William Hill lowers my maximum bet due to arbitrage

**filipinho** · 08-01-12, 12:34 AM

So? I would cut your limits in first month. You are acting like they are guilty for limiting obvious arber? Limiting is perfectly normal thing to do for soft books. Try Victor Chandler...

**cobra_king** · 08-01-12, 02:18 AM

The biggest surprise is that it took them this long to limit you.

**naijul** · 08-01-12, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by filipinho

So? I would cut your limits in first month. You are acting like they are guilty for limiting obvious arber? Limiting is perfectly normal thing to do for soft books. Try Victor Chandler...

In that case it seems I was naive to be surprised, and didn't think limiting like this would happen with one of the sbr A rated books. At the end of the day, I guess limiting someone because they're an arber is really no different than limiting someone because they're a sharp.

**Digo** · 08-01-12, 02:07 PM

Looks like you are a novice arber naijul, this things are almost a rule nowadays...

**naijul** · 08-01-12, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Digo

Looks like you are a novice arber naijul, this things are almost a rule nowadays...

I definitely I am and have only been arb hunting for a few months now. So is it common that sports books monitor their lines for arbs and keep track of people making wagers on exploitable lines? If this sort of monitoring happens why don't sports books just monitor competitors' lines to avoid having arbs in the first place? I guess to offer soft lines to get action?

**muffins** · 08-01-12, 06:50 PM

Arbers are not the same as sharp punters, sharp punters will last much longer before getting cut.

Why don't books monitor lines to avoid having arbs in the first place? Simply because they want to offer as much content as possible for their customers, so they have no need to bet elsewhere, and staffing levels required would be excessive to ensure no arbs with any other book. Much easier and much cheaper to simply identify arbers and restrict them.

**wrongturn** · 08-01-12, 08:20 PM

Beside the reason that there are too many lines to monitor, they also want bets to come on the "popular" lines, the opposite of the arb ones, which are much worse than market so they could make more money. There are many "recreational" players doing that, but your big bets take book's profit away, so they are pissed.

They are rated A because they send very polite email explaining their action. Lower rated books will just tell you to get lost.

**durito** · 08-01-12, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by muffins

Arbers are not the same as sharp punters, sharp punters will last much longer before getting cut.

Not to most books.

**muffins** · 08-02-12, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by durito

Not to most books.

They're harder to spot, arbers stick out like dogs balls. Though generally sharp punters will often be taking similar things as by definition they tend to place their considered wager with the book that has the best price. But some smart punters will bet somewhere because they can get set for a good amount, even though they are not absolute top market price. That sort of behaviour gives you more credit in the long run than every single bet you take being an arb, which is what arbers of course do.

**darrendice** · 08-02-12, 05:49 PM

I know this will cause a string of negative responses. But don't most arb betters use the exchanges as the target for their trades to win at ( the option to lay a bet particularly with horse racing and sports with 3 outcome options) The exchanges in theory would welcome the increased winning bets as their amount of commission increases, similarly the sportsbooks or traditional bookies would have a number of bets placed in the hope of losing the bet and winning them elsewhere, so they would benefit from increased loses. The only person who loses is the person providing the lay bet at the exchange which is an individual punter betting on the opposite outcome through choice. I cant see the problem....

**muffins** · 08-02-12, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by darrendice

......similarly the sportsbooks or traditional bookies would have a number of bets placed in the hope of losing the bet and winning them elsewhere.....I cant see the problem....

if you lay an arb price the expectation is you will lose, i.e. if you lay 2.20 when 105% 2-way market is 1.90/1.90 (still only a 1.8% arb and a 50/50 match) then you expect to pay 0.5 * 2.2 for every dollar laid, a 10% loss.

If you're suggesting the book deliberately puts up the 2.20 as they disagree strongly with the market and feel that 2.20 is the right price, why would they lay 2.20 rather than just straight out back the 1.90 on the other side without laying any 2.20?

You also don't need to go into arb to lay something you like, offering 2.05 about a 1.90 market price, which you assess as 2.20 so are happy to lay at 2.05, will still see you lay plenty without it being an arb. Don't lay at a price you think something should be, lay at the shortest price you can whilst getting the maximum out of it you want. In short, arbs are almost always stale prices not bookie opinion.

Odds aren't necessarily what a bookie sees as the respective chances, its also heavily driven by opinions as to what price the public will back. If you want a good example have a look at how short a lot of the Olympic athletes are in their home countries compared to other countries books.

**dealer wins** · 08-03-12, 06:36 AM

If a book has a higher price than on a liquid exchange market, the book will lose money on anyone taking it in the long run.

If it were profitable to them, then they wouldnt limit people, its not rocket science.