Policy for rating of bookmakers that limits betting accounts from SBR?

[FreddeSwe]

I gave this question in my thread about Bet365. I think this is a very important discussion when you rate bookmakers.

You rate Bet365 (frequently called Bet £3.65) with top marks despite their very well-known ability to limit players betting amounts to ridicilous amounts. And this even to players with a loss or a small win (in my case $100 after a poor period recently).

Should not this be an important criteria when you judge a bookmaker? What is the point in giving a bookmaker a good grade because you can bet big amounts if you are only allowed to do so during a short period if you actually win?

Would be interesting to know how you discuss here.

I think that overall your rating of bookmakers is very interesting and besides this I think that your ratings are pretty fair.

If I was to rate Bet365 I would not give them better rate than at most C. They do pay-out and they got a big range of betting opportunities. They also allow relatively high stakes as long as you don't win. But that is it.

[jay88]

John, Bill, someone?

[SBR_John]

We rate each book as suitable for Professional or Recreational. We state it right on the Recommended List and also mention it their review.

But what happens is arb guys, sharps simply ignore that hoping to grab a bonus and grind their way out. They are easily spotted because they have to bet heavy to make a scalp or middle worth doing.

We don't subtract from a rating based on risk control. What we do is mention it all over the reviews and recommended list so that players who bet sharp numbers for large amounts can choose books like CRIS and Pinnacle and small players can take advantage of the perks offered by Recreational books like 365 and BoDog.

[jay88]

We rate each book as suitable for Professional or Recreational. We state it right on the Recommended List and also mention it their review.

But what happens is arb guys, sharps simply ignore that hoping to grab a bonus and grind their way out. They are easily spotted because they have to bet heavy to make a scalp or middle worth doing.

We don't subtract from a rating based on risk control. What we do is mention it all over the reviews and recommended list so that players who bet sharp numbers for large amounts can choose books like CRIS and Pinnacle and small players can take advantage of the perks offered by Recreational books like 365 and BoDog.

Great post!!! :0000004:

[bookie]

Makes sense to me. It's just a fact of life that some books welcome sharp play and most don't. The value of this forum is that you can find out which is which, and if you're a serious player save yourself the hassle of getting tossed.

[onlooker]

We rate each book as suitable for Professional or Recreational. We state it right on the Recommended List and also mention it their review.

But what happens is arb guys, sharps simply ignore that hoping to grab a bonus and grind their way out. They are easily spotted because they have to bet heavy to make a scalp or middle worth doing.

We don't subtract from a rating based on risk control. What we do is mention it all over the reviews and recommended list so that players who bet sharp numbers for large amounts can choose books like CRIS and Pinnacle and small players can take advantage of the perks offered by Recreational books like 365 and BoDog.

Well said John.

[OldeTymePlaya]

That would be a good explanation of why it's all right to give Bet365 a B rating. But no way should they be A+.

A+ should represent the very best of everything.

A stable book that has good perks and doesn't allow winners, does not deserve to be rated the same as a stable book with good perks that allows winners. It's not equal. There's just no way.

[jay88]

Bet365 have a huge selection of odds.... other A sportsbook don't even get close to them...

[JoshW]

That would be a good explanation of why it's all right to give Bet365 a B rating. But no way should they be A+.

A+ should represent the very best of everything.

A stable book that has good perks and doesn't allow winners, does not deserve to be rated the same as a stable book with good perks that allows winners. It's not equal. There's just no way.

I sort of have to agree with OTP, I think is good post. I think some consideration has to be given to how much they limit sharp action. If they were to reduce limits to couple hundred, I think that is reasonable. If Bodog can take almost all comers with their dual line, and other books with lots of recreational custumers like Bowmans can do the same they should get the A ratings. Books like Nine.com and Bet365 that chase winners and sharp action hard not even taking small bets don't deserve the same rating.

I am biased since I don't like being shut out of shops, but I also see an advantage for all players. You know that even if you are viewed as sharp whether true or not, you still can bet into that book at some level. With Bet365 is way to limiting. JMO Don't expect things to change, but never hurts to discuss.

[SBR_John]

We see this a lot. Guys in these recreational books trying to grab a .02 scalp and grind the bonus rollover. These guys are not sharp at all and they are easily spotted. These are the guys they are cutting down. Allowing this would mean they would have to eliminate their other bonuses. These bonus grinders suck the value out of the lines and the bonuses. I'm fine with a book saying go play at Pinny or CRIS and quit trying to fleece us from our promo money that is meant for real players.

In six years and 10's of thousands of players I have never seen a regular ole $100 to a few hundred dollar player who is playing his own plays get cut down at any book.

[JimmyRad]

So, If someone is playing SSB, Fez, etc are they sucking the value out of the lines?

[Senator7]

I also think that books should be downgraded for cutting limits, giving dual lines, and "not allowing winners." To me, these books aren't player friendly and they don't deserve an A rating. Places like Bodog and Bet365 may be solid books with great payouts and good bonuses, but if they're limiting action to reduce their risk, that's just wrong and it should be reflected in their ratings. Books like CRIS, Olympic, and Pinnacle are true A+ sportsbooks. They'll take any action and payout with a smile. I know that the sole concern of a sportsbook is to make money, but how much do they really need? Places like CRIS, Pinnacle, and Olympic make a ton of money while taking all action, assuming some risk, yet staying player friendly. Places like Bodog and Bet365 are all about making as much money as possible while assuming no risk and stacking the deck against the player. I think SBR should definitely reflect this in their ratings.

