[danshan11]

I get down way over 5k a game when I need to, I never have an issue betting what I need, now if you were to bet maybe over 100K you might have issues never been there dont know

[The General]

This is a good conversation to read guys. Thanks. I firmly know that a long time ago, operators should have started an alliance to police themselves and to protect the online sports betting industry. It would have taken concern for the integrity of their principals. More concern for integrity than superior financial success. But that didn't happen and as a result, the reputation is what it is. The pioneers failed the industry. That happens often though. It is not unique to the sports betting industry.

[semibluff]

It was amusing to read the Hills spokesperson desperately avoiding the question. All the big UK books are extremely proactive in analysing their customers - at all levels. It isn't just the big stakes customers who get limited or booted. As a shop manager I was told to analyse existing customers who were most likely to be winning, or at least not losing. Even people betting in tens of dollars were limited.

[Vyasports]

the funny thing about this thread is some of you are defending books as if you were paid to do so...

[ping-pong-pop]

It was amusing to read the Hills spokesperson desperately avoiding the question. All the big UK books are extremely proactive in analysing their customers - at all levels. It isn't just the big stakes customers who get limited or booted. As a shop manager I was told to analyse existing customers who were most likely to be winning, or at least not losing. Even people betting in tens of dollars were limited.

Yeah, UK background here, have been limited in shops and online, occasionally had accounts closed down, but why close an account when you can limit it to pennies? I don't wan to tell anyone else what they are seeing/experiencing, but the reason I set up accounts in wife/brother/mother/friends/dog's names is not because it was fun. Know enough other full-time pros and people working on trading desks in UK to say that this happens all the time. Sportsbooks need to manage risk, and the easiest way to manage the biggest risk (i.e. customers who are better at pricing up than them) is to limit these customers as soon as they get sniff of who they are.

[bettingman6]

5dimes is infamous for banning winners. Or just people they're afraid might be winners. (Although plenty of them might have been long time losers if they had been allowed to bet for longer.)

William Hill is even worse for banning people than 5dimes is. Seriously William Hill might ban somebody who's gone 80-80 at the book just because they went 4-0 yesterday.

[semibluff]

Yeah, UK background here, have been limited in shops and online, occasionally had accounts closed down, but why close an account when you can limit it to pennies? I don't wan to tell anyone else what they are seeing/experiencing, but the reason I set up accounts in wife/brother/mother/friends/dog's names is not because it was fun. Know enough other full-time pros and people working on trading desks in UK to say that this happens all the time. Sportsbooks need to manage risk, and the easiest way to manage the biggest risk (i.e. customers who are better at pricing up than them) is to limit these customers as soon as they get sniff of who they are.

Banning people was almost always ineffective. Limiting, or better still restricting customers to starting price. (closing price for Americans), was almost always a better way to go and less damaging to the books reputation. Surprisingly sharp players didn't seem to put much thought behind trying to make it difficult for books to identify them as sharp players.

[KiDBaZkiT]

I did not say or even remotely suggest that you were lying about anything. You replied saying you did not know what I meant, and I just explained for you what I was talking about. Where are you coming up with this being called a liar BS?

That part where you said that only 5% of the people who say they got limited were legit. A stat you conveniently made up.

Hman and optional you both need to read if you are going to be a forum moderator. First hman i read post 4, nothing there. Yes post 7 i said "I call bs" right to the source. I didn't talk about how foolish a person must be to make up stats to support a point.I said the words "Indirect" "Passive aggressive" to describe Optional's dialogue which it was EXACTLY that. Anybody with half a fukking brain can read what I wrote and read him afterward say that only 5% of those claims are real. You indirectly said there was a 5% chance I was telling the truth, end of story. It is all here if I was in a court of law would have both of you for lunch.


Optional and HMAN you guys can take any points I accumulate from here in out to try to get some treatment for your low T. Your giving the rest of us a bad name.

