[moniker]

A book offers 20% bonus on sign up, up to $1000 you decide to take them up, they have a good rating here.

A few bets into the wagering requirements, which is $22,000 and bets have to be above evens, your bet limits are reduced to around $50 max and the book removes some of the most popular sports.

Would you consider this a con?

You knew that the wagering was big, and you knew the wagering had to done above evens, no one put a gun to your head to join this book.

You didn't know you were locked in until you made 440 bets ($50 max bets), and that the markets would be reduced.

Opinions please?

[durito]

Yes.

It's not fair. If they want to cut limits, the rollover should be cut by the same percentage.

Unfortunately, I doubt there is much you can do.

May I ask which book? BetOnline?

[head_strong]

yes.....

[tomcowley]

Yes, it's a con. Book can just cut you to $1 or $.01 and hold your money hostage for 5 years even if you bet every event they offer. SBR sees no problem with this practice.

[Toit]

Con.

[HeeeHAWWWW]

Book can't lose. Offer a bonus to attract customer, and if the customer wins they get scammed. No different from refusing to pay.

[DukeJohn]

I had the same thing happen to me. I personally believe this is an unethical practice, but as mentioned before SBR has personally told me they find this practice acceptable; not only that, but according to SBR you should be flattered that the book limited you because it means... well, let me just copy and paste their quote...

Quote from SBR about my complaint:
"I don’t think there was anything unethical here really, if they pegged you as a real square/public bettor they’d have left your limits untouched, so maybe take it as a compliment. "

I have seen SBR do some great things, but I really don't understand their reasoning on this... I think the best solution is Durito's, if they are going to limit you, they should reduce the roll over likewise...

Anyway... you are not alone in being a victim of this con...

[THEGREAT30]

If you consider bait and switch a con yes.

[JoshW]

Is this a book based in Europe? I would say that a lot of the UK and some of the main land books that have good ratings, largely have their top rating because of their absolute safety. Some of those books may need to be reevaluated based on limits that drop so quickly. Not many US focused books limit what sports you can pay even if they were to reduce limits.

[TheBeautifulGame]

Didn't SBR lower the rating of Bet365 a while ago because of pulling a stunt like this? His limits were lowered to $5 or something after nearly rolling over his bonus. It's defiently a con because it's putting the player like moniker in an akward position.

[Peep]

Didn't SBR lower the rating of Bet365 a while ago because of pulling a stunt like this? His limits were lowered to $5 or something after nearly rolling over his bonus. It's defiently a con because it's putting the player like moniker in an akward position.

Yes, con. Bad one IMO, surprised SBR doesn't see this as official policy. Don't any of you guys gamble anymore? If you do, would you like this to happen to you part way through a rollover?

[themajormt]

It allows the BOOK to take a shot at the player and is not fair. Its basically saying, "we're going to toss you a bone and see how good of a bettor you are, IF you are half way decent, we will just cut your limits and offerings so that you cant complete the rollover, OR you will forfeit the bonus and the winnings from the bonus..."

How is this fair?!?!?!!?!

[topgame85]

You still get to keep the bonus money if you eventually complete rollover so I don't think its a SCAM, may not have been what you bargained for but still....... many sites say in their rules bonuses are only offered for recreational bettors... ie losers so be happy they don't just claim your a pro and yank your money right off the bat

[JoshW]

Yes, con. Bad one IMO, surprised SBR doesn't see this as official policy. Don't any of you guys gamble anymore? If you do, would you like this to happen to you part way through a rollover?

As I said, I believe this book to have this high a rating is likely one the bigger square books from Europe. I believe that our ratings might be out of line, in so far as, we gave them high ratings because the safety isn't really in question.

As for US sports facing books, if it is A rated, I don't see it happening. None of them limit major sports offering when they limit.

And if it did happen, then I believe the player should get his money back including winnings with no fees. Their are certainly many acceptable books who don't want certain action and will limit quickly with steam, shot taking, etc. I have dealt with that all of my years betting offshore, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

[shooterman]

Of course it is a con. Anyone saying it is not is either a shithead or a scammer themselves.

[durito]

As I said, I believe this book to have this high a rating is likely one the bigger square books from Europe. I believe that our ratings might be out of line, in so far as, we gave them high ratings because the safety isn't really in question.

As for US sports facing books, if it is A rated, I don't see it happening. None of them limit major sports offering when they limit.

And if it did happen, then I believe the player should get his money back including winnings with no fees. Their are certainly many acceptable books who don't want certain action and will limit quickly with steam, shot taking, etc. I have dealt with that all of my years betting offshore, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

BetOnline does this as common practice.

Wagerstreet will try.

