[d2bets]

I wasn't being FD specific. Just saying it was challenged if I remeber correctly. Pretty sure it was in US

Yeah that sucks. Would be lovely if books were forbidden from discriminating or for banning without "good cause". Meaning, you can make limits whatever you want, but each player has the same limit at the same time.

If this was the case, it would force books to actually learn how to book, or cease to exist.

[Optional]

I read somehwere someone challenegd banning or limiting people I believe, They ruled you have no guaranteed right to make money off of wagering
Very odd that the books have a right to a guaranteed profit by only taking losers but you have no right to attempt to make money. Funny

You could be thinking of a case against Bet365 a few years ago by a group of limited/banned players in Spain.

The local court hearing it ruled that Bet365 could not act to ban people for winning. But they appealed saying the Spanish license was designed with the idea that bookmakers collect a "guaranteed" profit and authorities collect a guaranteed tax and there was no implication customers had a right to win.


I think ALL state regulators design their rules and tax rates on the premise sports betting is a recreational activity with a cost to participate in. I think the concept that bettors can consistently profit from it is no where in their minds anywhere. Just listen to how the Barstool CEO describes their right to limit. Books pay high fees and feel like that gives them the right to focus on profits primarily. Not bookmaking or fairness. And that comes from the regulators design of their rules.

[Fishhead]

I'm at $1.26 max limit @ MGM so it can get worse