Wagering Requirement Used to Hold Money Hostage?!?

**SBR Lou** · 11-12-12, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by marcojuiceman

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

This is inaccurate. BetHorizon is managed independently.

**marcojuiceman** · 11-12-12, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by SBR Lou

This is inaccurate. BetHorizon is managed independently.

Heritage Sports acquires BetHorizon sportsbook

By: SBR | Tuesday, May 10, 2011

BetHorizon (SBR rating C+) has been acquired by Heritage Sports (SBR rating B+). | Full story

BetHorizon player accounts have been moved to the new DGS platform, which Heritage uses. BetHorizon players are greeted by a message acknowledging the Heritage Sports takeover:

**SBR Lou** · 11-12-12, 01:30 PM

Marco,

BetHorizon is managed independently.

**Thremp** · 11-12-12, 01:32 PM

Lou,

That is not the case at all. John refuses to get a functioning e-mail or provide me ANYTHING in writing. I have asked him repeatedly to contact me. Keep in mind they ignored all my e-mails prior to deleting around 200 wagers of mine. I specifically asked if I could place them, instead they just waited to see what they were and then changed their terms.

Justin,

How so? I literally just changed the order of magnitude. Why should someone's wealth have any factor in ethics?

**richsox24** · 11-12-12, 02:36 PM

at Lou's pile of excuses...one after another

Even after Justin says that book should pro-rate the bonus/rollover, pay and close acct.

**SBR Lou** · 11-12-12, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by richsox24

Even after Justin says that book should pro-rate the bonus/rollover, pay and close acct.

They should, it'd certainly be a cleaner resolution. But they don't have to. The industry standard hinges on the player reasonably being able to complete rollover at the revised limits. He can. If that wasn't the case, it would be argued.

**Thremp** · 11-12-12, 02:45 PM

If I'm understanding this correctly, John and Max have a personal problem with me and want to antagonize me?

Is that correct Lou?

**SBR Lou** · 11-12-12, 02:48 PM

Thremp,

I don't know that to be the case, but one thing that's true is that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Sure an exception could be made, there always can be. But when you're alleged to have ignored a warning or been difficult, I wouldn't expect one.

**Thremp** · 11-12-12, 03:00 PM

I don't see how this is an exception. Justin7 clearly said that over 50 bets would be a major foul. This would make my rollover 192 bets and even the remaining portion over the 50 bets he claimed. In addition many betting options are below $250. If anything, Horizon is clearly in violation of what Justin7 claimed was the ethical guideline before and his view of what is "Industry Standard". Apparently he doesn't know what he's talking about though. Instead of quantifiable numbers (like a portion of rollover per max bet), we'll instead focus on terms like "reasonably being able to complete".

I tried to handle this professionally, instead this book ignored my requests for information and then deleted 200 wagers. If anything, I have been completely professional, going out of my way to avoid trouble. (I contacted them 3 different times asking if what I was about to do was okay. They ignored every attempt at contact.) John still refuses to put anything in writing, instead focusing on vague rambling phone calls where he claims I've been deceiving him and am generally a bad person, when in reality the only thing I'm guilty of is not being a complete chump.

Could you clarify what the industry standard is for rollover? How many bets is reasonable? Does it matter when this limit is enforced? If I deposit to wager on baseball, and a book refuses to book any baseball bets instead only letting me bet game day NFL is that okay? I find this entire case completely bizarre. John apparently wants to have me play for several more months and bleed out a few hundreds (to a few thousand) more in EV to me? I honestly can't think of a good reason for them to keep doing this. It appears that you also agree that they're doing this to aggravate me, which is pretty normal for Mickey Mouse shops. The continual harassment of winners in this industry is comical.

**cutter2225** · 11-12-12, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by SBR Lou

Thremp,

I don't know that to be the case, but one thing that's true is that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

I find it very ironic that you would use this analogy given how often you'll spit acid in the eyes of the very people that made this site (sbr members) if their dispute is with a paying sponsor.

**Spedizzo** · 11-12-12, 05:18 PM

It is pretty hilarious how AFTER a player deposits money, earns a bonus, completes half of the bonus, has the sports book go "oh shit, he is winning, let's limit his wagers so it is more difficult for him to win and be able to withdraw anything" .. is being deemed "acceptable" by SBR.

I don't give a shit how the dude was betting, you cannot lower limits AND refuse to pay winnings until the rollover is complete. That is holding the money hostage. That should not be acceptable.

**cutter2225** · 11-12-12, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by Spedizzo

It is pretty hilarious how AFTER a player deposits money, earns a bonus, completes half of the bonus, has the sports book go "oh shit, he is winning, let's limit his wagers so it is more difficult for him to win and be able to withdraw anything" .. is being deemed "acceptable" by SBR.

I don't give a shit how the dude was betting, you cannot lower limits AND refuse to pay winnings until the rollover is complete. That is holding the money hostage. That should not be acceptable.