[pavyracer]

They don't ban winners. Why would they ban someone who knows what they are doing?

[dealer wins]

Every single UK book bans anyone with half a clue. They only want mugs, degenerates and addicts. True fact!

[KVB]

...Surprisingly sharp players didn't seem to put much thought behind trying to make it difficult for books to identify them as sharp players.

If you only knew the pains we take to spread out and stay unnoticed.

Plenty of thought and execution has gone into it for years.

I remember the misguided attempts to "throw the book a bone" with parlays and purposefully poor trades...

That was a long, long time ago.

[acquavallo]

Cantor just did its first deal in NJ.
Westgate Superbook is getting into the game.

And, whenever the industry gets around to it, fully legalized public Pool Commingling and/or private Layoff Agreements may save us bettors.

[bettingman6]

Banning people was almost always ineffective. Limiting, or better still restricting customers to starting price. (closing price for Americans), was almost always a better way to go and less damaging to the books reputation. Surprisingly sharp players didn't seem to put much thought behind trying to make it difficult for books to identify them as sharp players.

What are you supposed to do to disguise being sharp? Purposely make some -EV bets?

[ping-pong-pop]

If you only knew the pains we take to spread out and stay unnoticed.
Plenty of thought and execution has gone into it for years.
I remember the misguided attempts to "throw the book a bone" with parlays and purposefully poor trades...
That was a long, long time ago.

Yup. Also getting your clueless mates to have their bets with you. Over the past 10 years books cdnt give a sh1t, limit (to 2 USD bets, kid you not) anything with a sniff off having a clue and focus on squeezing the life out of the mugs. Anyone who thinks the US will be substantially different is kidding themselves.

Cos the bottom line is this - if the smart players din't get severely limited/banned, all sportsbooks would go bust in a matter of months. As I think someone else said earlier on this thread, banning/limiting winners is just a necessary part of this industry as it currently functions.

[moses millsap]

Books should only be banning those who consistently beat the closing line.

But some are run by morons who are results oriented.

[Romocide]

I won a 92 team parlay and won 52 million off a 1 dollar bet. Never paid out. Makes me sick.

[bettingman6]

Yup. Also getting your clueless mates to have their bets with you. Over the past 10 years books cdnt give a sh1t, limit (to 2 USD bets, kid you not) anything with a sniff off having a clue and focus on squeezing the life out of the mugs. Anyone who thinks the US will be substantially different is kidding themselves.

Cos the bottom line is this - if the smart players din't get severely limited/banned, all sportsbooks would go bust in a matter of months. As I think someone else said earlier on this thread, banning/limiting winners is just a necessary part of this industry as it currently functions.

There are hardly enough sharp bettors to bankrupt a sportsbook, or even put a serious dent in its profits.

[bettingman6]

I won a 92 team parlay and won 52 million off a 1 dollar bet. Never paid out. Makes me sick.

$52 million would be a bargain price for a 92 team parlay. It would even be a bargain for a 27 team parlay, which has a 1 in 128 million chance of winning.

[ping-pong-pop]

There are hardly enough sharp bettors to bankrupt a sportsbook, or even put a serious dent in its profits.

Technically it only needs one. But there are thousands.

[bettingman6]

Technically it only needs one. But there are thousands.

If they set reasonable maximums (say maximum win of $100,000 per bet), that’s not true.

About 3% of people are able to hit 52.38% over the long run. Probably less than 0.1% of bettors can hit 55%, which is the minimum to seriously make a living off sports betting.

[ping-pong-pop]

if they set maximum win of 100,000 per bet it would take longer, yes.
anyway, it's all fantasy. but fun to dream about once in a while

[rm18]

I think I lost over 600k the last 7 years I still got banned or limited at Will Hill, Atlantis Reno, Westgate, SIA, Heritage, and BetUSA while I was getting crushed.

