats you would have went 11-7 good year if you had an extra point you would have went 13-5

[bettingman6]

it could be but it also could just be one hot year so it really depends on the kind of bets you're making. If they are beating closing lines then you will definitely stand out.


And you're right if you had a way to bet and the books couldn't pick it up you'd be onto something but that is just the thing. It's 2019 now, you'll probably find there isn't anything to "be onto." I'd say the books know everything there is to know by now.

In the past decade the best thing was MMA. Books were clueless at first. Not anymore.

Your average bettor hits around 49%, and actually does even worse than if they were to simply flip a coin. The odds of hitting 560 out of 1,000 when your long term win % is .490 are infinitesimal.

And I don't think books will intentionally set bad lines, except possibly to balance action. If you're hitting .560 you're almost certainly smarter than the book and are spotting things the book doesn't.

[brooks85]

I find beating the closing line to be overrated honestly. Let's say the line is -8 when it should be -10. You realize this so you bet on the favorite. However, other bettors are irrational and bet overwhelmingly for the underdog, causing the line to fall to -6. Did you really take a bad line at -8? In reality, you didn't- you just took a line that was less good than you could have gotten had you waited. However, it's basically impossible to predict how other bettors will bet and which way the line will move.

well one thing no one ever mentions is the feasibility of actually doing it long-term and at any kind of volume or bet amount that would make it worth it.


The data does show it is a winning strategy long run and if you could do it every game that would be great but that's just not possible. And if someone tries they need to ask themselves what their time is actually worth ya know? Because it would take a lot of time to be watching line movements everyday.

[bettingman6]

the data suggests differently. if you look at the line over an extended period of time you will see the line is very efficient, best way to see this is take a team for a season and see what 1pt movement your way would have done to your success. usually a guy goes 8-8 for a season and if they had 1pt they would win 1 more game and also get 1 push. so 8-8 loser becomes 9-7-1 and you are a winner. Line is very important

example Pats if you bet the line every game on pats you would have went 11-7 good year if you had an extra point you would have went 13-5

But does anybody actually do much better than 50-50 at beating the closing line? I guess you might have a point if anybody could actually beat the line at even a 53% rate. But guessing line movement is even harder than beating the spread.

And line movement is only rational if you assume other bettors are rational (which they aren't) and will bet the correct way.

[danshan11]

Your average bettor hits around 49%, and actually does even worse than if they were to simply flip a coin. The odds of hitting 560 out of 1,000 when your long term win % is .490 are infinitesimal.

And I don't think books will intentionally set bad lines, except possibly to balance action. If you're hitting .560 you're almost certainly smarter than the book and are spotting things the book doesn't.

spotting what? Books dont set lines bettors do and they say "pick your spots" sure you want to pick your spots but understand the whole betting community is sharpening every one of those lines as fast as they come out. its really hard to beat the line by picking winners MOST not ALL but MOST 98 out of 100 long term winners beat the line and the other 2 long term winners are just survivorship bias. if say 1 2% of bettors are long term winners probably half of those long term winners are just survivorship bias, winning against line long term winners are hard to find and the task is very hard.

[brooks85]

Your average bettor hits around 49%, and actually does even worse than if they were to simply flip a coin. The odds of hitting 560 out of 1,000 when your long term win % is .490 are infinitesimal.

And I don't think books will intentionally set bad lines, except possibly to balance action. If you're hitting .560 you're almost certainly smarter than the book and are spotting things the book doesn't.

I agree if you could hit 56% then you're golden. 56% at volume and you could make a fortune but like point of this thread; if you were hitting 56% at volume you're going to get spotted for sure.




curious, how long have you been gambling?

[bettingman6]

well one thing no one ever mentions is the feasibility of actually doing it long-term and at any kind of volume or bet amount that would make it worth it.


The data does show it is a winning strategy long run and if you could do it every game that would be great but that's just not possible. And if someone tries they need to ask themselves what their time is actually worth ya know? Because it would take a lot of time to be watching line movements everyday.

Pretty much this.

There are some (expensive, of course) programs online that claim to accurately predict line movement, but I am extremely skeptical of how accurate they are. Considering how useless almost every other expensive sports betting advice is.

