[RonPaul2008]

cris most definitely takes sharp action in other types of lines

[allin1]

even pinnacle limited justin7 to 1$ on teasers, so I am not surprised when I hear about any other books limits.

[sharpcircle]

Justin also chooses not to be a lawyer but sits in front of fake books.

[sharpcat]

even pinnacle limited justin7 to 1$ on teasers, so I am not surprised when I hear about any other books limits.

Why does Justin7 work as a moderator at SBR? The guy has got to be a multimillionaire after all of the casinos he has taken down, something does not add up.

[tto827]

Patently false.

In this business, no one works harder than the originator who successfully extracts value out of the market. They work harder than the book, because the book has the benefit of opening with low limits, seeing who's betting what and when and using that information to manage risk. They also work harder than SBR, who sucks an unconscionable amount of money off the top of most balance sheets in the industry in the name of customer acquisition. When you're willing to outwork and outsmart your way to success in a zero-sum game like sports betting, operating from the players' side of the counter and thus having to overcome the vig, there is no one who is more entitled to the rewards. If you're an advocate of pure capitalism, there should be nothing that makes you happier.

John and Tto should remember this concept from our recent political discourses, except back then you were calling it 'work ethic,' and not greed. Apparently they have a very subjective view of the matter, it's work ethic when the money is heading for their pocket, and greed when someone else is trying to lay claim to those same dollars.

Without a doubt it's the sharp player who gets bent over in these situations. There should be a big pile of money in the room everyday, the sum total of everything bet on losing wagers that day. In theory, the book should simply be taking its hold (the juice) and using all the rest of the dollars to pay out the day's winners. The problem arises when SBR stops by every night in their armored truck to collect their 30% of player losses, leaving not enough money to cover the winners. If the book had the same limits for them as they did for squares, they'd go bankrupt.

The math is simple, you can't pay two people (the winner and SBR) with the money from only one loser, unless you force the winners to accommodate SBR's cut by limiting them.

I agree that the sharps get screwed, just pointing out that Haines cannot use that argument based on his beliefs. And your SBR theory, find a book that isn't rated by SBR, they will limit too, sharps will get limited, its that simple.

And its not 1+1=2 simple, losers as a whole lose more than the winners win, you have no idea what their profit margins are so do not assume.

[tto827]

Why does Justin7 work as a moderator at SBR? The guy has got to be a multimillionaire after all of the casinos he has taken down something, does not add up.

Books spot out that he will be not be profitable to them, he gets limited. He doesn't go 10-0 and win a million dollars before getting limited, hell, he might even LOSE and get limited at some places.

Also, he may be a millionaire, and enjoys the work he does here, so he continues to do it.

[RogueScholar]

I agree that the sharps get screwed, just pointing out that Haines cannot use that argument based on his beliefs. And your SBR theory, find a book that isn't rated by SBR, they will limit too, sharps will get limited, its that simple.

And its not 1+1=2 simple, losers as a whole lose more than the winners win, you have no idea what their profit margins are so do not assume.

I believe it's you that are making the assumptions. The reasons limits have to be in place is precisely because there is a lot more money at the disposal of sharps than squares in the current U.S.-facing sportsbook industry. A mathematically savvy bettor, able to quantifiably maximize his EG, is able to have the bankroll of a thousand average squares within a couple years. The issue is compounded by the fact that a winning gambler is willing to jump through a lot more hoops to get his money to the books, because that money isn't assumed lost to him as it is with a square, it's an investment on a return. This is not conjecture, it's pure logic.

Add to that the fact that as it has gotten harder to move money offshore, the casual gamblers who would bet $200 a game on a couple games a weekend, who made up the bulk of the "dead money" in years past, have left the market en masse. What we're left with now are primarily hardcore degenerates betting far less on average, who are being picked clean by an ever growing number of people with the skills necessary to win long-term. Again, this is only logical, easily deduced by the increasingly Draconian risk-management being implemented by even the most robust of books, who are themselves counted on the fingers of one hand.

This is why the third hand in the moneybag, that of the affiliate, is becoming an ever increasing burden on both bookies and sharps. They occupy the same place that the old-school mobsters in America did a century ago: extortionists. With no regulation in these jurisdictions and no legal access to marketing in the States, the largest affiliates can essentially burn a good book to the ground or keep a bad one afloat artificially, examples of both being plentiful in recent memory. The fact that only SBR and Covers remain atop the affiliate pyramid spells even more danger, as there are now huge barriers to entry to those who would attempt to compete on a lower margin.

