Is this ethical?

**JohnAnthony** · 01-08-12, 08:35 AM

I'm not expert on this but here's my take:

The book is basically giving you odds of 1.00 (if you bet (theoretically), you will only get your money back) on the side it's not taking bets on, and regular juiced odds on the side they're willing to take bets on. It's weird for sure, I don't know it has anything to do with ethics but standards.

**djefferis** · 01-08-12, 08:39 AM

Absolutely.

Is it ethical for a book to shade a line to one side by an extra point?

**in play, run(s)** · 01-08-12, 09:08 AM

Of course, they're not obliged to accept a bet if they don't want to

**djefferis** · 01-08-12, 09:36 AM

Is it ethical to pound a book whose lines favor the dog (ie SIA or Bodog), gaining a point or 2 advantage over traditional shops ?

There are no ethics in this game, just sharps and losers. Get sharp or prepare to lose.

**lukahh** · 01-08-12, 10:11 AM

i see no ethics problem if they only take bets on one side.

did this ever happen at all? my guess is only for a short time while book is balancing its exposure. if book wants to bet itself on one outcome, it has more profitable options than denyin one side of bets.

**Justin7** · 01-08-12, 12:14 PM

Unethical. The practice is illegal in Las Vegas, but gaming commission almost never enforces it.

**Maniac** · 01-08-12, 02:24 PM

Possible it could be a mistake or a temporary thing if it is an online book. Virtually every online book will have limits in place to protect its exposure, and if this limit is reached or even breached (say if there was a high payout parlay with its final leg on one of the teams), then the system shouldnt be able to accept any more bets on that side, until either:

a) A sufficient amount of stakes are taken on the other side, therefore balancing the book a little bit and bringing the exposure back under the limit set. or

b) The limits are manually raised by the linesmaker/manager as a result of being maxed out/breached to accomodate more bets on that side.

Of course the book could have just decided that enough is enough and that they dont want any more business on that side...but in my opinion that is a pussy move and that any book worth its salt wouldnt do this on purpose...

**Hareeba!** · 01-08-12, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Justin7

Unethical. The practice is illegal in Las Vegas, but gaming commission almost never enforces it.

I fail to see the sense of such a law.

If the book doesn't want to lay one side it simply has only to put up odds which are so unattractive/uncompetitive that they won't get any action on it and thus easily circumvent what is presumably the object of the law?

**Justin7** · 01-08-12, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Hareeba!

I fail to see the sense of such a law.

If the book doesn't want to lay one side it simply has only to put up odds which are so unattractive/uncompetitive that they won't get any action on it and thus easily circumvent what is presumably the object of the law?

And that is fair. And if a book does this with a 20 cent line, one side will look very good. Or it can use a 30-cent line (or higher), and appear for what it is.

If a book shows a 20-cent line (hell, why not use a 5-cent line?) and rejects all bets on one side, it is committing fraud. It is saying "We deal a 20 cent line" when it doesn't -- it is dealing a line that has potentially infinite overage.

**Hareeba!** · 01-08-12, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Justin7

And that is fair. And if a book does this with a 20 cent line, one side will look very good. Or it can use a 30-cent line (or higher), and appear for what it is.

If a book shows a 20-cent line (hell, why not use a 5-cent line?) and rejects all bets on one side, it is committing fraud. It is saying "We deal a 20 cent line" when it doesn't -- it is dealing a line that has potentially infinite overage.

Of course. If they are claiming to be dealing a certain line that's a different story. But are they compelled to declare what line they are quoting and does it have to be the same for all games that sport?

**ehp6737** · 01-08-12, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Justin7

And that is fair. And if a book does this with a 20 cent line, one side will look very good. Or it can use a 30-cent line (or higher), and appear for what it is.

If a book shows a 20-cent line (hell, why not use a 5-cent line?) and rejects all bets on one side, it is committing fraud. It is saying "We deal a 20 cent line" when it doesn't -- it is dealing a line that has potentially infinite overage.

True, but I didnt interpret the OP's question in the context of taking action on both sides with an abnormal line then cancelling one side of the bets. I took it in the context of the book just refusing to even offer action on one side. If that's the case I dont see it as unethical, but it would be a bad business model.

**RonPaul2008** · 01-08-12, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by ehp6737

True, but I didnt interpret the OP's question in the context of taking action on both sides with an abnormal line then cancelling one side of the bets. I took it in the context of the book just refusing to even offer action on one side. If that's the case I dont see it as unethical, but it would be a bad business model.

I mean they post lines for both sides, but when you try to bet one side it won't be accepted but the other side is accepted.

**CityCowboy** · 01-08-12, 09:01 PM

That sucks.

**ehp6737** · 01-08-12, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by RonPaul2008

I mean they post lines for both sides, but when you try to bet one side it won't be accepted but the other side is accepted.

I see. Well if it's a -110 line then I dont see how it's unethical, but like I said earlier, it is a bad business model since the book in essence becomes a player by taking that kind of risk on one sided action. If it's a higher juiced line, as Justin stated before, than yes it would be unethical IMO. Assuming it's not just a software glitch, I don't see any other reason why they would do this except to take advantage just as Justin had eluded to.

Out of curiosity, what response do you get when you try to place the wager? And have you tried calling the book to get an explanation?

**lukahh** · 01-09-12, 05:57 AM

i find this practice weird.
wouldn't it be extremely easy for a book to deal a line, say. 5-10% or more below Betfair going rate? Then they could hedge any amount of action they receive with nice profit.

**AlwaysDrawing** · 01-09-12, 12:35 PM

This is CLEARLY unethical. I would never play with a shop that denies action on one side of a line. Books must allow action on both sides.

This is the only way to keep a bookmaker honest. If you deal the Ravens -14.5 against the Texans next week (when market is -7.5), but only accept action on one side, you're ripping people off. Sure, people don't have to bet with you, but that doesn't mean it's ethical.

**RickySteve** · 01-09-12, 02:46 PM

To display NE -17 / DEN +17 and refuse all bets on DEN is unethical.

To display NE -17 / DEN OTB is not unethical.