Wagering Requirement Used to Hold Money Hostage?!?

**richsox24** · 11-05-12, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Thremp

Folks, I wanted to open a discussion on what level of limiting was okay. Lets take a scenario.

Play deposit $100 and receives $100 freeplay with 12x rollover. Player wins nothing from the bonus and increases balance to $2200. The book is upset and limits the player to $5 before gameday and $15 on gameday.

Is this reasonable?

What should the WR be lowered to in this circumstance?

How should this affect books ratings?

It is clear the book doesn't want to book the players action, but why are they forcing them to complete this rollover? If the bonus hasn't resulted in any winnings, why are they trying to keep this player on board?

Unfortunately, it all depends if this is a SBR sponsored book you are talking about or not. Just curious, how much of a rollover do you have left?

**Krashman** · 11-05-12, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by Thremp

Folks, I wanted to open a discussion on what level of limiting was okay. Lets take a scenario.

Play deposit $100 and receives $100 freeplay with 12x rollover. Player wins nothing from the bonus and increases balance to $2200. The book is upset and limits the player to $5 before gameday and $15 on gameday.

Is this reasonable?

Limiting players is boarder line scam activity. All books advertise that you can WIN with them but when you do, most of them limit you, they just want losers there. In other words they just want to take your money.

The only true sport book that I know of that lets you win and never limits you is pinnacle.

Those that say that a book must limit good players to remain profitable only need to look at Pinnacle to see that they are wrong.

Originally posted by Thremp

How should this affect books ratings?

Books that limit should not rate higher than a B

Originally posted by Thremp

It is clear the book doesn't want to book the players action, but why are they forcing them to complete this rollover? If the bonus hasn't resulted in any winnings, why are they trying to keep this player on board?

The winning player, when severely limited, is more likely to just give up on the bonus and withdraw, thereby voluntarily forfeiting the bonus. So less likely to complain in the forums etc.

It looks bad if they boot you and revoke the bonus. Bad for business.

**Justin7** · 11-05-12, 11:33 PM

If a player has a 1200 rollover, I'd call major foul if you couldn't meet rollover in 50 bets. So if your limit was lowered to below 24 on gameday, it is a clear foul. Realistically, any book lowering limits below 100 is just doing it to harass a player. If a book doesn't want a player (and the bonus lost) they should just toss the player and pay him. What book did this?

**bubba** · 11-05-12, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by Justin7

If a player has a 1200 rollover, I'd call major foul if you couldn't meet rollover in 50 bets. So if your limit was lowered to below 24 on gameday, it is a clear foul. Realistically, any book lowering limits below 100 is just doing it to harass a player. If a book doesn't want a player (and the bonus lost) they should just toss the player and pay him. What book did this?

couldn't disagree more. lowering limits should lower the rollover by the same percentage. there are a few exceptions i suppose. if a player had 1200 rollover with a 1000 limit (basically 1 wager away) lowering his limits to 24, or 100 or even 200 without lowering the rollover is not fair and a shady practice on the books part.

**mtneer1212** · 11-06-12, 12:09 AM

You gonna tell us who the book is?

**skrtelfan** · 11-06-12, 04:06 AM

agree with bubba. there are shit books that limit winners after a couple bets, the lowered limits should lower the rollover.

**Thremp** · 11-06-12, 05:23 AM

I currently have an open SBR complaint and have been previously advised that outting a book during the complaint process is a negative. Hopefully they assist in coming to an amicable resolution.

Justin,

Ask Lou. Specifics are all there rather than a general scenario outlined above.

However, I completely agree. They could simply close my account, but instead they want to hold my money hostage. I actually requested this and was told, "Well I guess you'll have to come up with more plays". When a book cuts your limits by an order of magnitude, there is something fishy.

**Thremp** · 11-07-12, 10:25 AM

The book is Bet Horizon.

SBR supported their decision to limit me to $50 before gameday and $250 on gameday and felt that the rollover was reachable (the remainder of 48k).

I'm not in support of this decision as its clearly absurd.

**bubba** · 11-07-12, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Thremp

The book is Bet Horizon.

SBR supported their decision to limit me to $50 before gameday and $250 on gameday and felt that the rollover was reachable (the remainder of 48k).

I'm not in support of this decision as its clearly absurd.

clearly absurd and unfair. i cannot understand how a neutral 3rd party can side with the book in such a situation

**wtt0315** · 11-07-12, 10:49 AM

so you have to wager 50 bucks on non gameday to achieve a 48k rollover.. dear lord

**BigDaddy** · 11-07-12, 10:56 AM

complete bullshit

$50 max wagers with a 48k rollover

even $250 max on gameday with 48k rollover is absurd

i take it justin did not handle the case?

**Thremp** · 11-07-12, 11:12 AM

Lou handled my case.

**Darkside Magick** · 11-07-12, 11:29 AM

Don't heritage own bethorizon?

**richsox24** · 11-07-12, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by Thremp

Lou handled my case.

Shocking...Its a wonder how this guy can look at himself in the mirror.

