Hi,
I was wondering if somebody could please explain to me the difference between gamblers that bet "Post-Up" and gamblers that bet thourgh an "Agent".
It is my understanding that "post-up" means you give money to the sportsbook, they hold it for you, and whatever your balance is that is the maximum you are allowed to wager.
Betting through an "agent" means that the gambler never gives money to the sportsbook directly but rather to an intermediary. Then, if the player wins the agent pays the player, but if he loses the agent sends the funds lost by the player to the sportsbook. In exchange for being a middleman the "agent" gets a small cut of the profits.
I can definitely see how this would be an advantage to the player, since he doesn't have to go through the hassle of transferring large sums of money to the sportsbook, or having large sums of money transferred to him.
What I don't understand is how the reward outweighs the risk for the sportsbook. Having players bet through an agent allows them to cater to extremely large bettors, but what happens if the bettor never pays the agent if he loses, or the agent does not transmit the losing player's funds and instead keeps it for himself? Also, it seems like this is a major risk from the sportsbook because it could break laws of the country where the agent is located, if gambling is not legal in that country.
Which books deals most in "credit" vs "post-up".
And should I be concerned that as a post-up player my funds may be at risk if I choose to play at a book that has a large "credit" customer base?
Thanks.
I was wondering if somebody could please explain to me the difference between gamblers that bet "Post-Up" and gamblers that bet thourgh an "Agent".
It is my understanding that "post-up" means you give money to the sportsbook, they hold it for you, and whatever your balance is that is the maximum you are allowed to wager.
Betting through an "agent" means that the gambler never gives money to the sportsbook directly but rather to an intermediary. Then, if the player wins the agent pays the player, but if he loses the agent sends the funds lost by the player to the sportsbook. In exchange for being a middleman the "agent" gets a small cut of the profits.
I can definitely see how this would be an advantage to the player, since he doesn't have to go through the hassle of transferring large sums of money to the sportsbook, or having large sums of money transferred to him.
What I don't understand is how the reward outweighs the risk for the sportsbook. Having players bet through an agent allows them to cater to extremely large bettors, but what happens if the bettor never pays the agent if he loses, or the agent does not transmit the losing player's funds and instead keeps it for himself? Also, it seems like this is a major risk from the sportsbook because it could break laws of the country where the agent is located, if gambling is not legal in that country.
Which books deals most in "credit" vs "post-up".
And should I be concerned that as a post-up player my funds may be at risk if I choose to play at a book that has a large "credit" customer base?
Thanks.