[TeamPlayer]

Dear SBR Moderators:

Can you please tell us at what point a sportsbook becomes a "Recreational" book instead of a "Professional" book in regards to Limit Collars on straigh wagers? In other words, how much of a Limit Collar can a Book put on honest members regarding straight wages before the book is downgraded from Professional to Recreational book in your guidelines?

For example, is it acceptable by SBR guidelines for a "professional" rated book to limit an honest member to straight wagers of $10, $50, $100, $500, $700, $1000, $2000? Is there a threshold? We all have different opinions but it's SBR's opinion that counts because it's your rating.

[Mudcat]

I'm not sure if I mentioned this in your other thread but I know that 5 Dimes was classified as Professional until fairly recently. It had that designation long after 5 Dimes collaring policies were common knowledge.

So I'd say the SBR threshold for that - at least based on their actions - has got to be one of those lower numbers you mentioned or, more probably, no particular threshold. i.e. - someone just makes a call.

I would also be curious as to the official response.

[TeamPlayer]

What were the Limit Collars that 5dimes were imposing on honest members when they were still rated as being for "Professionals?"

[TeamPlayer]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

I'm not sure if I mentioned this in your other thread but I know that 5 Dimes was classified as Professional until fairly recently. It had that designation long after 5 Dimes collaring policies were common knowledge.

So I'd say the SBR threshold for that - at least based on their actions - has got to be one of those lower numbers you mentioned or, more probably, no particular threshold. i.e. - someone just makes a call.

I would also be curious as to the official response.

"So I'd say the SBR threshold for that - at least based on their actions - has got to be one of those lower numbers you mentioned"



That's a logical assumption but who knows? Maybe SBR is really slow to changing the "Recreational" and "Professional" ratings? Maybe they don't like to change it

[Frank]

You can't set a dollar amount because limits are different for different sports at all books.

I would say this is what a professional book should be considered:

-A book who doesn't boot anyone unless they cheat or break book rules

-Does not delay players when placing bets

-Has house limits higher than the industry average and sticks to them

-Allows you to rebet a limit bet after a short time has passed or after they move the number

-Will take action from originators



If a book needs to collar anyone, then their limits are too high for their own comfort and have no confidence in their numbers

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by TeamPlayer

What were the Limit Collars that 5dimes were imposing on honest members when they were still rated as being for "Professionals?"

Multiple players had reported limits of, like, 50 bucks.

Were those players honest? Pretty much all of them claimed to be.

So maybe it's a case of SBR having a level of skepticism. It's natural and, I would say, intelligent. They see certain players having problems at book after book. It's hard not to think something steamy is going on.

When a truly honest player does come along, they could easily get swept aside in the wave of general skepticism.


Another possibility: maybe 5 Dimes, being a paying advertiser, was actually requesting that "P" designation and SBR was accommodating them. I can't think of why 5 Dimes would have wanted it. Their actions and limits, collars aside, clearly show they don't want professionals. But maybe they had some delusions within the company psychology and the "P" had some meaning for them. I really don't know.

I debated that one for years. It got changed eventually anyway. I'm not sure how much of a difference that "R" instead of a "P" makes in the grand scheme of things but whatever - it is correct now



Does any of this apply to DSI? Possibly. The part about honest players having reduced credibility due to the actions of the shot-takers seems relevant at least.



And your comment about SBR just being slow to change ratings is very true in my experience. I would compare them to the GM of a professional sports team. Sometimes all the fans are calling them stupid for not making wholesale changes but GM's tend to be more methodical. Whether that is smart or not is up for debate. I think it is (smart) more often than not.

The big mistake SBR makes though is not reacting immediately to everything I say.

[TeamPlayer]

Thanks for the info Mudcat.

I understand all your points.

Instead of writing a long thesis and speculating on SBR's relationship with each book, I come back to the point that $50 or 100 or 200 or $300 or $400 Limit Collars are inexcusable for a "professional" rated book:

- first of all, any "professional" rated book has relatively higher original limits on all of the Major sports - MLB, NHL, NBA, NFL. (Let me clarify that I'm talking only about Straight Wagers on those 4 major sports leagues.) Therefore, I still don't see any good reason for low Limit Collars in "professional" rated sportsbook.

