Is booting "just for winning" fair or not?

[bigboydan]

After reading 20Four7's experiences he had with SIA recently. I was wondering how you guys felt on this subject.

Should books like SportsInteraction be allowed to cut a players limits that beat them fair and square without cheating them in anyway at all? I mean after all, SIA does pray/fleece squares all the time.

My opinion is if books offers games for which skill can offset and be beaten fairly, they should be allowed to continue to play there without having their limits cut.

[durito]

Sportsbook are in business to make money, they can do whatever they want.

[SBR Lou]

They can do whatever they like, so long as they pay him. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, now screwing with a payout is a different story.

[Stumpage]

I've been shown the door by a few books, but I just figure it's a business decision on their part and so be it. At the very least though, you hope a book will let you stick around a while at least before going into fullblown panic mode (ie: Bet365).

[VegasDave]

I think this is actually a really stupid move on their part. Assuming 20four7 is being honest (no reason at all to believe he isn't), he said his run of late with them was 37 - 12. Thats over 75% winners. Do they honestly believe he can keep that up?? 50 games is not a big enough sample size to panic. Even if 2four7 is an excellent handicapper, you have to assume he will end up in the 55 - 60% range, meaning that he has a losing streak coming. Cutting ties with him now while he is way ahead is a stupid business move.

[20Four7]

Is it fair BBD, no I don't think it's fair. I understand it completely but then again not much in life is fair. I held an account at bowmans for over a year before they cut me down. SIA I've had an account for less than 2 months. With the exception of totals I never maxed bet anything. Totals I maxed out since it was a $440 limit there.

Yesterday I was 1 win 2 loses and then they cut me. I think it had more to do with the withdrawal than anything. I did leave almost 5K in the account to keep playing with so it wasn't like I did a hit and run.

[Cee]

I think it's a load of crap how that system works. If u lose , you can bet large.. Once you start to win then u could bet 50 cents a game. I guess that's why books don't go out of business often.

[twtb19]

As long as they pay I don't think I would have a problem with it, but I bet pretty small so I doubt it will happen to me even if I catch a hot streak.

[aszzzbrokerman]

I have no problem with that policy as long as they pay. Ever heard of losing on purpose every once in a while???? Might take you a long way with some of these books.

Maybe you lose 1000 at SIA but cover it with a 2k bet over at WSEX. Then you are beating them at their own game. Sometimes you gotta beat em at their own game.

[betplom]

losing on purpose

I think thats what I'm going to call it from now on.

[aszzzbrokerman]

Clarifying....if you have the ability to go 34-8 like the 20four7 then you should have the ability to lose on purpose. The rest of us mortals can spin it that way if we find someone dumb enough to listen to us.

[20Four7]

Lose on purpose..... wow. It can be hard enough to win where you try to win. It was a good run over the last week or so. During that time I did hit a few nice dog ML. But during January when at one point I had every penny in my account at risk and you say I need to lose on purpose? That makes me laugh.