[lonnie55]

In my opinion, it is unjustifiable that a bookmaker rolls out the red carpet to problem gamblers whilst sharps getting banned at the earliest possible opportunity. This is cream-skimming. Sportsbooks, even non-offshore ones, refer to the freedom of contract. I firmly believe that gambling must be seen as a separate sector for which ordinary business principles are not one-to-one applicable. For example, if a pub owner kicks out a customer, only the the pub owner will suffer economic damage. It's his good right to make business with whoever he wants to. This legal logic does not work in the gambling sector in my opinion. Gambling is not a industry where a value added is created. There will never be a win-win situation, but only a win-lose or a lose-win situation, so either the customer wins and the bookmaker loses or the customer loses and the bookmaker wins. It's only a movement of money. Too laxly regulated gambling has the result that the bookmaker can virtually define his own profit. He is given the freedom to eliminate all risk factors (=sharps), while he can squeeze the profitable factors (=problem gamblers) down to the last cent. Business economists call it profit maximization. Profit maximization in the special case of gambling means a discrimination against a certain group of customers.

The example of bet365 where the CEO pays herself a $300M paycheck shows that cream-skimming leads to exploding profits at the sportsbooks. By giving sportsbooks the power to exclude sharps from the legal betting offer the legislator consequently pushes the sharps back into the illegal gambling market. In order to ensure equal treatment of all the players we need both a loss limit for problem gamblers but also a minimum bet rule for sharps (obligation to contract).

[bettingman6]

if they set maximum win of 100,000 per bet it would take longer, yes.
anyway, it's all fantasy. but fun to dream about once in a while

Of course a book has to set limits. If a book doesn’t set limits, then one bet could bankrupt the book- and it doesn’t have to be a bet from a good bettor. It could just be Bill Gates placing a $50 billion bet. Even if Gates is a square bettor (which he probably is), there would still be a 50% chance of Gates winning and bankrupting the sportsbook.

Books should set the same limits for everybody, regardless of betting skill. If I ran a book, it would be a maximum winning of about $20,000 per bet. If the book is part of a really big and profitable casino, maybe I’d allow winnings of up to $50,000 per bet. I know I said $100,000 before, but on further reflection that seems too high.

[HedgeHog]

98% that get banned at books usa or offshore or UK are SCALPERS and or bonus scammers with multi accounts

They are not sharps 8th grade math skills

Spoken like someone with a 6th grade education. I get your jealousy Jethro.

[semibluff]

What are you supposed to do to disguise being sharp? Purposely make some -EV bets?

No, but your account is going to be scrutinised by a human being rather than a machine and human beings can be manipulated. If you can break even on a major sport rather than just making money on a minor market or props then doing so masks your skills. Getting rid of the customer who only bets minor markets and props and turns a profit is easy. If a customer is betting a major sport and isn't winning on that sport they're more likely to be given leeway when it comes to limits or a ban. If that customer wins $800 rather than $1000 at a time it's psychologically less damaging to the person looking at the figures. If someone makes small bets on +1000 outsiders and breaks even the 90% bet loss percentage is still going to influence the person making an account decision towards delaying a decision. Basically try not to look like a pro that's betting to a system. Eventually you're still going to be limited, restricted. or booted if you're sharp. The game is to milk it as long as you can.

[semibluff]

If you only knew the pains we take to spread out and stay unnoticed.

Plenty of thought and execution has gone into it for years.

I remember the misguided attempts to "throw the book a bone" with parlays and purposefully poor trades...

That was a long, long time ago.

I do. 35 years ago in my 1st job as a Sportsbook dogsbody I was 1 of those who had to look at accounts and crunch numbers. I doubt I would have caught you back then as I always had too much to do and too little time to do it in. Win enough or for long enough and someone higher up the chain will review you and make a decision. I was there to spot the obvious issues quickly. That's kind of the point. You're going to be found out. The trick is to delay it as long as you can.