[Zelda]

BetOnline is the holy SBR cow, they don´t count

[JoshW]

Durito,

They limit betting on major US Sports at times? I understand books do limit (don't know any that never have), but I had never heard of a major US sport being excluded from what is available to bet. Usually that is the one thing the books actually want the players to bet into. Get rid of props, ask a player to stop betting smaller sports, all of that I have seen.

I agree on Wagerstreet, they were they first one that came to mind. I am less familiar with BetOnline's policies and practices.

[Peep]

There is a great thread Dorito did about his betonline experience Josh. They were brutal with him. They limited EVERYTHING....

[JoshW]

Thanks Peep, I will do a search for it.

[durito]

Actually, they were worse to someone else on here. I had reasonable limits on NBA. Not that I had any interested in betting NBA.

I'll try and find the thread, but he was cut to $500 from $5,000 on NBA and still asked to do a 200,000k rollover (their deposit+free play+free play winnings x)

[katstale]

Many people were cut to $100 limits with at least 45 second delays. Ask Justin abt it. He will tell all. Despicable behavior. Not quite in Lenny's class, but they are in the same school building.

[headgames]

I too would see that as unethical and completely unacceptable. Doesn't it just appear that they're telling you "we don't want you playing here but you're going to have to stay around betting sports you don't want to bet on at very low levels"?

I've obviously never worked at a bookmaker and maybe this is a silly idea but if someone's not broken any rules but you just don't want them betting with you any more, isn't it better to close down the account acknowledging the wagering they did do in line with the promotion you offered them? So if he deposited $5000 for $1000 cash bonus and had bet $6000 of the $22000 rollover up to the point you decided you didn't want him betting any more, then he's done 27% of the rollover so close his account and return to him his deposit, winnings and 27% of the bonus which could be seen as being released due to the wagers he did place. Otherwise it's a complete bait and switch, a totally unfair tactic and absolutely no different to what Canbet did when they told players that even though they signed up to one set of terms, new terms on their rollover had been imposed - they were downgraded.

[trixtrix]

from what i hear, it's a con unless it's betonline, then it's obv not a con b/c they're a recreational book

[Chuck Sims]

Its a scam. Only crooks would pull that stunt.

[head_strong]

Of course it is a con. Anyone saying it is not is either a shithead or a scammer themselves.

[JohnnyC]

wagerstreet does this

[Cferrat]

I think that this is not a good practice "unless" the player is hitting steam and or soft numbers, then maybe offer the player a choice to either take a cut in wager amounts or take his money back minus the bonus and winnings from the bonus, that way he gets his money back and the book can cover themselves.

[tomcowley]

It's ok to steal from players as long as your linesmaker is a big enough idiot? Wat?

[moonbeam]

BetOnline does this as common practice.

Wagerstreet will try.

Hm. I´m really wondering about this.

I have placed hundreds of soccer bets at betonline with maximum stakes (250-1000 Euro) and they never cut my limits.

OK, the gave me a rollover of 60.000 Euro and needs more than 6 weeks to pay... but thats another story

[themajormt]

I think that this is not a good practice "unless" the player is hitting steam and or soft numbers, then maybe offer the player a choice to either take a cut in wager amounts or take his money back minus the bonus and winnings from the bonus, that way he gets his money back and the book can cover themselves.

Carl, I think your suggestion is unfair. This allows the book to take a FREE shot at the player. If the player loses the book makes out, BUT if the player wins the book can say they are limiting the wager amounts and make it impossible to hit a rollover? The book should PRORATE the rollover and award the WINNINGS from the bonus but keep the bonus. This is fair... Anything else solely benefits the Book and that is not right!

[tomcowley]

That's not even fair. If the book offers the bonus, it pays the bonus. Period. (unless it's a second account, etc). Rollover exists to make sure the player gives enough action that the book is expected to recoup some of the bonus and that the player gets in a habit of wagering with the book- If the book decides it doesn't want the action (or doesn't want to risk that much action), trying to use rollover as a no-pay excuse is silly. "We consider your action unprofitable, but until you rape us for even more money, we're holding your money hostage." LOL. Or, "We consider your action unprofitable, but since you didn't rape us out of enough money before we figured it out, we're not paying you in full." Super LOL. A limit cut with a proportional rollover cut is fine- if the book isn't sure if it wants the action, and wants to reduce risk, that's fine.. but it's not fair to inconvenience the player while it's doing that.

[Justin7]

That's clearly unfair in my opinion.

Re: Betonline... I was under the impression that they stopped doing this. Has anyone experienced this with Betonline in the last 3 months? They had bunch of bonus/rollover complaints against them awhile ago, but I haven't heard of any new ones lately.