[DacBietViet]

I don't understand how they would know a "sharp" from a lucky player. not that i'm anywhere near getting limited but what if a player goes insanely lucky so will the book limit their wagers? always wanted to know this

[rjt721]

Maybe I'm giving you too much credit, but I think if you put your mind to it you could figure out why a book would cut a player's limits.

[CrazyLou]

They are running a biz. If someone is kicking their ass, they have the right to cut that person. Nothing wrong with making that decision, so long as the balance is honored.

I think that just shows you they are on top of things, I feel books which have good risk mgmt, don't give out crazy bonuses etc, will be around a lot longer than most books.. Even if it is an annoyance as a sharper player to be limited there or unable to make your normal bets.

[topgame85]

You get limited for the same reason you kick someone out who goes to an all you can eat buffet from open to close daily they ruin your bottom line!

[Helmut]

I have heard that it s more common for books to grade a player on their ability to get the best number. That is why in some cases players get booted or collard without winning.

[DacBietViet]

maybe i asked this question wwrong. i meant to say how could a book tell the difference between a sharp and a lucky gambler?

[CrazyLou]

Originally Posted by DacBietViet

maybe i asked this question wwrong. i meant to say how could a book tell the difference between a sharp and a lucky gambler?

I would say there's a number of filters or factors which may throw up a red flag, such as bet size, if you're beating them to steam moves etc.

[betplom]

I've never understood the explanations given for books limiting players.

I thought a books job was to get balanced action on an event and their profit is the juice.

With all the legal books in the world and exchanges books can easily "lay off" big wagers if they are afraid the wager will be a winner.

Really, in this day and age no one should be limited, booted etc etc for winning.

They make it sound like its bettor vs the book, it's not, it's bettor vs bettor, good books know this and have no problem with big wins.

I deposited $1800 at Canbet at the beginning of the NHL playoffs and cashed out over $12k in two weeks and still had a nice balance, my biggest wager of the year was over $7k at Canbet, they let me bet $4500 online and the rest was accepted over the phone, the wager lost. But they had no fear accepting the bet.

[SlickFazzer]

Luck often runs out quickly.

[Francis Sollozzo]

Game Opens
A -3 1/2 -110
B +3 1/2 -110

Game Closes
A -3 -105
B +3 -115

Team B wins by 7

Sharp will have +3 1/2 -110 more often than not

Luckie will have +3 -115

both win but

[pat venditto]

viet i heard books up your limits

[sofun]

Hello Viet
I think a book will cut your limit when they notice that you are only making 1, 2 bets a day and 80% are willing, that's how they will cut your limit, but if you make 8 to 15 bets a day, they would not cut your limit.

[VegasDave]

I'm sure they give it a little while to level out, but really, no reason to gamble on their part.

Lets say 95% of players lose, lose, lose... never any threat to be limited

5% of players win...
a) some grind out a profit very slowly at lower stakes,
b) some go on crazy runs where they bet 75% of their bankroll on games and keep winning,
c) and some people pick a solid 58% winners and bet pretty large.

Small stakes guys don't need to be limited... leave them alone.

People with no money management will lose in the end no matter what their winning clip is. Let these people self destruct. If they try to withdraw, give some bullshit about the server being down and it will take 3 weeks to register... action junkies will bet their winnings during that 3 weeks and lose most of it back.

And for that tiny percentage of players that are consistently pounding you, why NOT cap them? There is the possibility that they were just on a good run and they'd lose it back, but there is also the possibility they are just that good, too. If they hit certain criteria of winning players, and you classify them as such, cap them. For every 1 guy just on a good run, 3 were going to keep beating you.

And besides, there is no cap on those 95% that just keep pouring money in to you.

[fearless]

Originally Posted by usckingsfan31

I'm sure they give it a little while to level out, but really, no reason to gamble on their part.

Lets say 95% of players lose, lose, lose... never any threat to be limited

5% of players win...
a) some grind out a profit very slowly at lower stakes,
b) some go on crazy runs where they bet 75% of their bankroll on games and keep winning,
c) and some people pick a solid 58% winners and bet pretty large.

Small stakes guys don't need to be limited... leave them alone.

People with no money management will lose in the end no matter what their winning clip is. Let these people self destruct. If they try to withdraw, give some bullshit about the server being down and it will take 3 weeks to register... action junkies will bet their winnings during that 3 weeks and lose most of it back.

And for that tiny percentage of players that are consistently pounding you, why NOT cap them? There is the possibility that they were just on a good run and they'd lose it back, but there is also the possibility they are just that good, too. If they hit certain criteria of winning players, and you classify them as such, cap them. For every 1 guy just on a good run, 3 were going to keep beating you.

And besides, there is no cap on those 95% that just keep pouring money in to you.

I guess the consistent winners have to go to betting exchanges (or move to Vegas) then? I understand that certain books such as betcris are famous for not limiting players?

[VegasDave]

Originally Posted by fearless

I guess the consistent winners have to go to betting exchanges (or move to Vegas) then? I understand that certain books such as betcris are famous for not limiting players?

You'd have to ask consistent winners!

Places like matchbook are perfect though as it is bettors VS. each other... the house has no reason to limit you.