Now, if it's really true that a sportsbook will allow a member to call them and place a larger wager after a review of the Line(s), then that's acceptable in this difficult econmic/political environment. I am just very skeptical about this claim about calling in. I have yet to try it.

- Secondly, I would be happy to give SBR my entire wagering history so they can see for themselves that I keep everything pretty even and doing straigt wagers about 95% of the time.

(The only abnomally was a rather large win on the Celtics/Lakers to reach the NBA Finals because DUH!!!!......Wasn't it obvious that David Stern was indirectly instructing his Referees to make it happen???? I thought it was obvious. David Stern is a damn con-artist. And the only reason that the NBA Finals were referreed fairly was because he learned that the FBI was watching his ass. But I digress)

Anyhow, bottom line is that I'm just surprised and a little disappointed (not angry) that Diamond sees fit to start putting Limit Collars on honest members who have been with them for only 8 months and are up less than 30k

(Believe me, I'm not upset because I typicall don't make large wagers over even $500. The issue here is the credibility of the "professional" SBR rating.

I think SBR does a good overall job with ratings. Hence, we go back to my suprise of a "Professional" rated book putting limit collars of $1000 or less on honest members and relatively new members who are up less than 30k

[TeamPlayer]

Originally Posted by Frank

You can't set a dollar amount because limits are different for different sports at all books.

I would say this is what a professional book should be considered:

-A book who doesn't boot anyone unless they cheat or break book rules

-Does not delay players when placing bets

-Has house limits higher than the industry average and sticks to them

-Allows you to rebet a limit bet after a short time has passed or after they move the number

-Will take action from originators



If a book needs to collar anyone, then their limits are too high for their own comfort and have no confidence in their numbers

"-Allows you to rebet a limit bet after a short time has passed or after they move the number"

Good points. This one about rebetting after reviews of a line is the sticking point. If they honestly allow it, then heck, it's acceptable. I just don't know whether to believe a sportsbook regarding this claim because I haven't tried it yet. And maybe they'll let a member do it a few times and then stop allowing it? Hopefully, at least I'll have the opportunity to find out the truth some day.

[Justin7]

Originally Posted by Frank

You can't set a dollar amount because limits are different for different sports at all books.

I would say this is what a professional book should be considered:

-A book who doesn't boot anyone unless they cheat or break book rules

-Does not delay players when placing bets

-Has house limits higher than the industry average and sticks to them

-Allows you to rebet a limit bet after a short time has passed or after they move the number

-Will take action from originators



If a book needs to collar anyone, then their limits are too high for their own comfort and have no confidence in their numbers

You're in the know. Do you work for an A book? Just kidding, but very nice summary.

[Mudcat]

I am just musing here, but I almost think that SBR is feeling some duty to grade things on a curve these days. Maybe there is something within SBR's corporate psychology that there needs to be a minimum number of "P" books and a minimum number of "A" rated books.

I don't feel they are really adjusting to just how screwed up things are in the industry right now. Example, Matchbook is rated "A" and in my experience, they are an "A". But I am seeing multiple reports of them bouncing cheques. That's really, really bad. To be doing that and maintain an "A" rating is a pretty big stretch in my mind. Like I have some sympathy for the challenges they are facing - but still. Bouncing cheques?

Comparable things have been happening with many books.

But with how screwed up things are all over the place, if SBR started reacting to things like that as they might have a few years ago, maybe there would only be, like, 2 "A" books left - and a lot less "B's" and so on.

Maybe if they start taking the "P" designation from every book that has slashed players, there would only be 1 - or even none - left.

In my mind that would be just fine but maybe SBR, as I say, has more of a grading-on-a-curve mentality.



I saw Justin's name and I thought we might get some kind of official statement but I guess not. Well I'll push it to the top again.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by TeamPlayer

"-Allows you to rebet a limit bet after a short time has passed or after they move the number"

Good points. This one about rebetting after reviews of a line is the sticking point. If they honestly allow it, then heck, it's acceptable. I just don't know whether to believe a sportsbook regarding this claim because I haven't tried it yet. And maybe they'll let a member do it a few times and then stop allowing it? Hopefully, at least I'll have the opportunity to find out the truth some day.

I don't use Diamond all that much unless they have a different number than Bookmaker so I'm not sure about them.

I know Bookmaker will let you rebet the same limit wager if you give them a few minutes to evaluate if the number needs moved on your first pop.

[TeamPlayer]

Thanks Mudcat, and Frank, and all for information.

