Limits cut during rollover

**flyingillini** · 06-24-09, 09:44 PM

which book ese?

**austin** · 06-24-09, 10:19 PM

limits

Originally posted by RickySteve

This is generally considered unacceptable, right?

same problem here but with '£3.65'. why on earth do they advertise 15% deposit bonus if they can't afford it? it is a false advertisement!!!

**Peep** · 06-24-09, 10:20 PM

I think it is unacceptable, but SBR don't seem to mind it. I remember "A" book Linesmaker putting Durito through having to bet 300 bets a day or some such nonsense to get through rollover with nary a "peep".

**Justin7** · 06-24-09, 11:56 PM

If the limits substantially inhibit you from meeting rollover, I think it's a foul. If you make a big deposit and can bet at least 10% of your deposit on each wager, that's not too bad. If it's 1%, you're getting cheap-shotted, and need to escalate.

**Karla** · 06-30-09, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by RickySteve

This is generally considered unacceptable, right?

Most likely because you are winning to much that's why they had to cut you limits..
Aren't you???

**Bill Dozer** · 06-30-09, 02:52 PM

No, not unacceptable. Books can cut limits anytime. How does a book handle the bonus from there? What does the rollover apply to?

**durito** · 06-30-09, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Bill Dozer

No, not unacceptable.

Except when BetOnline does it.

**Justin7** · 06-30-09, 03:29 PM

I think the key is: is the limitation with how they handled the bonus fair?

Giving you low ball limits, and giving you the option to lose a lot of your winnings isn't fair. If it's a cash bonus, pro-rating it based on completed rollover is fair.

But giving you $1 limits, and require that you meet it or forfeit freeplay winnings is a foul.

**katstale** · 06-30-09, 05:42 PM

Thank you Justin, once again, for being the voice of reason at SBR.

**Justin7** · 06-30-09, 05:47 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't BetOnline is using more reasonable limits now for players they don't want?

**durito** · 06-30-09, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Justin7

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't BetOnline is using more reasonable limits now for players they don't want?

Mine are $0, so sounds about right.

And, they cut all their attractive promos. No -105 (yet their add here for months still claims they offer this), no 7/1 3teamers.

So, they probably shouldn't have any more issues.

Basically exactly what you predicted would happen 2 years ago back when they started up with all that.

**Justin7** · 06-30-09, 05:52 PM

You're out of there, right Durito? It's no foul to cut someone to $0 once you're paid.

**durito** · 06-30-09, 05:53 PM

Yes sir. They paid in full, in the exact time frame allotted on their site.

**Justin7** · 06-30-09, 06:01 PM

BetOnline took their lumps. I think they're making more intelligent risk management decisions (which in turn invite fewer disputes). While I understand your frustrations with them, I hold them in higher esteem today than when they had all the crazy promos.

**durito** · 06-30-09, 06:04 PM

I did overreact a bit there, given that my issue was resolved in less than 48 hours.

As long as they aren't offering those items anymore I'm sure they are a fine place to play. They pay. I used to say C, but without said promos I think they are a B book.

But, still, when you look at the SBR recommended list, there is one that sticks out like a sore thumb. Everyone else on there is excellent.

**tomcowley** · 06-30-09, 06:41 PM

A book has rollover to make sure it gets a certain amount of action. When it cuts limits, it's stating that it has changed its mind and really doesn't want the action. Doing anything to the bonus, when the player is willing to give the action, but the book isn't willing to take it, is just silly. If you want to cut limits, fine, but don't cry that you didn't get enough action.

**Justin7** · 06-30-09, 08:36 PM

Tom,

I'll disagree. If a rec book can't handle the action, it's fair to lower limits from 5k to 1k or 500. The player can still meet rollover, and the book can use that information for better lines at a much lower cost. Sharp action is valuable if you don't pay too much for it.

**durito** · 06-30-09, 08:57 PM

Sure, but why does the rec book have those limits to begin with.

Now, this is a difficult issue. But, betonline, for reasons I don't know, had higher halftime limits on nba totals than pinnacle. That does not make sense.

At the complete opposite of the spectrum, wagerstreet limited me to $10 and then insisted i finished $500 in rollover anyway. Now, I'm sure that could have been resolved with a few phone calls/complaints, but that should not have been necessary. I fired away the 50 bets and they transferred to greek in 12 minutes. Keep in mind, i'd never bet more than $200 there and wasn't chasing steam or anything of the sort.

If the rec book needs those limits to handle some big rollers, fine. But, they can pick up on who the sharps are and limit them to something reasonable quickly. I don't have a problem with $500-1000 limit if you have a rollover. But, that is rather lame to someone, who for example posts up at betonline thinking he's getting 5k a pop.

**tomcowley** · 06-30-09, 09:53 PM

I had a 240k rollover at 250 limits. Nominal bet size was at least 2k. That was fun. They would have lost less if they'd just punted me and paid the bonus in full. If they weren't hanging a ridiculous amount of things to bet every day, I would have complained.

When a book just tells you to get lost (cuts limits to $0 or $1 or something ridiculous), making any argument to take a bonus back based on incomplete rollover is just silly. They're throwing in the towel, not the player.