-
Comment -
I agree with JG5 to some extent although I definitely understand your take on it HAW.
I loathe the strategy some of these companies use. Its obvious they arent really trying to correct the issue at hand here, that they have soft lines on some events, but rather focusing at as rapidly as possible detect and boot any winning bettor. I'd have no problems with any arbers being kicked to the curb, and while it may not be too simple filtering out arbers from line shoppers, it certainly seems like winning players gets the boot regardless of their approach to the game. Its all about maximizing the profits, period.
As JG5 pointed out, some of these companies put huge money into advertising and sponsoring, money that could stay within the markets. Can see bet365 banners on damn near half of all sporting events I watch. SBO advertising as well as their sponsorship of West Ham probably means a decent investment as well, yet they can manage to run their operations as they do. Same goes for 188bet (while the limiting seems to have gotten worse in recent years they're still respectable), not completely uncommon to see ads from them at large events.
I have no problem with real risk management within reason, I just dont think thats what the majority of these books are doing. You obviously cant carry on like BI did either, offer too good bonuses, better lines than market consensus etc etc. Also dont think the ratings neccesarily reflects the financial stability.Comment -
Yep - although that's probably inevitable when you offer 1354621362456324673547 side markets on every event, and cover all leagues imaginable.
I was banned years ago at most of these places so no fan either :-)
Certainly a very inexact science, as few of these places publish accounts, and because of the dubious legal position in the US. However, SBR has said that's part of the ratings, whereas limits aren't at all (and really can't be, given pretty much all books do that).Also dont think the ratings neccesarily reflects the financial stability.Comment -
I think we're pretty close to being on the same page, just ever so slightly different views. Even trying to put personal bias aside for not being able to hit such lines I think their approach of; "Will you lose? There is the door.", is a bit immoral even in a market like gambling that doesnt have all that much moral to start with.
I agree with you on the # of markets part, but if any company could do it, who better than lads or 365. Still, maybe a more reasonable approach here could be to be limited just those markets to pennies or take them away completely for said player rather than showing them the boot. But its just not worth the effort, because even if that player would lose on larger markets, chances are he wont be as profitable as the average customer.
Then there is a whole bunch with a similar approach that doesnt offer nearly as many markets, so it can only be so much of an excuse.
[/quote]
Certainly a very inexact science, as few of these places publish accounts, and because of the dubious legal position in the US. However, SBR has said that's part of the ratings, whereas limits aren't at all (and really can't be, given pretty much all books do that).
I didnt quite mean that as literally as it came out, I realize financial stability would only be one part of several factors in the rating. It was more an attempt at discreetly saying I think some places are pushed over the top a little bit as far as ratings goes because of special relations SBR has with them. While limits arent part of the ratings at all, some wordings in the reviews may suggest a case a little different from the reality too.Comment -
The reasoning behind banning is this. You can either offer:
A limited number of markets, spend large quantities on expert compilers and market-monitoring systems and take on all comers, being a high volume low margin book open to winners. Succesfully done by likes of Pinny/SBO/IBC who you would now have to compete with, a huge ask.
Or you can offer a tonne of markets, keep compiler costs low, and restrict/ban those who beat you or simply take arb prices. This will satisfy 95% of your customers, and will have 5% annoyed/banned. Margins will be high and profitability solid, majority of customers are price insensitive and prefer a book with more markets, more live betting etc, over low-margin main markets.
Third option is offering a tonne of markets, employ expert compilers and systems and allow all comers to bet on all markets. This is the model critics propose for the likes of 365 and English books etc.