It seems apparent that there is an SBR grading curve since 2006.

Frank, it's good to hear that Bookmaker does allow Collared members to re-bet after reviewing their own lines. Do you have experience being collared and re-betting a limit bet straight wager with other SBR "Professoinal" rated sportsbooks? I like all of the "P" books. But not if they start putting on very low limit collars.

[Frank]

Bookmaker will let you do that on full house limits.

I'm not talking about lowered limits.

WSEX will also let you do the same.

Greek will let you rebet another limit bet after the number has been moved.

[TeamPlayer]

Thanks Frank.

I understand that few honest members have experience with being Collared and then calling in to request a larger wager. Perhaps those few would rather stay invisible as well. But I know they're out there :-)

[Mudcat]

Your posts here are terrific Frank. We could use you in this forum more.

As a point of conversation/clarification, let me ask you (and TP and anyone else who might have an opinion):

do you consider it fair for books to collar steam players? To what extent do you think professional books have to accept that?

[TeamPlayer]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

Your posts here are terrific Frank. We could use you in this forum more.

As a point of conversation/clarification, let me ask you (and TP and anyone else who might have an opinion):

do you consider it fair for books to collar steam players? To what extent do you think professional books have to accept that?

I believe it's fair to Collar steam players. I don't condone cheating among players in any way and a steam player is cheating in my opinion because he isn't doing his own homework. He is basically copying off somebody else's paper.

[Thremp]

Originally Posted by TeamPlayer

I believe it's fair to Collar steam players. I don't condone cheating among players in any way and a steam player is cheating in my opinion because he isn't doing his own homework. He is basically copying off somebody else's paper.

What an awesome definition. Next you can explain to me how bonuses are rigged.

[TeamPlayer]

Bottom line is that you don't need to follow steam to win. There is plenty of information on the internet for anybody to consistently choose winners if they do their homework and are disciplined.

Why are bonuses important? Did you need your teacher in school to give you bonus points so that you could achieve a certain grade? Are you a"D" student? You should achieve that "D" without any bonus help.

[Santo]

Your last two posts are amongst the worst stuff I've read on these forums. Next you'll be telling us stock exchange investors shouldn't be allowed to see the market trends / movement graphs before they invest.

[durito]

Originally Posted by TeamPlayer

Bottom line is that you don't need to follow steam to win. There is plenty of information on the internet for anybody to consistently choose winners if they do their homework and are disciplined.

Why are bonuses important? Did you need your teacher in school to give you bonus points so that you could achieve a certain grade? Are you a"D" student? You should achieve that "D" without any bonus help.

Do you think the SEC was right to ban short selling?

[Mudcat]

Maybe my tangent question needed to be a whole new thread/topic but I'm going to take one shot at some clarification.

Thremp, Santo and Durito, your posts have all gone off into metaphorical/comparative discussions and I am left unsure of your position on the specific question at hand:

To what extent do you feel professional books should accept steam play?

[Justin7]

Betting steam isn't cheating. But a book doesn't have to take all comers... If your manager can't pay attention or follow the scream, you can collar/ban players. Doing this hurts you in the long term, however.

[noyb]

Originally Posted by TeamPlayer

He is basically copying off somebody else's paper.

you mean in the same way like a large number of books do nothing more all day then copying the lines of the leading books (with a little vig added on the side ofcourse) out there? you think these books are "cheating" as well?
the copying is being done on both sides, if a certain book is apparently bad at copying a move, they should have better line managers, i don't feel like a "cheater" taking advantage.

that being said, every book has the right to set whatever limits they want, it's their business in the end. the ones I respect though are not the ones that cut limits after a few bets.

[TeamPlayer]

Clearly, Durito, Santo and Thremp have lost serious money to sportsbooks which explains their hostile attitude.

It's not my fault nor problem that you are sore Losers. Once again, there is plenty of information on the internet for an intelligent person to consistently choose winners. If you can't hack it, then quit and get a life.

[durito]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

Maybe my tangent question needed to be a whole new thread/topic but I'm going to take one shot at some clarification.

Thremp, Santo and Durito, your posts have all gone off into metaphorical/comparative discussions and I am left unsure of your position on the specific question at hand:

To what extent do you feel professional books should accept steam play?

They can ban/limit whomever they want for whatever they want.

