ESPN claims sports books will soon crackdown on smart money

[Wohlford]

perhaps strengthen your argument instead of using harsh language toward someone because the point I made is difficult to argue with.

clearly there is an issue with the line he was trying to bet if they felt the need to call Vegas to verify if he was banned or not and surprisingly (not) he was... thank you for your kind words otherwise. take care. and maybe go pro to support the website rather than just sit here and insult the people who do.

Once again, you're a fool because you think betting into a posted line on a big-4 sport is equivalent to lying and defrauding a restaurant. These two things are not equivalent.

The actual equivalent to the hypothetical you proposed--planting a bug in your food to trick a restaurant into a free meal--would be like, for example, if you tried to tamper with your bet ticket to turn a loser into a winner.

Simply betting a posted line is not fraudulent.

The bookmaker is responsible for the lines they post. If something is wrong with the lines, it's incumbent on them to change the line. When a bookmaker puts a line up on their board, that's a solicitation for bets. Until they change that line, it's perfectly acceptable to bet into it.

[shocka1212]

Once again, you're a fool because you think betting into a posted line on a big-4 sport is equivalent to lying and defrauding a restaurant. These two things are not equivalent.

The actual equivalent to the hypothetical you proposed--planting a bug in your food to trick a restaurant into a free meal--would be like, for example, if you tried to tamper with your bet ticket to turn a loser into a winner.

Simply betting a posted line is not fraudulent.

The bookmaker is responsible for the lines they post. If something is wrong with the lines, it's incumbent on them to change the line. When a bookmaker puts a line up on their board, that's a solicitation for bets. Until they change that line, it's perfectly acceptable to bet into it.

show me the law that states this because it is to my understanding they can post whatever line they want, no? same way if week one we see the Cleveland browns -400 we can so choose to bet elsewhere. your argument is pretty weak at best. Saying my analogy is off when you catch the drift that whats being done is fraudulent is just showing how feeble your attempt is here at this point.. I almost feel like you didn't even read the entire article in the OP

[Wohlford]

show me the law that states this because it is to my understanding they can post whatever line they want, no? same way if week one we see the Cleveland browns -400 we can so choose to bet elsewhere. your argument is pretty weak at best. Saying my analogy is off when you catch the drift that whats being done is fraudulent is just showing how feeble your attempt is here at this point.. I almost feel like you didn't even read the entire article in the OP

Now you've just lost the thread. I feel like you read at a 4th grade level. You're not worth talking to. Bye.

[shocka1212]

Now you've just lost the thread. I feel like you read at a 4th grade level. You're not worth talking to. Bye.

I mean, theres really no talking to you because you aren't discussing anything, pointing anything out or making a valid point for that matter.

you're just here insulting with no valid point whatsoever.

[TheMoneyShot]

article making it seem like these guys are saints. kind of odd for someone to be betting 5k on a tennis match (known rig jobs left and right) and then a white sox 1st 5.... seems like the books know which lines are bad and which aren't and when you're only betting bad sharp lines, they give you the boot. really up to the business owner. shouldn't be forced to do business with someone who is trying to take you for a fool.

You also can't trust these hot shot ESPN writers either. When it comes to anything in regards to gambling... they are clueless. It's like... they want to be the attention whore... writer out there... looking for a big gambling story.

Just a cloud of smoke... nothing to see.

I don't believe any of their gambling related stories.

[shocka1212]

You also can't trust these hot shot ESPN writers either. When it comes to anything in regards to gambling... they are clueless. It's like... they want to be the attention whore... writer out there... looking for a big gambling story.

Just a cloud of smoke... nothing to see.

I don't believe any of their gambling related stories.

its all bullshit because they know their audience and target audience is the desperate fantasy football player whose world ends if they lose $100 on a football game so obviously they subconsciously hate the sports book. So you know exactly what they do.... write an anti sports book article to feed addicts a little smack to keep em coming back all while taking money on the back end from the people they're trashing in the articles. same shit they pull with the NFL owners and Goodell. They've got the old honkey season ticket holders so triggered with national anthem bullshit its bizarre.. no bullshit, I went to a giants game last year in the club section ($450 a pop) and everyone around me is talking about how much they can't stand the league anymore meanwhile they're shelling over 1k weekly to go watch it...felt like I was around a bunch of drug addicts.. ESPN knows exactly what they're doing here.