Senator 7

[BadAzz]

I do not think bonuses have much anything to do with the limits. I could not care less about bonus offers and I am a long time customer in a shop, if I choose to join one. They limit me primarily because I play their weaker lines, secondarily because I win and make a withdrawal. If it was about bonuses I would happily give away all of those to the real players.

I'd like to see a bit more specific information about this in SBR ratings. A split between Recreational / Not is too general. Many shops are in between.

I do agree, that a book does have a right to choose whose action they are willing to take and it does not necessarily have to affect the grade. I just would like a little more information.

[FreddeSwe]

Bet £3.65 do not cut people because they use bonuses. I have used one single bonus and that was when I signed up for my account. The reason for cutting me is certainly not that.

I can understand that bookies gets annoyed by such people. But when people like myself are allowed to get no winnings at all and neither an explanation of why I am considered a sharp better it is crap and the bookie do not deserve such rating. It is not fair to compare Bet £3.65 with e.g. Unibet and Centrebet who got a much worse rating from you. At e.g. Unibet you are allowed to win a lot of money before they cut you. They also got a wide range of betting possibilities.

So for me it is very difficult to understand how you can downrate these companies to worse grades when they in fact allow people to win money and are so good at so many other things.

I understand your reply but I can't agree with the way you are judging this factor.

[BadAzz]

Fredde, remember that this site is not aimed for us europeans. They have to take into account for example deposit / withdrawal possibilities from US. They are not so much interested in whether the book offers European sports or not.

I agree that Unibet and Centrebet are extremely good books for us, wide range of sports, good limits and they want to take our action. But US bettors value different things.

I would like to know why Expekt is only C- though. They always pay me the same day I request payout and they do offer Neteller. Maybe one of SBR guys could give me a little information?

[FreddeSwe]

Doesn't matter if we are Europeans or not. The interesting issue still is the rating of bookies that only allow big losers to bet for big amounts after a while. I think that it is strange that you get top rating when you got such attitude. I understand that people with a big profit gets limited but when people gets limited because they have bet for a while without losing a lot it is ridiculous.

[FreddeSwe]

I can also admit that I have intentionally avoided to bet on forum bets at a bookie like Bet 365 because of their reputation. Still I get limited with a very small profit.

[freebie]

That would be a good explanation of why it's all right to give Bet365 a B rating. But no way should they be A+.

A+ should represent the very best of everything.

A stable book that has good perks and doesn't allow winners, does not deserve to be rated the same as a stable book with good perks that allows winners. It's not equal. There's just no way.

I strongly agree. A+ books meaning obsolutely excellent in all criteria. But if a book is not so good in everything, Bet365 should not be on the A+ list. They should at least be on somewhere of a B- or a C+ book.

[Mudcat]

I also don't think a book like Bet365 deserves A+. They're just not good enough to get an equal rating to an elite book like Pinnacle that has achieved such excellence.

To me, the argument I'm hearing to justify the equal rating sounds like this:

Bubby Brister belongs in the Hall of Fame beside Joe Montana because Bubby Brister is just as good at being Bubby Brister as Joe Montana is at being Joe Montana.

I don't buy it.

(I don't know, by the way, where this idea that Bet365 has great perks came from. They're full juice and then some, and far from a top book for bonuses.)

[Standa]

Customer protection

I have the same problem, I won in bet365 and they cut my limit 20 times. Same happened with BetAndWin. It’s very easy to be a bookmaker if you keep only losers
They are registered in UK so I am interesting in if the limitation of consumers isn't according some UK or EU laws. My amateur opinion is that all customers should have same conditions (e.g. if I win in a classic lottery, they can’t decrease my maximal limits). It seems to be a discrimination of consumers.
I’m from the Czech Republic and we have state agency for consumer protection. Is any similar agency in UK where we can give suggestion to verify online bookmakers behavior? Or maybe I can contact EU commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection or Equal Opportunities.
If there is more people to contact some agency with same problem, they will engage in it, I hope.

[pags11]

I wonder why smaller books let player have larger limits in the first place...well I know why, because they are hoping that they are whales or stupid players...once they show the propensity to win, they cut limits...just another reason to stick to larger, A rated books...

[magnavox]

I wonder why smaller books let player have larger limits in the first place...well I know why, because they are hoping that they are whales or stupid players...once they show the propensity to win, they cut limits...just another reason to stick to larger, A rated books...

Isn't 365 a large, A rated book?

[BuddyBear]

good thread

[FreddeSwe]

Isn't 365 a large, A rated book?

Exactly the problem. Bet365 is A rated despite their very well known habit to treat winenrs like this.

Point with this thread was to question why SBR allows mainly Bet365 to get such great reputation when they only let losers keep playing for medium amounts because in my case it is not even about big money and I was not even a small winner when they decided to limit me.

[RickySteve]

My total handle at Bet365 since I joined several months ago is over $100,000. During this time I have lost $1000+ and yet they cut my limits on just about everything to $30! I don't arb. Rarely do I take a middle, and even when I do it isn't for any more money than my standard bets. 99% of the time I just make straight up wagers, and I'm not even winning with them overall. What the hell are they looking for?
I can't fathom how this place stays in business as a sportsbook let alone receives such accolades. Yes, their software is great and they do have the best selection in the world. However, their vig is ridiculous, they have no bonuses or promotions except a few measly initial free bets, only one free not-so-speedy withdrawal per month, and they discourage even lifetime losers who play straight up! For idiots that love betting favorites into 10+% house takes with no bonus, then, yes, Bet365 is A+.