The situation will automatically self-correct over time, as with so many other unnatural imbalances in recorded history. Eventually fees and limits force sharp money out of the market, increasing the cost for the remaining books to balance their action, contributing to another book's hold when they have to lay-off increasingly large amounts. A series of large public wins brings the industry to its knees, until even the books with the most invested in their brand realize that they could make more money starting from scratch and finally ending the affiliate payments that began the downward spiral in the first place.

[darkhat]

mathy back from his retirement match

ready to bury square books

[MonkeyF0cker]

There is no 'rule' as to when a dealer reshuffles a SINGLE deck game - Therefore there is no 'changing' of a rule


.

I guess you can't read.

It is MUCH different. Forcing a reshuffle isn't a RULE.

Nice of you to side with misinformation in any case.

[Sam Odom]

About Justin7

many people confuse being a real Sharp with being a Whale

a good bookmaker may limit and or move his line on a $1,000.00 bet by a real Sharp yet will yawn when a Whale bets $10K

[Sam Odom]

I guess you can't read.

what ?

[MonkeyF0cker]

what ?

Seriously? Are you this stupid?

I said "Forcing a reshuffle isn't a RULE." and you replied with "There is no 'rule' as to when a dealer reshuffles a SINGLE deck game."

[Sam Odom]

It is MUCH different. Forcing a reshuffle isn't a RULE. The tables explicitly state that there is no mid-deck entry.

Changing the "rules" mid-deck is quite a bit different.

What "rules" are you speaking about being 'changed' ?

[MonkeyF0cker]

But if you're really that stupid or just pretending to be, know that you're siding with someone that's accusing that every time you "increase your bet to the max in the middle of a single deck BJ game in vegas" that "they will stop and shuffle."

[MonkeyF0cker]

What "rules" are you speaking about being 'changed' ?

Do you not understand what quotation marks symbolize in the English language?

[Sam Odom]

But if you're really that stupid or just pretending to be, know that you're siding with someone that's insinuating that every time you "increase your bet to the max in the middle of a single deck BJ game in vegas" that "they will stop and shuffle."

i asked you a simple question... now you are sidestepping in answering

this causes confusion

[MonkeyF0cker]

If I'm playing BJ, the dealer doesn't decide whether they are going to shuffle or not based on my bet size. That is the "rule" that I'm referring to.

It's not confusing unless you're a fukking moron.

[Sam Odom]

Do you not understand what quotation marks symbolize in the English language?

John didnt say rules were being changed , did he ?

you said it 1st - that is why I asked the question

[MonkeyF0cker]

I didn't say rules were being changed either. How fukking stupid are you? You really don't know what quotation marks mean in the English language.

Amazing.

[Sam Odom]

If I'm playing BJ, the dealer doesn't decide whether they are going to shuffle or not based on my bet size.

Yes they can in a SINGLE DECK game

[SBR_John]

So they can shuffle mid deck to "harass" and that's not the same as controlling risks? Whatever.

These are businesses who can take any action they want. They are not regulated. Don't like it or simply don't agree? Take your business elsewhere.

RS your rambling manifesto had a few good points. Unfortunately you let your disdain for SBR cloud and distort what could have been some good talking points rendering your effort worthless. Why don't you try tabling your personal feelings some day and who knows, maybe we can have a rational conversation.

SBR stopped allowing points participation from Bulgaria and a couple of other countries because of rampant fraud and abuse. Is this fair? Possibly against the Geneva Convention?? Maybe but as a business we took steps to limit our risks and ensure we can prosper for the rest of our participants. Every business tries to limit its risks.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Yes they can in a SINGLE DECK game

Holy shit. You are too stupid to talk to.

So you think that if the dealer sees that I'm placing a max wager, that he's going to shuffle the deck after seeing what my wager is? Or that there is a floor sitting behind him telling him to shuffle every time I max bet? LMAO. Okay.

I never said that they COULDN'T, genius. I said that IT'S NOT CLOSE TO COMMONPLACE.

[Sam Odom]

So you think that if the dealer sees that I'm placing a max wager, that he's going to shuffle the deck after seeing what my wager is?

In YOUR case... no

[RogueScholar]

RS your rambling manifesto had a few good points. Unfortunately you let your disdain for SBR cloud and distort what could have been some good talking points rendering your effort worthless. Why don't you try tabling your personal feelings some day and who knows, maybe we can have a rational conversation.

If my bias is so easily picked apart, why didn't you just pounce on it instead of more of the usual posturing? Your specialty is plucking the low-hanging fruit after all, isn't it?

[MonkeyF0cker]

So they can shuffle mid deck to "harass" and that's not the same as controlling risks? Whatever.

These are businesses who can take any action they want. They are not regulated. Don't like it or simply don't agree? Take your business elsewhere.