[gojetsgomoxies]

ESPN: vegas sports books banning/cutting back winners

doubt this is news or new to anyone on here or to the vegas scene (i think the article mentions that it's not really new)

anyway, it's ESPN and very long article.

http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/24425026/gambling-bookmakers-growing-us-legal-betting-market-allowed-ban-bettors

apologize if it was already posted. did a cursory check and didn't see anything.

[Optional]

Hill is perhaps aggressive, but they need to protect themselves against
organized and sophisticated staking and arb scalping outfits. You see Imawhale LLC
in that article. As if that's just an innocent bet placed in New Jersey.. not by a mile..
look them up. Articles on them. It's going to be ugly until governments hammer out
the finer details on how to protect both sportsbooks and honest gamblers from
predatory firms that really should be doing other things.

Does Imawhale do syndicate sports betting?

Thought it was just a poker staking place.

[gojetsgomoxies]

i have one basic question....... do vegas casinos now require you to have some sort of loyalty card to sports bet there? i.e. do they actually digitally track your betting?

if you bet $2000 or $5000 per game and bet a ton of games i think everything's fine... but i have a big problem with someone betting $100 in general and then doing $5000 on a bad line....... if people say almost everyone should be able to bet $2k per game (or whatever), they should be doing alot, not selectively.

i think bettors being highly selective as to how much they bet is a big problem.

[jbayko]

You should re-read the article more slowly. Houses have problems that are legitimate.
Sophisticated and managed war has been declared on them by groups who could care less
about sports or a level playing field. Lines can be moved by offshore, borrowed money and
drug money that is written off as an expense.. bankruptcies.. then hammered on the other side.
Computerized algorithms scrape fractions and time-delayed reactions between books, introduce
offshore connecting with American casinos and it's just not what these places are built for.
They are entertainment and hospitality venues who can take customers as they choose. By
forcing them to ward against this, they have to expend additional money which is bad for customers.
If laws are made more specific, they will favor the sportsbooks and the gambler. Real gamblers
and handicappers NEED the house to win and to win inexpensively.

I'm sorry, but they should have to fight that. If the alternative is that I get lumped in with these groups and banned just because I win, then the system is completely broken.

[Wohlford]

i have one basic question....... do vegas casinos now require you to have some sort of loyalty card to sports bet there? i.e. do they actually digitally track your betting?

if you bet $2000 or $5000 per game and bet a ton of games i think everything's fine... but i have a big problem with someone betting $100 in general and then doing $5000 on a bad line....... if people say almost everyone should be able to bet $2k per game (or whatever), they should be doing alot, not selectively.

i think bettors being highly selective as to how much they bet is a big problem.

Why? In Nevada, bookmakers are responsible for every ticket they write, and rightfully so.

Even though rare mistakes sometimes happen, the sportsbooks are highly profitable. If they post a bad line and write a big negative EV ticket, that's a cost of doing business, and a small one at that.

In exchange for permission to make book to the public at all, it's perfectly fair to demand that bookmakers take action from the entire betting public on an equal basis and honor every ticket they write.

[ans61201]

i have one basic question....... do vegas casinos now require you to have some sort of loyalty card to sports bet there? i.e. do they actually digitally track your betting?

if you bet $2000 or $5000 per game and bet a ton of games i think everything's fine... but i have a big problem with someone betting $100 in general and then doing $5000 on a bad line....... if people say almost everyone should be able to bet $2k per game (or whatever), they should be doing alot, not selectively.

i think bettors being highly selective as to how much they bet is a big problem.

If you spread your bets out and don't do too large of a bet you can get by but mostly every book is pushing the cards on you, on the strip MGM is only one who's taken large bets from me without players card etc. even they've become really pushy about it in the last 6 ish months

[KVB]

Yeah, I've been getting asked for my card every time with anyone I don't know, the others know me but still ask.

