Rollover Requirement Question

**Shifty** · 09-25-18, 01:32 PM

I got the bonus at 888. High juice book. Completed the 6x rollover and my entire balance including bonus money is available for withdrawal. Did not make any bets of higher than -200, if you do then I guess those bets would not count toward the rollover. The rollover goes by amount wagered so it would be easier to complete if you bet -190 games.

**lonnie55** · 09-25-18, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by alekim

And you can't reject the 1st time bonus offer.

Are you sure of that? I never take a bonus at any book and never experienced an issue with removing it. You just have to ask the CS before you make a deposit or before you place your first bet.

**JoeCool20** · 09-25-18, 02:18 PM

Screw rollovers. It's a freakin pipe dream to think you can make $6000 worth of bets before you lose $500.

I'd say over 90% of the people who take huge rollover bonus gimmicks never see a dime of their money again.

As soon as they send the money in, it immediately has an over 90% chance of never leaving the sportsbook again.

**Optional** · 09-25-18, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by alekim

I understand there is always a rollover requirement but 888sport is requiring that bets of odds at least -200 will count those rollover.
And you can't reject the 1st time bonus offer. its $100 up to $500 with 6x. So you would have to wager $6000 instead of $3000 to complete rollover.

Has anyone else seen this requirement?

Books either have a rule about the mimimum odds that can be bet for rollover, or they have a rule that says the lower amount of win/risk is used to calculate rollover.

Always one or the other.

Otherwise we could take -10000 odds and complete rollovers virtually risk free.

And if 88Sport won't allow you to deposit without taking a bonus, send in a complaint form to SBR and I think we can help you sort that problem out with them.

**xKMACKx** · 09-25-18, 05:42 PM

Every book I've used, most recent being Sports Interaction, I've been allowed to reject the offer and there isn't a rollover requirement. I just talked to customer support and they removed it before my first bet.

**milwaukee mike** · 09-25-18, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by JoeCool20

Screw rollovers. It's a freakin pipe dream to think you can make $6000 worth of bets before you lose $500.

I'd say over 90% of the people who take huge rollover bonus gimmicks never see a dime of their money again.

As soon as they send the money in, it immediately has an over 90% chance of never leaving the sportsbook again.

that's gonna be the case anyway, same as in a casino or with any other dumb shit that morons like to blast their money on (cigarettes/lottery tickets/etc)

if you're gonna gamble anyway, then why not get some free money... if you don't like the bonus then don't take it... if you don't like the filet of fish at mcdonald's then don't freaking go there and order it

**bubba** · 09-25-18, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Optional

.

And if 88Sport won't allow you to deposit without taking a bonus, send in a complaint form to SBR and I think we can help you sort that problem out with them.

Why cant a book force you to take a bonus? Why would that be worthy of a complaint? If the rules are clear before depositing(are they?) I dont see what the issue is.

**Optional** · 09-25-18, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by bubba

Why cant a book force you to take a bonus? Why would that be worthy of a complaint? If the rules are clear before depositing(are they?) I dont see what the issue is.

I just don't think they do Bubba.

But as a general question I'd consider it unethical to force every depositor to do more than a 1x rollover without choice.

**semibluff** · 09-25-18, 09:35 PM

As I understand it you only get the bonus if you enter a promotional code. The bonus is a 1-time bonus for initial deposits only. The minimum deposit is £10. Even if you were forced to take a bonus there was nothing to stop you making a minimum deposit to start with and adding a bigger deposit after that.

**bubba** · 09-25-18, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by Optional

I just don't think they do Bubba.

But as a general question I'd consider it unethical to force every depositor to do more than a 1x rollover without choice.

I will disagree with you in a very friendly matter. I feel a book having a 2-5X rollover rule on all deposits (with or even without a bonus) is not unethical, assuming it is clear to everyone before giving their funds to said book.

More importantly, what is the book? I had never heard of it and see they are rated "A". Do you recommend them Optional?

**Optional** · 09-26-18, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by bubba

I will disagree with you in a very friendly matter. I feel a book having a 2-5X rollover rule on all deposits (with or even without a bonus) is not unethical, assuming it is clear to everyone before giving their funds to said book.

More importantly, what is the book? I had never heard of it and see they are rated "A". Do you recommend them Optional?

They are a fairly large brand that has been around in Europe for maybe 10 years.

They also have a Nevada license.

I've not used them as they don't allow my country but would have if I could have.

**Shifty** · 09-26-18, 08:31 AM

They also have a New Jersey license.

**alekim** · 09-26-18, 09:36 AM

Thanks for all the response but I am saying wagers of less than -200 doesnt count towards rollover.. is that normal?

Wagers must be placed on sports bets which have odds of -200 or higher. Parlay bets (a single bet that links together two or more individual wagers and is dependent on all of those wagers winning together) with combined odds -200 or higher will also count towards the wagering requirements.

**alekim** · 09-26-18, 09:36 AM

Wagers must be placed on sports bets which have odds of -200 or higher. Parlay bets (a single bet that links together two or more individual wagers and is dependent on all of those wagers winning together) with combined odds -200 or higher will also count towards the wagering requirements.

**Optional** · 09-26-18, 11:06 AM

It's not abnormal.

**bubba** · 09-26-18, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by Optional

It's not abnormal.

only counting wagers of -200 or higher is normal? is that what "not abnormal" means? I have never heard of such a thing.

**Optional** · 09-26-18, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by bubba

only counting wagers of -200 or higher is normal? is that what "not abnormal" means? I have never heard of such a thing.

Really? You've never come across a bonus with a odds limit for rollover?

I guess offshores must mostly use lesser of risk or win but I think having min odds of 1.50/-200 is probably the more common way it's done in Europe (where 888sport originates).

There are some offshores that use that method though. Poster Joecool was complaining about one recently as he didnt expect it either.

**milwaukee mike** · 09-26-18, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by bubba

only counting wagers of -200 or higher is normal? is that what "not abnormal" means? I have never heard of such a thing.

i think the confusion is in the wording

-200 "or higher" means that -180 counts, -120, +120, +500, etc

the only things that don't count are favorites of more than -200 (-220, -300, -700, etc wouldn't count toward rollover)

**Optional** · 09-26-18, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by milwaukee mike

i think the confusion is in the wording

-200 "or higher" means that -180 counts, -120, +120, +500, etc

the only things that don't count are favorites of more than -200 (-220, -300, -700, etc wouldn't count toward rollover)

Oh! "Higher" was the key word. I misunderstood.

I have some trouble with this still. I grew up used to better/higher/longer odds all meaning the payout the bettor gets will be more dollars. And lower/worse/shorter always means a lesser payout to the punter. No matter if it is +odds or -odds.

**bubba** · 09-26-18, 09:57 PM

Must be the wording. Yes I could see a book saying -200 or lower. (Nothing -201 and higher). Is that what they are saying?

**semibluff** · 09-26-18, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by bubba

Must be the wording. Yes I could see a book saying -200 or lower. (Nothing -201 and higher). Is that what they are saying?

It's reasonable for books to exclude bets where there's a huge odds-on favourite. From a math perspective the profit margin on heads-up matchup with a huge favourite is far lower than on an even match-up, and in these circumstances the book almost always has to protect itself by having the profit margin on the underdog. Allowing customers to use near zero profit margin odds to fulfil a rollover defeats the purpose of having a rollover.