Completely agree with you. Most books already invoke rules that limit what types of wagers count (or don't count) towards a rollover, and now its apparently acceptable to have books say hey since you're winning we're also cutting your limits to make it even more difficult. I'd like to know if the OP was strictly betting steam hence the warning or was he warned simply because he was winning (god forbid). Either way in my opinion this is a chicken $hit move on the books part.

**Thremp** · 11-12-12, 06:38 PM

I did not bet steam.

Keep in mind that I gained $0 from the bonus. I lost 100% of the freeplay. This is purely a harassment technique.

**richsox24** · 11-12-12, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Spedizzo

It is pretty hilarious how AFTER a player deposits money, earns a bonus, completes half of the bonus, has the sports book go "oh shit, he is winning, let's limit his wagers so it is more difficult for him to win and be able to withdraw anything" .. is being deemed "acceptable" by SBR.

I don't give a shit how the dude was betting, you cannot lower limits AND refuse to pay winnings until the rollover is complete. That is holding the money hostage. That should not be acceptable.

Its only accepted by Lou the Douche. Justin already chimed in and said he disagrees with this, as would any honest mod with 1/2 a brain.

**kmarinouofm** · 11-12-12, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by BigDaddy

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?

wait u deposited 100$? how is your roll over 48k ?

**Thremp** · 11-12-12, 07:17 PM

I deposited $2000.

I used $100 in the OP for an example.

**Justin7** · 11-12-12, 07:39 PM

Here is my standard:

Is the limit imposed to manage risk, or harass the player? If you were expected to waste hours and hours of time, placing $24 bets, that type of limit is punitive. The purpose of that limit is not to manage risk; it is to harass the player and make him waste his time.

With $250 limits (what is this compared to their normal limits?), it seems less aimed at punishing you, and more aimed at controlling risk. Many books do this, and this is the defacto standard: lower limits, but not ridiculously so. 76 bets at $250 (or $500 or $1000) are at the edge of reasonable. 76 bets of $24 is simply bullshit.

What I don't understand.. If you pissed them off, why do they want you hanging around? You're going to beat them out of more, albeit slower.

**cutter2225** · 11-12-12, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Justin7

Here is my standard:

Is the limit imposed to manage risk, or harass the player? If you were expected to waste hours and hours of time, placing $24 bets, that type of limit is punitive. The purpose of that limit is not to manage risk; it is to harass the player and make him waste his time.

With $250 limits (what is this compared to their normal limits?), it seems less aimed at punishing you, and more aimed at controlling risk. Many books do this, and this is the defacto standard: lower limits, but not ridiculously so. 76 bets at $250 (or $500 or $1000) are at the edge of reasonable. 76 bets of $24 is simply bullshit.

What I don't understand.. If you pissed them off, why do they want you hanging around? You're going to beat them out of more, albeit slower.

Without knowing what their normal limits are (to busy at the moment to check) I disagree with you that limiting him to $250 doesn't significantly change things. In fact when he has 48K as a rollover requirement I believe his new limits are a game changer but I fully suspect all the mods will attempt to put a positive spin on this. I wonder if they'd cut his limits if he was losing all the time? Oh wait, they would have doubled his limits had that been the case.

**SBR Lou** · 11-12-12, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by cutter2225

Without knowing what their normal limits are (to busy at the moment to check) I disagree with you that limiting him to $250 doesn't significantly change things. In fact when he has 48K as a rollover requirement I believe his new limits are a game changer but I fully suspect all the mods will attempt to put a positive spin on this

48K was original rollover. Approximately 18K remains.

**cutter2225** · 11-12-12, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by SBR Lou

48K was original rollover. Approximately 18K remains.

In my opinion its irrelevant what was left of the rollover. He shouldn't have been limited. Lets be honest they saw he might actually meet the requirement and started looking at ways to detour him. Complete BS Lou on their part.

**KGambler** · 11-12-12, 08:12 PM

Justin, how important is it that the limit of $250 is only for major sports, on game day? It doesn't seem right to quote $250 as his "limit" when that is all he can bet on an NFL game, on Sunday! $250 for NFL game day is extremely low. It's clear he has lower limits for more exotic markets.

Shouldn't the derivative limits and weekday limits be taken into account?

Reading between the lines, they are trying to force him to bet into markets where they feel they can be relied on to set proper lines (major sports, game day). Also, considering that Lou has already stated that Thremp ruffled some feathers, it's clear that they would also like to harass him. They want to force him to work harder and wait longer.

It's simply a bullshit move to cut limits like this without pro-rating the rollover.

**Thremp** · 11-12-12, 09:51 PM

Justin,

Less than 10% of their normal limits. My 1h limits are now 5% of their normal limits.

I think they have a macho issue. I crushed them and they want to "show me". When in reality, I could just type out a 101 on how to rape this book that'll have them inundated with sharp play. It seems like both John and Max lack any sort of forethought, but the industry is rife with this. Look at Tony for example. Most of these guys have no class or clue.

**Justin7** · 11-12-12, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by Thremp

Justin,

Less than 10% of their normal limits. My 1h limits are now 5% of their normal limits.