Not that long ago the players card in the sports book was there, available to run, but pretty much unheard of and never asked about.

Now it is every time.

I never ran mine because there were no benefits, sportsbook offered the least credits.

[ans61201]

Yeah, I've been getting asked for my card every time with anyone I don't know, the others know me but still ask.

Not that long ago the players card in the sports book was there, available to run, but pretty much unheard of and never asked about.

Now it is every time.

I never ran mine because there were no benefits, sportsbook offered the least credits.

MGM will take a couple grand and let you by, will n hill anythjng over 900 they'll require you to have one. But they're all pushing it. Just say no until they say it's required

[Optional]

In exchange for permission to make book to the public at all, it's perfectly fair to demand that bookmakers take action from the entire betting public on an equal basis and honor every ticket they write.

I think many people miss the fact that a bookmaking license is a privilege and not like a regular business who should be able to do anything they like to chase a profit.

They are ostensibly licensed to provide an entertainment/Gambling service that has a built in "guaranteed" profit by design.

They should not be allowed to cherry pick only losing customers to service as that changes the designed profit level. (yet we see big UK books with public profits in the billions)

And on the other side of the coin, bettors who exploit technical deficiencies in the system to improve their odds (steam chasing for example) are also not "honoring" the intent of the license.


Governments don't issue bookmaking licenses with a view to servicing anyone who thinks they are betting as a source of income. It's supposed to be entertainment where bettors pay an entry fee as vig.

Not really saying too much with all that I guess. Apart from that there are 3 major different points of view to regulated books. Govt/Book/Player, and they each have much different angles of interest, which makes for a bit of dogs breakfast in practice.

[KVB]

It seems like the US will at one point offer consumer protection of some kind, but business will likely always have the right to refuse service as long as it isn't based on certain illegal grounds (like race, gender, etc.)

[Optional]

Americans should be talking to your politicians and law makers right now.

If books exploit you it will not be the books fault. It will be the regulators allowing them to.

Setting a standard for player fairness in their operation early will be key, or it will just run away into the player unfriendly regime the UK is suffering under at the moment.

[KVB]

Americans should be talking to your politicians and law makers right now.

If books exploit you it will not be the books fault. It will be the regulators allowing them to.

Setting a standard for player fairness in their operation early will be key, or it will just run away into the player unfriendly regime the UK is suffering under at the moment.

This is one reason why I think things will move a little more after the midterm elections in November. I don't think too many want to tackle it until then. First it's legalization, then the rest will come into play for sure.

[yisman]

"It is completely false to say that we ban people simply for winning," William Hill U.S. told ESPN in a statement. "There are literally tens of thousands of customers in Nevada that are winners at William Hill. That's one of the great things about sports betting -- a lot of customers do win.

"In the rare situation where we do prohibit someone from wagering with us, there are a variety of reasons why. They include the sharing of accounts (usually tied to someone who previously has been banned), betting on behalf of third parties, screen scraping and other efforts to 'game' the system, as well as compliance reasons or being offensive to staff and/or other customers.

"If someone tells you that the reason that they are prohibited from wagering with William Hill is because they are winning, they are not telling you the whole story."

The company declined to answer further questions on the record and did not respond to follow-up requests to clarify the meaning of "screen scraping." Several bettors said they weren't certain what "screen scraping" entails.

William Hill lying.

[jbayko]

Americans should be talking to your politicians and law makers right now.

If books exploit you it will not be the books fault. It will be the regulators allowing them to.

Setting a standard for player fairness in their operation early will be key, or it will just run away into the player unfriendly regime the UK is suffering under at the moment.

We should be talking to our politicians, but I think we know how this will shake out. The corporations with lobbying money will shape the policy.

[KVB]

We should be talking to our politicians, but I think we know how this will shake out. The corporations with lobbying money will shape the policy.

Things will move in more states when election season passes.