[danshan11]

But does anybody actually do much better than 50-50 at beating the closing line? I guess you might have a point if anybody could actually beat the line at even a 53% rate. But guessing line movement is even harder than beating the spread.

And line movement is only rational if you assume other bettors are rational (which they aren't) and will bet the correct way.

I beat the NBA line regularly and have never had a losing season, if you look at my picks thread you can see I beat the line at about a 70% rate on sides. I only bet if the line is wrong, I never ever know or even guess who will win. I am right now not winning but at the end I will be alright but remember the big problem with my method is variance. Variance can and does get everyone. To win long term you need to do 2 things
1 beat the line enough to cover the margin over say 51% of the time
2 bet enough bets to overcome variance, the more bets you make the more likely you are to overcome variance if you actually have an edge, I cannot do this at this point so if I win or lose over a season does not mean anything, I will probably get 250-300 bets by seasons end for the NBA and that is just not enough bets, to win long term you need to beat the line and you need to bet like 50-100 bets a day or you are highly at risk of variance getting you.

[bettingman6]

I agree if you could hit 56% then you're golden. 56% at volume and you could make a fortune but like point of this thread; if you were hitting 56% at volume you're going to get spotted for sure.



curious, how long have you been gambling?

Past year basically. I haven't really tracked my record, but I'm pretty sure I bet the vig during football season. However, but my basketball season hasn't gone very well (pretty sure I'm not even hitting 50% in bball), and it's probably more than erased my winnings during football season.

[danshan11]

in theory you cannot win 56% of the time in the big sports because the line does not move that much, books only win what 1-2%ish on the nfl or basketball because the line does not move enough overall.

most 56% winners are survivorship bias and most really skilled bettors are probably closer to 53-54% long term ATS

[brooks85]

yeah a program certainly would make it an actual possibility. I'd be too skeptical myself.

[brooks85]

in theory you cannot win 56% of the time in the big sports because the line does not move that much, books only win what 1-2%ish on the nfl or basketball because the line does not move enough overall.

most 56% winners are survivorship bias and most really skilled bettors are probably closer to 53-54% long term ATS

yeah, I agree with this. 56% is more like a dream over time.

[danshan11]

another valid point is a few things happen

say you can win at 55% great now what

where do you bet? proxies cost money and that lowers your ROI
how do you keep your ROI up if you were betting 1% of your bankroll and start piling cash, your ROI will start dropping daily because you will not be able to still bet 1% of your roll because of limits.
this is of course Part B of long term winning but makes it even more difficult to "long term" win

[danshan11]

me and pokerjoe were discussing how do you identify a real capper and our conclusion was similar

1 can set lines that are very close to the closing line before lines come out
2 can adjust accurately when an injury or weather announcement comes in and stay close to the closing line with the adjustment.

if you can get say NBA within 1.5 pts avg of the closing line with your line you are on your way
if you can hear George is out for the thunder an hour before game and know where the line will go you are on your way
if you cant do these two things me and pokerjoe dont think you are a good capper!

[bettingman6]

If you look at my picks thread you can see I beat the line at about a 70% rate on sides.

I'm sorry but I don't believe you. I'd believe somebody who claimed to have a 70% ATS record before I believe somebody who claimed to accurately predict line movements 70% of the time.

If I had to guess, the best anybody can do is beat the spread 56% of the time, and accurately predict line movements 52% or 53% of the time. I am of the opinion that beating the closing line is even harder than beating the spread.

[brooks85]

Past year basically. I haven't really tracked my record, but I'm pretty sure I bet the vig during football season. However, but my basketball season hasn't gone very well (pretty sure I'm not even hitting 50% in bball), and it's probably more than erased my winnings during football season.

cool, this is the place to be for sure. I know how baseball is, I really don't even bet it anymore lol

[bettingman6]

cool, this is the place to be for sure. I know how baseball is, I really don't even bet it anymore lol

Baseball is the sport that's easiest to beat. In part because so few people bet on it, so sportsbooks don't always do a great job at setting the lines.

Anyway, I've never bet on baseball before, but I plan to once the baseball season starts.