Ladbrokes limited me today A+ book lool

[in play, run(s)]

I really don't get the point of all these "I've been limited at book XY, what a joke" kind of threads. If you want to win, that is, you're a professional player, you have to play at books who accept professional action, simple as that. Bookmakers intended for recreational players have always limited and will always limit winning customers, because they use a different business model, they do not adjust lines quick enough and they'd lose tons of money if they accepted large stakes on any line.

While this is not very nice, it does not justify a down grade in ratings, ratings should reflect safety of funds, customer service, and so on, and NOT the betting limits. Who's to decide what's high limits anyway? For one person, getting limited to $5 is ridiculous, while some others don't even bother to sign up if the max bet is below $1000.

[subs]

books that only take money and do not pay money should not be A books.

an A book should stand by its lines and not toss people for simply playing what is offered. if u r a pro betting like dozens of games everyday then sure u a pro but to toss some1 after 2losing bets cos i took 100 on a well line shopped game is bullshit. how can that be A grade?

they shade their lines (sort of cheating) and then call u a cheat for playing the advertised lines... i'd call that disgusting customer relations and should get them downgraded. my time is important to me, why waste my money on fees and withdrawals and shit just to toss me after 2 losing bets!

A grade books should never do that...

[Hareeba!]

I really don't get the point of all these "I've been limited at book XY, what a joke" kind of threads. If you want to win, that is, you're a professional player, you have to play at books who accept professional action, simple as that. Bookmakers intended for recreational players have always limited and will always limit winning customers, because they use a different business model, they do not adjust lines quick enough and they'd lose tons of money if they accepted large stakes on any line.

While this is not very nice, it does not justify a down grade in ratings, ratings should reflect safety of funds, customer service, and so on, and NOT the betting limits. Who's to decide what's high limits anyway? For one person, getting limited to $5 is ridiculous, while some others don't even bother to sign up if the max bet is below $1000.

Yeah, that's the way it is but it's not normally until you get limited that you learn all this. A player opening an account at a very well known and advertised book is entitled to think that he can make decent sized wagers.

I know of a couple of books which go running to the media every time there's a major event on to claim they've laid a bet of $1M or something. What are the general public expected to think? Are they not entitled to complain when they can't get set for $200 ?

I've had a gutful of these miserable so-called bookies advertising incessantly with how great they are and declining half my bets and limiting the other half to a fraction of what I asked for.

[hemstock]

books that only take money and do not pay money should not be A books.

Plain and simple. "Recreational player" is just a polite term for a losing player

[flyingillini]

You should use Betfair/Pinnacle/Asian Books

Agreed. I use Heritage for all my bets but Sbobet and betfair for my Soccer that Heritage doesn't offer.

[subs]

Plain and simple. "Recreational player" is just a polite term for a losing player

so books that only take losing players should not be A grade books, plain and simple. its a disgusting way to treat ur customers.