[Sportsleaf]

Woke up to this email. What can I do?

[Optional]

Not much you can do.

The old saying is "take it as a badge of honor" that you are too good for them.

If you are genuinely too good for bookmakers then this will not be the only time you will see a message like this.



Bottom line is that they allowed to. And from many years of experience, books almost never have changed a decision like this. They also don't explain much about why.

Were you betting a lot of props or smaller leagues mainly?

[Popers]

BetVictor limited one of my accounts on the very first bet, first time I tried using woman name and max bet saudi arabia basketball, didn't go well, at least i won and they insta withdraw so it could be worst.

There's nothing you can do except beard your way back in or find new bookies.

[Thefix13]

BetVictor limited one of my accounts on the very first bet, first time I tried using woman name and max bet saudi arabia basketball, didn't go well, at least i won and they insta withdraw so it could be worst.

There's nothing you can do except beard your way back in or find new bookies.

Lol max betting Saudi basketball, what could go wrong?

[Popers]

Lol max betting Saudi basketball, what could go wrong?

Well, it's either this or letting the cash on the floor, I don't have much alternatives, on to the next accounts as usual.

[Sportsleaf]

Most of the activity on the account was live betting MMA/Combat Sports events. The rest would be Unders, Moneylines, and Parlays.

This is the same book that really annoyed me when they clawed back my signup bonus funds. I had them close my account for a few months. Then when I cooled off I had them reopen it. The interesting thing is that I had only 3.5x'ed my initial deposit by the time they banned me, which in my opinion isn't that much. It was really only 3x, since I had burned $500 prior to closing my account.

What's particularly unfortunate about this for me, though, is that unlike pretty much EVERY other sportsbooks I've come across, BetVictor offers live odds on the relatively smaller MMA promotions that are more peripheral to the North American market. So what I'm talking about is stuff like KSW, Oktagon, ONE Championship, I think even Cage Warriors, etc. For me, that is a big deal.

And now I'm banned. It was nice while it lasted.

[Thefix13]

Most of the activity on the account was live betting MMA/Combat Sports events. The rest would be Unders, Moneylines, and Parlays.

This is the same book that really annoyed me when they clawed back my signup bonus funds. I had them close my account for a few months. Then when I cooled off I had them reopen it. The interesting thing is that I had only 3.5x'ed my initial deposit by the time they banned me, which in my opinion isn't that much. It was really only 3x, since I had burned $500 prior to closing my account.

What's particularly unfortunate about this for me, though, is that unlike pretty much EVERY other sportsbooks I've come across, BetVictor offers live odds on the relatively smaller MMA promotions that are more peripheral to the North American market. So what I'm talking about is stuff like KSW, Oktagon, ONE Championship, I think even Cage Warriors, etc. For me, that is a big deal.

And now I'm banned. It was nice while it lasted.

Think you should have seen it coming man, betting and winning on smaller market stuff and they previously messed with your bonus funds, likely for that same reason. Might have left for a few months but the history was already there.

[Sportsleaf]

If sportsbooks are allowed to take the money of losers in perpetuity, then shouldn't I be allowed to take the money of sportsbooks in perpetuity?

It's an interesting double standard, don't you think?

[Alfie White]

Take it to Strasbourg to be honest, they are violating your basic human right! Outrageous! I am sure you have a case here.

[Sportsleaf]

Take it to Strasbourg to be honest, they are violating your basic human right! Outrageous! I am sure you have a case here.

It's essentially state-sanctioned racketeering.

From Wikipedia:

"Racketeering is a type of organized crime in which the persons set up a coercive, fraudulent, extortionary, or otherwise illegal coordinated scheme or operation to repeatedly or consistently collect a profit."

You know, kind of like limiting or outright banning winners while keeping the losers around to bleed them dry. All while the government takes their cut through taxation; they're in on the racket. Statistically speaking, the overwhelming majority of sports bettors are not profitable over the long term, therefore these practices shouldn't be necessary. But then, without greedily imposing such a double standard, how could people like Denise Coates, the founder of Bet365, become the wealthiest woman in Britain?

[Alfie White]

Stop being entitled to anything, it is a private company thus they can do whatever they want.
Let me help you with that one, since you are Karenning out of this world:

"19.3 ... We may also restrict your use of our sportsbook through your account at any time where we no longer wish to accept sports bets from you."

Did you accept T&C, yes you did. Did you read them and understood them, hell naaah.

[infotimbo]

it is a private company thus they can do whatever they want.

well, there is a different way to see it. A court in Spain for example came to a conclusion that books need to offer similar limits to everyone.

But it unfortunately won't be an example for others, I'm afraid. And I also don't know if it even went through to the highest instance.

In the end, it depends on domestic law. Over here, a museum can't exclude anyone from visiting it, for example, no matter if private or not, as certain cultural activities need to be accessible for everyone.