[semibluff]

In my opinion, it is unjustifiable that a bookmaker rolls out the red carpet to problem gamblers whilst sharps getting banned at the earliest possible opportunity. This is cream-skimming. Sportsbooks, even non-offshore ones, refer to the freedom of contract. I firmly believe that gambling must be seen as a separate sector for which ordinary business principles are not one-to-one applicable. For example, if a pub owner kicks out a customer, only the the pub owner will suffer economic damage. It's his good right to make business with whoever he wants to. This legal logic does not work in the gambling sector in my opinion. Gambling is not a industry where a value added is created. There will never be a win-win situation, but only a win-lose or a lose-win situation, so either the customer wins and the bookmaker loses or the customer loses and the bookmaker wins. It's only a movement of money. Too laxly regulated gambling has the result that the bookmaker can virtually define his own profit. He is given the freedom to eliminate all risk factors (=sharps), while he can squeeze the profitable factors (=problem gamblers) down to the last cent. Business economists call it profit maximization. Profit maximization in the special case of gambling means a discrimination against a certain group of customers.

The example of bet365 where the CEO pays herself a $300M paycheck shows that cream-skimming leads to exploding profits at the sportsbooks. By giving sportsbooks the power to exclude sharps from the legal betting offer the legislator consequently pushes the sharps back into the illegal gambling market. In order to ensure equal treatment of all the players we need both a loss limit for problem gamblers but also a minimum bet rule for sharps (obligation to contract).

Hard to see America adopting a position that everyone has a right to bet, especially against a World-wide marketplace where the lowest level of law and order is the first port of call for Sportsbooks in need of a legislative home.

[Gaze73]

There are hardly enough sharp bettors to bankrupt a sportsbook, or even put a serious dent in its profits.

Sharps definitely put a dent in the profits, even the rep said that if he can run the business at 4% profit margin instead of 1% he'll choose the former. I think the best solution would be to make it illegal to ban legit customers and curb the stake restrictions to an acceptable level, possibly based on the book's yearly turnover. With such legislation the 4% profit margin would drop to 3% which is still hundreds of millions of dollars and the sharps could still make decent bets (e.g. $1K instead of 10 bucks on a major game before kickoff). Anyway I don't really care since I'm on Pinnacle, but occasionally there are super soft lines elsewhere (e.g. +300 on a soccer draw which pinny has at +255) so I wish I could make a bet at the soft book (usually B365).

[danshan11]

why should a book be forced to take bets. I dont think that makes sense. they are in business to make money and if dealing with a certain person lowers that profit, get rid of that person. Amazon will boot your ass if you have too many returns because they dont make an acceptable number from that customer. Books can do business with whoever they want.

[FrankJames]

This forum and the word sharp don't go together at all. So asking your question here is pointless.

[The General]

Frank, you are out of your league here son. Mouth shut ears open. Know your role.

[Hman]

Frank, you are out of your league here son. Mouth shut ears open. Know your role.

[FrankJames]

Frank, you are out of your league here son. Mouth shut ears open. Know your role.

I've bet for over 26 years.. .with many more good years than bad. My wagering knowledge would tie you up so tight you'd be chasing your own tail for years to come. When it comes to wagering on sports, I've seen and done it all. I haven't been the punk forum acne filled know it all kid that describes 70% of this forum, in over 20 years.

[Optional]

why should a book be forced to take bets. I dont think that makes sense. they are in business to make money and if dealing with a certain person lowers that profit, get rid of that person. Amazon will boot your ass if you have too many returns because they dont make an acceptable number from that customer. Books can do business with whoever they want.

A bookmaker license is not like a regular business. It's a govt issued permit to provide a gambling as entertainment service to the public.

It should not be compared to a regular business license. BOTH parties are supposed to be just gambling.

Not a money making or investment opportunity for players, or for the book to exploit the situation to maximize profit.

They should offer same odds and same limits to all comers.


But reality of that is that bettors would be screaming louder than now about how everyone's limit was tiny if they actually worked that way.