RS your rambling manifesto had a few good points. Unfortunately you let your disdain for SBR cloud and distort what could have been some good talking points rendering your effort worthless. Why don't you try tabling your personal feelings some day and who knows, maybe we can have a rational conversation.

SBR stopped allowing points participation from Bulgaria and a couple of other countries because of rampant fraud and abuse. Is this fair? Possibly against the Geneva Convention?? Maybe but as a business we took steps to limit our risks and ensure we can prosper for the rest of our participants. Every business tries to limit its risks.

So the fact that they are not regulated makes it okay for them to operate with illegitimate policy? Come on, John.

You implied that every time someone increases to max bets on single deck that they reshuffle. That is absolutely not the case.

[MonkeyF0cker]

In YOUR case... no

Ahh. So, you're just arguing for the sake of argument. Good talk. Nice contribution.

You can go away now.

You obviously know whether or not I can count a deck in BJ.

[Sam Odom]

Monkey , who you like tonight : NFL ?

[Sam Odom]

So they can shuffle mid deck to "harass" and that's not the same as controlling risks? Whatever.

Of course it is risk control just like barring entering mid deck

[MonkeyF0cker]

Of course it is risk control just like barring entering mid deck

Except that it almost never happens. And except that mid-deck entry is a written rule. And except that the pit boss will typically back you off before trying to harass you with stupid tricks like that.

[Sam Odom]

Except that it almost never happens.

Unless the player is lucky or is good... If a player/table is suspect the floor will call-up a sharp dealer who will count the deck also. If the player is lucky or good enough to bet the max in a fav deck... counter measures will be used

[SBR_John]

So the fact that they are not regulated makes it okay for them to operate with illegitimate policy? Come on, John.

You implied that every time someone increases to max bets on single deck that they reshuffle. That is absolutely not the case.

Not exactly. I said "Increase your bet to the max in the middle of a single deck BJ game in vegas and they will stop and shuffle", not every time you increase a bet. If the table max is $1000 and you take a +5 count or higher from $25 to $1000 you will likely get a shuffle. hence managing risks.

Did I say they could operate with an illegitimate policy or is this similar to how you re interpreted the blackjack scenario? I said they could take any action they wanted. If they don't want your action they don't have to take it. Nothing "illegitimate" about that. They make the rules and you as the consumer can choose another book if you don't agree with them. Or next best thing, debate me about them on SBR

[sharpcat]

So they can shuffle mid deck to "harass" and that's not the same as controlling risks? Whatever.

These are businesses who can take any action they want. They are not regulated. Don't like it or simply don't agree? Take your business elsewhere.

RS your rambling manifesto had a few good points. Unfortunately you let your disdain for SBR cloud and distort what could have been some good talking points rendering your effort worthless. Why don't you try tabling your personal feelings some day and who knows, maybe we can have a rational conversation.

SBR stopped allowing points participation from Bulgaria and a couple of other countries because of rampant fraud and abuse. Is this fair? Possibly against the Geneva Convention?? Maybe but as a business we took steps to limit our risks and ensure we can prosper for the rest of our participants. Every business tries to limit its risks.

I felt all of his points were good, especially the ones about affiliates and extortion.

[Chili_Powder]

][/B] the books make good cash the way it is and I don't thinkthey are in danger of going under. They claim this risk management crap like if they don't make these changes the player are going to bankrupt them when nothing could be further from the truth.

Something we can all agree on

[MonkeyF0cker]

Nobody here is arguing that a book cannot manage its risk. The argument is that offering disparate limits in teasers is criminal (at least it is in Vegas). You cannot bring up risk management in Vegas at your convenience when the practice that is being disparaged isn't legal here. At least, you shouldn't be expected to be taken seriously if you do.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Not exactly. I said "Increase your bet to the max in the middle of a single deck BJ game in vegas and they will stop and shuffle", not every time you increase a bet. If the table max is $1000 and you take a +5 count or higher from $25 to $1000 you will likely get a shuffle. hence managing risks.

Did I say they could operate with an illegitimate policy or is this similar to how you re interpreted the blackjack scenario? I said they could take any action they wanted. If they don't want your action they don't have to take it. Nothing "illegitimate" about that. They make the rules and you as the consumer can choose another book if you don't agree with them. Or next best thing, debate me about them on SBR

I understand what you were implying. You are also changing things pretty dramatically. You said nothing about the count. Do you actually think the pit knows the count of all tables at all times? Surveillance might. But they aren't ordering shuffles.

This is an illegitimate policy. It is not legal in Las Vegas. Yeah, I can certainly take my business elsewhere (like to a regulated environment with fair rules). And many people are. That's why the offshore industry is in the state it is in.