Rollover conditions for bonuses

[Mudcat]

I think the books are getting carried away sometimes.

It used to be (or so it seems to me) that almost all books just counted the RISK amount of your bets to calculate your rollover.

A very common bonus scalping strategy under those conditions is to bet big moneyline favorites. Books want to discourage scalping and also get more bets out of players - so it started to become increasingly common to use the BASE amount of your bets (lesser of RISK and WIN).

Seems reasonable enough to me. I think I would do that if I ran a sportsbook.

But then some books started to say that bets on lop-sided favorites over a certain amount (-200 is a number I've seen more than once) don't count at all.

This is where I start to scratch my head. One thing practically every gambler and bookmaker knows is, the most surefire way for a player to lose (and the book to win) in the long-term is to play the heavy chalk. But books are discouraging those bets?



An now for the extreme example, from the Betmaker rollover conditions:

Lines below -130 do not apply.

Look, these books can do whatever they want. If they're spelling it out in there T & C's then everyone is free to decide for themselves.

But -130????

[onlooker]

That is a bit extreme. -130

My limit is basically -135/-140 on favorites (I hate doing them, and its rare that I do). I havent yet bet a favorite in Baseball this season, the closest to that was +100.

-130. Thats just pushing the limits IMHO.

[isetcap]

Betmaker concerns me deeply.

[Ganchrow]

A very common bonus scalping strategy under those conditions is to bet big moneyline favorites. Books want to discourage scalping and also get more bets out of players - so it started to become increasingly common to use the BASE amount of your bets (lesser of RISK and WIN).

Seems reasonable enough to me. I think I would do that if I ran a sportsbook.

But then some books started to say that bets on lop-sided favorites over a certain amount (-200 is a number I've seen more than once) don't count at all.

This is especially ridiculous because using risk amounts to calculate roll and given a theoretical hold, the bigger the favorite, the worse the bonus scalper can expect to do. A bonus scalper would do a lot better taking big dogs than big favorites.

To use an extreme example, given a 50% bonus, a 100x roll calculated off the risk amount, and 4.545% theoretical hold (sportsbook edge), then placing maximum theoretical bets a bettor playing at:

• -999 would expect to lose 53.413% of his deposit
• -300 would expect to lose 15.193% of his deposit
• +300 would expect to make 24.199% of his deposit
• +999 would expect to make 32.147% of his deposit

(Of course if you were to place minimum bets then it wouldn't matter what line you chose.)

[natrass]

Not if you arb out ganch though.

[Ganchrow]

Not if you arb out ganch though.

Very true. I definitely shouldn't have used the term "bonus scalper" in my post.

Mea cupla.

[Ganchrow]

Mea cupla.

"Culpa" even.

[tacomax]

Blimey.

Natrass gets one over on Ganchrow. And then Ganchrow gets one over himself. The world is going mad.

[natrass]

"Culpa" even.

Yes, you got that in just before I was to pounce again. Its a beautiful island, isnt it?

I dont think I got "one over" ganch for the record ... just, by some fluke, I cunningly spotted an exception to the rule.

Or something. I feel a bit dizzy now.

[pags11]

I've noticed that a lot of books are going to the smaller ammount bet as well $110/$100, they are counting $100 towards the rollover...my opinion is that you are risking the $110 and therefore it should count towards your rollover...just another way books are trying to get you to do something stupid with your balance...as far as the ML thing goes, I think anything over -200 is fair not to count...

[aggie]

pags is right. by not counting the risk amount they basically increase rollover. mischievous, i'd say...

the risk amount should be counted and i could live with the -200 mark.

[slacker00]

Yet another reason that these bonuses just aren't worth it anymore.

[marc]

That betmaker rule is scary. What if you are a normal srecreational player who just wnats to bet baseball. If he plays at baseball, and just bets the chalk, almost none of his wagers will count.

If i was a sports book I would much rather have someone betting on a huge fav than a huge dog. Especially if I was a small book. Last thing I need is some guy wingin 10-20k while trying to sclap out a bonus.

[pags11]

agreed slackers...rollover ammounts (and the shenanigans that go with them) just suck...