**Santo** · 11-07-12, 12:22 PM

Decision doesn't make sense to me, but out of interest how much of the $48k is left?

**richsox24** · 11-07-12, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by Darkside Magick

Don't heritage own bethorizon?

Yes, hence the ruling that thremp received from Lou the goof. I guarantee that if this was a non-sponsor book that there would be downgrades, warnings, videos, etc.

What Lou and Dozier won't do for a buck. Sad.

**Thremp** · 11-07-12, 12:55 PM

Santo, I am told there is 18k left.

**SBR Lou** · 11-07-12, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by bubba

clearly absurd and unfair. i cannot understand how a neutral 3rd party can side with the book in such a situation

His rollover is about 18K and his game-day limits are $250 on most everything.

**Thremp** · 11-07-12, 01:12 PM

Lou,

That isn't true. It is true for major sports ML/Spread/Total. But for any sort of derivative, it is lower. $100 on an NBA 1H for example. Also, my entire rollover is 48k, not 18k. The 37.5% is what I have remaining. This book has limited my account in continual ways to prevent me from not only: 1) betting at an advantage 2) but to limit my ability to complete rollover.

The absolute largest bet they will now take from me is is .52% of my rollover. Completely ridiculous.

**Thremp** · 11-07-12, 01:23 PM

I really don't understand why a book would limit wagers from a player, but enforce a rollover. It makes NO sense.

Can someone explain this at all? It seems like harassing winning players and holding their money hostage are the only reasons.

**bubba** · 11-07-12, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by sbr lou

his rollover is about 18k and his game-day limits are $250 on most everything.

lower the limits, then lower the previously agreed upon rollover by the same percentage. Really a no brainier. What if he doesnt want to bet the day of game? Either way, he did not agree to this 18k he has left with 250 limits. What is so hard to see here?

**richsox24** · 11-07-12, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by bubba

lower the limits, then lower the previously agreed upon rollover by the same percentage. Really a no brainier. What if he doesnt want to bet the day of game? Either way, he did not agree to this 18k he has left with 250 limits. What is so hard to see here?

^^^ Exactly^^^

**Thremp** · 11-09-12, 07:28 PM

bubba, I should mention that I've completely around 16k at 250s already. It is just that they have further disabled my account to limit the few bets I could place. So to close, Justin7 says major foul, SBR Lou says no big deal (while making some minor errors about the status of my account), and I'm left grinding $50 bets unless I wanna bet major markets on game day. Seems "fair".

**richsox24** · 11-09-12, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by Thremp

bubba, I should mention that I've completely around 16k at 250s already. It is just that they have further disabled my account to limit the few bets I could place. So to close, Justin7 says major foul, SBR Lou says no big deal (while making some minor errors about the status of my account), and I'm left grinding $50 bets unless I wanna bet major markets on game day. Seems "fair".

Thats because Justin7 has half a brain and Lou is as scummy and corrupt as they come

**Monitor-Tan** · 11-10-12, 12:10 AM

Looks like we got ourselves a case of:

**Thremp** · 11-11-12, 11:54 PM

Why is there still no SBR comment on my question?

Justin and Lou clearly disagree. Why no discussion?

**richsox24** · 11-12-12, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by Thremp

Why is there still no SBR comment on my question?

Justin and Lou clearly disagree. Why no discussion?

Because Justin was prolly told to be quiet on the matter since it involves a sponsor book and Lou is trying to do 2 things at once...stick his foot in his mouth and count his dirty money.

Absolutely brutal that sbr doesnt want to help you with such an easy no brain decision.

**cutter2225** · 11-12-12, 03:44 AM

Its clear SBR will no longer take a neutral position when dealing with a sponsor book or any of its subsidiaries. This includes the ratings for some sponsored books. SBRs motto was taken from Rod Tidwell...Show me the money!

**richsox24** · 11-12-12, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by cutter2225

[ATTACH]50228[/ATTACH]

Its clear SBR will no longer take a neutral position when dealing with a sponsor book or any of its subsidiaries. This includes the ratings for some sponsored books. SBRs motto was taken from Rod Tidwell...Show me the money!

^^^Exactly^^^

**marcojuiceman** · 11-12-12, 12:01 PM

So Heritage just limited you...??
dam heritage WTF should i take my money out and contuiue with BM??

**Thremp** · 11-12-12, 12:20 PM

No. Horizon Sports.

**marcojuiceman** · 11-12-12, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by Thremp

No. Horizon Sports.

Never heard of them unless it was bethorizon who Heritage owns now

**SBR Lou** · 11-12-12, 12:35 PM

Normally a book will just prorate and both parties end the relationship. In this case, Thremp allegedly ignored a warning about how he was betting and ruffled the feathers of the floor.

Ultimately, it will not take him very long to simply finish the rollover. That's the quickest path to moving on.

**Justin7** · 11-12-12, 12:46 PM

Your example wasn't quite the same as your case. There's a big difference between limits of $24 versus $250. Limits of $24 is just to piss off the player. $250 you can at least bet something.

I still think pro-rating and closing the account is the better way to go... But if you pissed them off, any book will make your life difficult.