I think they have a macho issue. I crushed them and they want to "show me". When in reality, I could just type out a 101 on how to rape this book that'll have them inundated with sharp play. It seems like both John and Max lack any sort of forethought, but the industry is rife with this. Look at Tony for example. Most of these guys have no class or clue.

Cutting derivative limits to 0 is fair. Were your NFL and NBA limits cut to below 10%? That would weigh in the direction of punitive. Why don't you post your old and new full-game sides/totals limits for NFL, NBA, CFB and CBB.

**soxwin1917** · 11-12-12, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by Justin7

Cutting derivative limits to 0 is fair. Were your NFL and NBA limits cut to below 10%? That would weigh in the direction of punitive. Why don't you post your old and new full-game sides/totals limits for NFL, NBA, CFB and CBB.

What's the point? Everyone but Lou already agree with Thremp. It's too bad you can't handle all the cases, Justin.

**Justin7** · 11-12-12, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by soxwin1917

What's the point? Everyone but Lou already agree with Thremp. It's too bad you can't handle all the cases, Justin.

There can be more than one fair way to treat a player. Let's see all the facts from Thremp, and we can decide for ourselves.

**Monte** · 11-13-12, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by Justin7

What I don't understand.. If you pissed them off, why do they want you hanging around? You're going to beat them out of more, albeit slower.

I don't think so, with limits that low almost everyone would lose his patience.
Would you bother looking for only +ev for 50 bucks?

**Monte** · 11-13-12, 12:09 AM

Anyway 250 bucks is doable...sux but could be worse, like you could be stuck at Justbet with a freeplay ro.
No wait, it's exactly the same.

**richsox24** · 11-13-12, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by Justin7

There can be more than one fair way to treat a player. Let's see all the facts from Thremp, and we can decide for ourselves.

Yes but every fukkin case Lou handles ends the same way. Player fukked, book did nothing wrong. Player fukked, book did nothing wrong. It gets old and everyone here sees it.

**Justin7** · 11-13-12, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by Monte

I don't think so, with limits that low almost everyone would lose his patience.
Would you bother looking for only +ev for 50 bucks?

I've done a lot of damage with limits of $200 before (thanks to RR parlays).

**Thremp** · 11-13-12, 07:40 AM

Justin7,

I wish I could! I placed under 5 straight bets (the rest were teasers) before I was limited. I looked last night, but am feeling a little sad. Here is what I bet on the game I did. (It was before NBA/CBB started. So it was all really MLB and CFB.)

$3000 (the most I bet, maybe limit)/$250

This case literally qualifies by EVERY SINGLE DEFINITION that you have put forth.

ETA: I place three straight bets before being limits. 1Q/1H/FG for CFB. $500/$2000/$3000.

**Spedizzo** · 11-13-12, 04:45 PM

If they limited him as a form of risk control they should let him collect and get the fuk out then.

They don't want to pay him out that amount. Simple as that. They want him to make small wagers, get on a bad streak, and hope the juice/vigs eventually fuks him him. He doesn't have a wager limit large enough to chase small losses as he should be able to having built a big bank roll.

It's bullshit any way you slice it. I don't follow bullshit SBR politics but Lou consistently seems to be a quick-to-judge delusional kid in every stance he takes while Justin comes in and seems a bit more rational playing the part of "good cop."

**shari91** · 11-13-12, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Spedizzo

If they limited him as a form of risk control they should let him collect and get the fuk out then.

They don't want to pay him out that amount. Simple as that. They want him to make small wagers, get on a bad streak, and hope the juice/vigs eventually fuks him him. He doesn't have a wager limit large enough to chase small losses as he should be able to having built a big bank roll.

It's bullshit any way you slice it. I don't follow bullshit SBR politics but Lou consistently seems to be a quick-to-judge delusional kid in every stance he takes while Justin comes in and seems a bit more rational playing the part of "good cop."

Totally respect your opinion. But then we saw Thremp a few months ago swear off gambling forever because "people like Justin7 were making money" and he wasn't. And there was no way Thremp thought he should be as broke as he was when Justin7 had cash. How was that fair???

And yet where did Thremp come when he wanted help?

So yeah, either respect the process and the people involved in it or don't. Someone wants to bash Lou, Justin7, staff in general... fair enough. No one here is infallible and I with my half slow state have learned more from you guys who clarify, explain, etc no matter what the issue is. If I am learning, I assume many others are too.

But don't bash the people that are trying to help you Thremp. If you don't trust the help you get here then go to the next place that will take your cause on. I look forward to not only you finding one but seeing a resolution you approve of.

**gomiamigo** · 11-13-12, 09:26 PM

Limiting to <10% or whatever on NFL games is totally absurd. This isn't theft, but it's the next best thing for a scummy book.

**mw00** · 11-13-12, 09:37 PM

just take this as a lesson and avoid this book at all cost..if books want to put their name out there as bad for a few bucks, so be it. reputation is everything in this business.

**Thremp** · 11-13-12, 10:52 PM

Shari,

I'm not bashing the help. Make some standards. Follow them.

It is all I ask.

Please rejoin Justin's comments with my case or get yourself back in the kitchen. Or bent over. You probably aren't good for either. But mebbe you'll do.