Why won't they do this? Because the cost of being expert in everything and on every option is immense in staffing levels and there is no reward, that 5% you now don't ban simply won't bet with you now anyway because your prices are efficient. So you spend all this extra money to satisfy 5% who won't bet with you now anyway. Much more rational and profitable to simply have some ineffecient prices occasionally and ban those who exploit them consistently. Efficient markets cost more to produce and maintain and don't give any benefit over banning inefficient price takers. In reality, it will be often beneficial to have an inefficient price out there if your customers will be taking the "wrong" side -- think local bookie on home team, his away price is positive EV but he makes more money that way than if he priced it up accurately and had the home team its true price - something he could not get away with if he allows all-comers to bet the inefficient away team price (i.e in this analogy out of state punters)Comment -
When you're suggesting that 5% wouldnt bet with them after adjusting their prices because now their prices are efficient, are you assuming they'll have a larger vig than the vast majority of their competitors and thus never having good prices for line shoppers? I have a decent chunk of my action at pinny and they generally have sharp lines.
They also got a 10% ish vig to work with on a lot of these smaller sub markets which is quite a bit to work with requiring lesser expertise to set respectable prices.
I've got to be honest though, I'm not sure how often bet365 is in the situation where they offer a price giving a possibility to an arb, but I thought they were among the better of the euro books to move their lines. There is also a ton of euro books that offer far less markets that limit heavily. Its blatantly obvious thats it not only the difficulty of setting sharp odds at all markets that are the problem, but its just easier to give a customer the boot than trying improve on their end.
Exactly, they want to maximize their profits. They dont want people arbing them, but they are essentially trying to arb their customers by only wanting to allow those taking bad prices to take part of their services. How often do you see a regular store refuse your money because you're taking advantage of a single product at sale for a good price (one that may even be unprofitable to them)?Efficient markets cost more to produce and maintain and don't give any benefit over banning inefficient price takers. In reality, it will be often beneficial to have an inefficient price out there if your customers will be taking the "wrong" side -- think local bookie on home team, his away price is positive EV but he makes more money that way than if he priced it up accurately and had the home team its true price - something he could not get away with if he allows all-comers to bet the inefficient away team price (i.e in this analogy out of state punters)
All I'm saying is its not the most moral approach.Last edited by benandjerry; 04-11-13, 09:20 AM.Comment -
It would be like someone going for shopping several pairs of shoes, and the person behind the counter saying: "Sorry, but you only can buy one pair, because the price it's very cheap and it wouldn't be profitable for us!"
. Blame the guy in charge of pricing the items, not the costumer!!!.
However, as I mentioned somewhere, many of these hate-winners-attitude euro books like Bet365 and the rest, should be clear about limits and that kind of stuff in their T&C's, I'm sure half of these threads bashing these bookies wouldn't even exist if we as costumers were a bit sure about what to expect when registering with these companies. I still don't understand why they choose that very coward and inmoral approach not according to a serious business. Maybe they're afraid of competitors?, truth is the whole ban/limit subject it's like a secret of state; surely many people posting here in SBR have a wider knowledge of this industry than me, and could shed a light on this.Comment -
I got a new record being limited by those cowards Bet 3.65, just in 7 days for going from a starting bank of US $60 increased to only $193
after 5 bets, the result: another useless account limited to peanuts with 30 plus seconds to place a single wager during any live event. I also noticed they reduced their new losers emm... costumers bonus to $100, less than a year ago it was $200; maximizing profits some may say 
Comment -
Bet 365 is biggest cheaters
Yes
They Are really a cheater site And I can say it for guarranted,They are so good if you are continue lossing money but whenever you will start wining or will make 2-3 withdraw request back to back they will stop you to able bet,it happened with me I believed on them blindly and lose meny INR with them but when I won 70k in just one time,now my maximum bet limit is p 5$ what the hell this is??they are saying that THIS DECISION IS TAKEN BY THEIR TARDER TEMA I JUST WANT TO ASK TBEM THAT?IS YIUR TRADER TEAM WAS SLEEPING WHEN I WAS LOOSING MONEY BY BETTING BIG STAKES..isuggest you all people that pls don't bet on them and go to trusted sites like 12bet or dafabet,They are small but they are not cheaters...Comment
