Originally Posted by
StackinGreen
My take on all of these has been the philosophical question of where does the bet start and where does it end? I say that because it is known that, as evidenced of all the questions in this thread, no one really knows. I also think this is the argument that Wohlford and I share. Namely that if you allow a book to renege on a bet because of a bad line, where does that "bad line" begin and end? What's "bad"? .20? .40? .80 cents? Who decides? And based on what?
This happens with baseball pitchers as well, and I've always thought it is BS. What's the point of "Action" (No listed pitchers) if it doesn't really mean ACTION? Just so the books can have that edge, and you can't take advantage of a guy maybe not going that day, which would be your risk or your knowledge? I've done that and they should honor my bet, not make a new ML out of thin air that I also MUST agree with. Action means THESE GUYS DON'T HAVE TO START for the bet to have action. Right? LOL.
The very point of sports betting is to use your knowledge to beat a line, already acknowledging the 10% vig edge and issues that books might have due to their taking both sides of a bet theoretically. So now 10% is not enough or you are too lazy/not good enough to keep your lines 10% sharp for profit? Give me a break. Then limit max bets. You can't have it both ways. So either decrease vig as a compromise and then ban players, or sack up and pay the lines you post.
The more I think about it, limiting max bets is the only kosher way to deal with this issue, in terms of fairness. And that's a legitimate sportsbook tactic, already known and employed. I think Wohlford would agree with that as well. Would it "limit business" though? Yes.