[Barrakuda]

allabouthemney your lucky I will not be at bash

I would fuk you up

No such thing as a good gambler, there are good numbers guys that win with little risk

Of all the sad things to befall SBR, the degradation of the jjgold handle might the saddest. I'm fairly sure the current jj-bot is just a haiku generator written in Fortran.

[Barrakuda]

Americans should be talking to your politicians and law makers right now.

If books exploit you it will not be the books fault. It will be the regulators allowing them to.

Setting a standard for player fairness in their operation early will be key, or it will just run away into the player unfriendly regime the UK is suffering under at the moment.

Why would the govt. want to be player-friendly? They want to increase taxable corporate profits. If a dollar does to a player, it's a loss for the book (tax credit), and maybe a 25% chance of being reported by the player as ordinary income. If that dollar goes to the book instead, it's taxed as income, plus 10%-30% special tax -- with 100% compliance. No politician is going to come out and say this, so there is no way voters can know who to vote for if they want player friendly regulation.

[KVB]

There are consumer protection lobbyist and lawyers and they will inject themselves when it's time for regulation. Regulation involves consumer protection and it will eventually enter the picture once enough states enact legislation.

Complaints will get heard but the gov't could say tough shit. In our liberal world, they probably won't say that.

What we are seeing now is not what we will see a few years from now, I don't think so anyway. I guess it depends on growth and whether they allow for growth, like getting rid of those high tax barriers to entry in states like PA.

[ikid2groove415]

This is old news - common sense if you own a book? Would you keep letting someone steal your money ? -_- zZz Nobody is in business 2 lose money - No different then going into a restaurant- they don’t have 2 serve your ass?? Books don’t have 2 take your business if it doesn’t profit them- case closed !!! Laughable about cracking down lol - this have been going on for 40-50 -60 years at casinos

[yisman]

The ridiculous part is William hill blatantly lying about so they can pretend they welcome action.

[dealer wins]

Most books cant stand smart action, because they dont monitor and change their lines quickly enough.

Their fav customers are gamblers, the more degenerate the better. They may make all these noises like "when the fun stops, stop", but thats exactly the sort of player they want, chasers and wild gamblers.

Its all BS this "responsible gambling" stuff they spout!!

[lonnie55]

Most books cant stand smart action, because they dont monitor and change their lines quickly enough.

Their fav customers are gamblers, the more degenerate the better. They may make all these noises like "when the fun stops, stop", but thats exactly the sort of player they want, chasers and wild gamblers.

Its all BS this "responsible gambling" stuff they spout!!

True. But who can blame them? Everyone wants to maximize his profit. It's part of the business. And it's a dirty business.

Sharps should be thankful for the gamblers because they are the ones who actually pay them.

[jbayko]

Things will move in more states when election season passes.

I’m not talking about legalizing betting. The subject is preventing books from refusing winners.

[StackinGreen]

My take on all of these has been the philosophical question of where does the bet start and where does it end? I say that because it is known that, as evidenced of all the questions in this thread, no one really knows. I also think this is the argument that Wohlford and I share. Namely that if you allow a book to renege on a bet because of a bad line, where does that "bad line" begin and end? What's "bad"? .20? .40? .80 cents? Who decides? And based on what?

This happens with baseball pitchers as well, and I've always thought it is BS. What's the point of "Action" (No listed pitchers) if it doesn't really mean ACTION? Just so the books can have that edge, and you can't take advantage of a guy maybe not going that day, which would be your risk or your knowledge? I've done that and they should honor my bet, not make a new ML out of thin air that I also MUST agree with. Action means THESE GUYS DON'T HAVE TO START for the bet to have action. Right? LOL.

The very point of sports betting is to use your knowledge to beat a line, already acknowledging the 10% vig edge and issues that books might have due to their taking both sides of a bet theoretically. So now 10% is not enough or you are too lazy/not good enough to keep your lines 10% sharp for profit? Give me a break. Then limit max bets. You can't have it both ways. So either decrease vig as a compromise and then ban players, or sack up and pay the lines you post.

The more I think about it, limiting max bets is the only kosher way to deal with this issue, in terms of fairness. And that's a legitimate sportsbook tactic, already known and employed. I think Wohlford would agree with that as well. Would it "limit business" though? Yes.