Remember, books aren't in business to make you money, they are in business to take your money. If you arent cooperating, they can stop providing the service.

[jgm1967]

Originally Posted by DacBietViet

I don't understand how they would know a "sharp" from a lucky player. not that i'm anywhere near getting limited but what if a player goes insanely lucky so will the book limit their wagers? always wanted to know this

I had this happen at vip. a solid book but who has really gone down in terms of lines.moving in a real bodog direction they are

they cut your limits on how much you can wager online,and you have to call any large bets,1,000 dollars and up on parlays for me on the phone.200 and below online on parlays.straight wagers were twice those numbers

in their reasoning it was to keep the line sharp? it really worked,betting online is a wonderful tool,calling in every large wager can really be a hassle and you go elsewhere.

sad thing is ,alot of these books dont realize is if you spend that much money online,you would do the same thing at a casino in costa rica,Jamaica,etc..this why in vegas they welcome high rollers.

even if you win money in the casino,you spend the money you won in their shops hotels elsewhere.jazz is smart to have online wagering and casinos in costa rica

[SPECULATOR 13]

Dac,
this is something that i never understood,
prior to opening accounts with the 3 best exchanges available(MATCHBOOK,BETFAIR & TRADESPORTS)last year i dealt with a local guy since 03.He took HUGE bets from Bay.st types(Bay street is Canada's Wall street)and balance his books.He never worried about whom won and how many times.After having been in operation for 15yrs he shut down...leaving me and 500 regulars on the streets.Imagine my surprise therefore when i found out that the so-called legitimate books f*cked around in a way that local guys don't.Thank goodness for SBR because people i know around here told me last July to put my money in UK books because it is not in the 3rd world but like Vegas.Vegas my ass the uk and Europe are the 3rd world in the world of sportsbooks.I would have f*ck myself big time if i had put my money in UK books,because these assholes not only cut you quickly when you win but if you lose they won't allow to make the money back,unless you refresh your bankroll(thus putting yourself in a bigger hole) they will cut you.IMAGINE THAT!?
Another way to manage a book( i was told)is to take a lot of bet!
What ever comes in big,small and in between without fretting with balancing the books .The bigger your handle the lower goes your break-even point and also not to worry about the result of one day but look at a long term bottom line.Since your break-event point becomes ridiculously low you are Garanty to make your money by hell or high water, that is why PINNACLES does not cut the winners .Crazyl said that they(books)don't want to get their asses kick....How can they?It is not suppose to be their money anyway but the other side of the bet,onto witch they take a cut.
The problem is 2 fold,first unlike before now today you have bean counters instead of legitimate bookmakers(like my guy)running U.K. and Vegas books and second consolidation as put nearly all the books both in the UK and Vegas in the paws of a very few.
GOOD LUCK

[Richkas]

Originally Posted by rjt721

Maybe I'm giving you too much credit, but I think if you put your mind to it you could figure out why a book would cut a player's limits.

It doesnt take a brain surgeon to figure it out.

[priceperheadexpert]

Its very EZ..a sharp player books the house, a square is the one the house books..Sharps only play into your line if its their line, if not they pass..squares just bet..

also, they now the moves..they lay in baseball..-145..game goes off..-153..they take +146..game ends at +136..they are never wrong with the line moves, always in their favor..thats because they now..know Y they now is a whole other discussion..

[betplom]

No player should be limited, its about balanced action.

If you are limited it might be because the book has difficulty getting wagers matched.

I've seen Canbet advertise they want your action if you are a bookie. Betfair's liquidity is enormous, books could easily layoff action at Betfair, or even Matchbook.

No excuse for limiting based on your winning/losing.

Beating them on line moves (steam) is another issue.

[Tsoprano]

Originally Posted by pat venditto

viet i heard books up your limits

[jjgold]

Books biggest mistakes are limiting wagers because in the long run they would get it all back, guys go on lucky runs and they get labeled as sharps and in reality they are just compulsive gamblers that got hot and have no clue. Sports are so unpredictable now due to parity, free agency, ect so there are no sharps anymore. Everyone loses.

[mjc257]

Originally Posted by DacBietViet

maybe i asked this question wwrong. i meant to say how could a book tell the difference between a sharp and a lucky gambler?

They will limit you if you consistently beat their closing lines. Pinnacle is more afraid of a guy that beats 95% of their closing lines but happens to be dead even after a month than they are of some guy who bets the Yankees every night for $20k during a win streak and is up $100k.

In the above paragraph, the guy who beats the closing line is the sharp, the guy riding the Yanks is a lucky gambler.

[mriordan]

Couple posters have his the nail on the head here, its beating the closing spread consistantly that tells books if they should expect you to win in the future.

[sickler]

What mjc257 said. It's the way you're betting. A book doesn't like steam chasers and people beating them to line moves. Someone betting a public team like the yanks or cubs every night (always overpriced) and cashing in on a ten game win streak will be looked at by the book as a lucky bastard whose luck will soon run out.

[moneyline]

I won $15K in less than a week at beted.com and they limited me to $25 bets ... idiotic, as I ended up losing $10K of my winnings to betonline.com one month later. It was obvious by the way I bet that I wasn't a sharp. In effect, beted paid betonline ... hey, whatever makes them happy ...

[betplom]

.