[povis]

This is one of the most honest message you will ever get form book, they tell it straight to the gambler's face that you are winning too much money. Some gamblers have to suffer ridicule in order to withdraw their winning. betting sites have very low standards I don't know what is alternative.

[Optional]

well, there is a different way to see it. A court in Spain for example came to a conclusion that books need to offer similar limits to everyone.

But it unfortunately won't be an example for others, I'm afraid. And I also don't know if it even went through to the highest instance.

In the end, it depends on domestic law. Over here, a museum can't exclude anyone from visiting it, for example, no matter if private or not, as certain cultural activities need to be accessible for everyone.

You keep bringing up this silly case in some tinpot lower court in the back of nowhere in Spain. It means zero to sportsbetting lawa anywhere, inc inside Spain.

Do you recall how it worked out for the plaintiffs?

I believe they had their accounts re-instated and then refused service totally?

So the court was shown in a practical way how it was a foolish unenforceable ruling in real life. And everyone moved on accepting that there is no legal basis to say books cannot restrict or refuse service like any other private business.

[infotimbo]

Do you recall how it worked out for the plaintiffs?

as far as I understood, personal limits for all customers were abolished. But if you read something different, feel free to post a link. It's difficult to find information about this (especially when not speaking Spanish).

Obviously, I don't know what the jurisdiction in Iowa exactly looks like, but claiming that every private company can do whatever they want is the wrong way to approach it.

[Optional]

as far as I understood, personal limits for all customers were abolished. But if you read something different, feel free to post a link. It's difficult to find information about this (especially when not speaking Spanish).

Obviously, I don't know what the jurisdiction in Iowa exactly looks like, but claiming that every private company can do whatever they want is the wrong way to approach it.

Not sure about do "anything they want"... but I bet they can refuse service to anyone they like (unless it's due to being gay of course)

Don't care enough to search for links. I know what happened from reading about it on here though so should be findable.

[infotimbo]

Not sure about do "anything they want"... but I bet they can refuse service to anyone they like (unless it's due to being gay of course)

Don't care enough to search for links. I know what happened from reading about it on here though so should be findable.

I had another look, and found a thread on Arbusers, according to which the situation is indeed not as good as I thought.

There are initiatives elsewhere as well, though, for example in Australia:

"The Committee recommends that the Australian Government establish an appropriately resourced national online gambling ombudsman, to sit within the national regulator.

4.162 Evidence to this inquiry shows that online WSPs have heavily incentivised the gambling of Australians who experience the most gambling harm, while banning some who win more than others. These revelations are extraordinarily damning for an industry that claims to provide entertainment and whose business model depends on customers having faith they will be paid when they win. The Committee suggests that it is in the industry’s best interests to agree to modest minimum bet limits to demonstrate good faith with their customers."

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...to_reduce_harm

I don't think this has gone anywhere yet (you may know more?), but imo it's something bookmakers will in the future face in regulated markets - and rightly so.

[Optional]

I had another look, and found a thread on Arbusers, according to which the situation is indeed not as good as I thought.

There are initiatives elsewhere as well, though, for example in Australia:

"The Committee recommends that the Australian Government establish an appropriately resourced national online gambling ombudsman, to sit within the national regulator.

4.162 Evidence to this inquiry shows that online WSPs have heavily incentivised the gambling of Australians who experience the most gambling harm, while banning some who win more than others. These revelations are extraordinarily damning for an industry that claims to provide entertainment and whose business model depends on customers having faith they will be paid when they win. The Committee suggests that it is in the industry’s best interests to agree to modest minimum bet limits to demonstrate good faith with their customers."

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...to_reduce_harm

I don't think this has gone anywhere yet (you may know more?), but imo it's something bookmakers will in the future face in regulated markets - and rightly so.

In my state that discussion has resulted in all licensed bookmakers agreeing to risk to lose a minimum of $2000 on any horse racing bet. Has not bled over to sportsbetting as yet but I do think the spectre of that being regulated sees Aussie bookmakers more careful than most other places in limiting/booting winners.

If the whole world followed Australian law we would all be in a fairer system for players. But many people would also complain about the "nanny state" style of rules. No online live betting for example, as it's too addictive/impulsive for "the vulnerable" to cope with. No cash incentives to start betting or bet more than you otherwise would. Lots of little rules like that.

[infotimbo]

yeah, thanks, let's see where it goes.

Just recently I was kicked out by a (regulated) book after one lost bet of 20 Euro, so it looks like some also share customer data among each other. Limitations have always been a major issue on European bookmakers, but this surely was a new low.

[Stumpage]

I got the same message several months back. Not much you can do except on to the next sportbook...There's 30 in the province so hopefully you still have some decent options...

[Brandley]

Just take the money out and move on

[Optional]

Just take the money out and move on

+1