[KVB]

I’m not talking about legalizing betting. The subject is preventing books from refusing winners.

The subject is about consumer protection about what you are saying.

That won't happen until the legalization wave grows and states start feeling the heat.

It will take place one step at a time.

First, more states need to be involved. Like I and others have said, the landscape will looking nothing like it does today.

[packerd_00]

I think many people miss the fact that a bookmaking license is a privilege and not like a regular business who should be able to do anything they like to chase a profit.

They are ostensibly licensed to provide an entertainment/Gambling service that has a built in "guaranteed" profit by design.

They should not be allowed to cherry pick only losing customers to service as that changes the designed profit level. (yet we see big UK books with public profits in the billions)

And on the other side of the coin, bettors who exploit technical deficiencies in the system to improve their odds (steam chasing for example) are also not "honoring" the intent of the license.


Governments don't issue bookmaking licenses with a view to servicing anyone who thinks they are betting as a source of income. It's supposed to be entertainment where bettors pay an entry fee as vig.

Not really saying too much with all that I guess. Apart from that there are 3 major different points of view to regulated books. Govt/Book/Player, and they each have much different angles of interest, which makes for a bit of dogs breakfast in practice.

Well said mate,William Hill is on the London Stock Exchange,250 quid a share.Their making way to much money off the backs of us poor f@ckers.

[KVB]

Right, if they don't like the winners, then shade the line, send them away.

Oh, but you can't, because it's "efficient."

Bet limits should be risk management enough and they can apply that to openers. Hard to believe there isn't enough handle to offset limited players.

That's a gauge of it's popularity, is there enough to absorb the big action?

Apparently it's not popular enough...lol.

Just limit them.

[dlowilly]

If you shop the lines at a dozen books and only bet ML dogs you will profit over the long run but you will go insane also

[Wohlford]

My take on all of these has been the philosophical question of where does the bet start and where does it end? I say that because it is known that, as evidenced of all the questions in this thread, no one really knows. I also think this is the argument that Wohlford and I share. Namely that if you allow a book to renege on a bet because of a bad line, where does that "bad line" begin and end? What's "bad"? .20? .40? .80 cents? Who decides? And based on what?

This happens with baseball pitchers as well, and I've always thought it is BS. What's the point of "Action" (No listed pitchers) if it doesn't really mean ACTION? Just so the books can have that edge, and you can't take advantage of a guy maybe not going that day, which would be your risk or your knowledge? I've done that and they should honor my bet, not make a new ML out of thin air that I also MUST agree with. Action means THESE GUYS DON'T HAVE TO START for the bet to have action. Right? LOL.

The very point of sports betting is to use your knowledge to beat a line, already acknowledging the 10% vig edge and issues that books might have due to their taking both sides of a bet theoretically. So now 10% is not enough or you are too lazy/not good enough to keep your lines 10% sharp for profit? Give me a break. Then limit max bets. You can't have it both ways. So either decrease vig as a compromise and then ban players, or sack up and pay the lines you post.

The more I think about it, limiting max bets is the only kosher way to deal with this issue, in terms of fairness. And that's a legitimate sportsbook tactic, already known and employed. I think Wohlford would agree with that as well. Would it "limit business" though? Yes.

I agree, but I don't think licensed bookmakers should be allowed to make limits absurdly low, like $100 per ticket or anything. If bookmakers try that, then regulators should impose a minimum.

I totally agree that the pitcher/action convention in MLB betting is absurd the way it's currently done, which is why I always bet the MUST START option.

BTW, the theoretical hold on a -110 / -110 line is 4.54%. Example: book takes two opposing $11 bets (takes in $22), then pays out $21 to the winner and keeps $1 as vig. 1/22 = 4.54%.

Of course, that leaves PLENTY of room for bookmakers to turn a tidy profit, especially in the era of mobile sports betting apps when books can take many times more handle than they did before with a fraction of the ticketwriters and cashiers.

I laugh at the sad saps taking sides with bookmakers in this thread.