I agree with what you said before that the professional designation is very fluid. If you were to take all books that don't like steam off the P list, you'd be left with Pinnacle, and that's only because it hits there first.

[durito]

Originally Posted by TeamPlayer

Clearly, Durito, Santo and Thremp have lost serious money to sportsbooks which explains their hostile attitude.

It's not my fault nor problem that you are sore Losers. Once again, there is plenty of information on the internet for an intelligent person to consistently choose winners. If you can't hack it, then quit and get a life.

I just asked you a simple question.

[Thremp]

Originally Posted by Justin7

Betting steam isn't cheating. But a book doesn't have to take all comers... If your manager can't pay attention or follow the scream, you can collar/ban players. Doing this hurts you in the long term, however.

This.

I occasionally hear the bellows alerting me I need to return to my computer.

[Santo]

Originally Posted by TeamPlayer

Clearly, Durito, Santo and Thremp have lost serious money to sportsbooks which explains their hostile attitude.

It's not my fault nor problem that you are sore Losers. Once again, there is plenty of information on the internet for an intelligent person to consistently choose winners. If you can't hack it, then quit and get a life.

I bet a variety of techniques, some based on market indicators and others based on my own math models and/or information from 3rd party sources, with the sole intention of paying the bills. Your original claim was, and remains, simply nonsense. To say that anybody who is betting a market move is "cheating" shows a complete ignorance of what the sports betting marketplace is.

Mudcat: I basically agree with Durito/Justin. The books can take whatever action they see fit, but banning (less so limiting) winners is very short-sighted. What you have is a good information source, and you're telling it to go elsewhere.

[TeamPlayer]

I don't claim to be an expert of the "sports betting marketplace," Santo. I never did. I answered Mudcat's question and nothing else. I have readily admitted in the past that I'm only an individual who doesn't talk to any other individuals about sports betting/investing period. I study games, am very disciplined, and I make my money and pay the requied federal and state taxes on it. Nothing more. And I never follow steam or anything like that. That's how I know that it's not necessary.

I'll leave you to be the expert.

[Santo]

It's not necessary I agree, but it's not cheating. I was having this discussion over some drinks/food Sunday night; you can win without knowing the market, but if you do, you'd win a heck of a lot more if you did know it.

[Thremp]

I almost exclusively bet steam. I also aggressively claim bonuses. Very unpopular SBR stances.

[RickySteve]

Originally Posted by TeamPlayer

Clearly, Durito, Santo and Thremp have lost serious money to sportsbooks which explains their hostile attitude.

It's not my fault nor problem that you are sore Losers. Once again, there is plenty of information on the internet for an intelligent person to consistently choose winners. If you can't hack it, then quit and get a life.

Those three may be a lot of things, but losing at sportsbetting ain't one of them.

If your statement isn't classic projection, I'll cover myself in Krispy Kreme glaze and roll around in an army ant mound.

[TeamPlayer]

Originally Posted by Santo

It's not necessary I agree, but it's not cheating. I was having this discussion over some drinks/food Sunday night; you can win without knowing the market, but if you do, you'd win a heck of a lot more if you did know it.

Agreed.
In my case, if I won a heck of a lot more, maybe a book such as Diamond would limit me to $50 wagers or something ridiculous like that. I'd end up screwing myself anyway.

I must add that from the beginning, I purposely never learned to follow steam because I'd read numerous threads that the online sportsbooks don't allow it.

Santo, are you following steam at some online sportsbooks, carrying a positive balance and the book is not penalizing you? It's an honest question because I didn't think it was possible

[Santo]

I don't follow steam religiously, in that I bet everything that's moving, but if I want a bet and the price is disappearing, then yes I do take it where it's still available. Some places will limit, some won't, but yes there are books who have soft lines and haven't limited me despite that strategy (and no, I don't intend to name them ;-))

[TeamPlayer]

yes, I understand that you can fly under the "steam" radar by doing it only sometimes. My guess is that those books haven't caught on to you but maybe they let it slide a few times purposely. I assume you have a positive balance in those books ,say, above 30 or 40k at least? Anything below 15k in a pro book probably doesn't yet raise their antennas. Frankly, even at 40k, antennas shouldn't be raised in a "professional" book but these days are different apparently.

Anyhow, I just learned to live without it. Heck, I already got collared by Diamond in only 6 months by only studying the games myself.