[billyshears]

I've had the same experience as other posters on here. If you catch a few good-price early lines, they just reduce your limit on ALL bets to a few bucks (even if you lose!). I also had the same experience with Bet365 (on Japanese baseball).
Surely if this site's rating system is to be trusted (and if they truly care about protecting the player), it must take actions like this into account.

[acw]

(even if you lose!).

All thanks to BetFair! A once feared competitor turns out to be their most valuable resource for discovering smart gamblers.

[chance]

Ladbrokes are A+ for sure. It is a business decision to limit. That should not affect a rating at all.

[sinkhole]

ye ofcourse they can limit but not after 2-3bets and if they limit the limit should not be $30...

[billyshears]

Reading this e-mail (see below), it is obvious if you're a mug you'll be very welcome at ladbrokes, which is, as betprom seems often willing to point out, "one of the biggest bookmakers in the UK". However, as they admit, despite being "one of the biggest bookmakers in the UK", they don't want anyone who might find a decent line among their many indecent lines because, as they again admit, they are only here to make a fat profit for themselves and their shareholders (could this explain the gushing betprom's apparent idolization of this company?).

From care@ladbrokes.com

Thank you for your e-mail regarding internet restrictions .

I am sorry to learn of your frustration in placing bets over the
Internet. We can confirm that you are currently limited on any given
event. This has been applied to your account as a result of some of the
business you have placed with us.


We can assure you we do wish to attract customers to our service whether
they win or lose. We do though have a responsibility to run the business
profitably and therefore we do restrict certain customers and certain
bets.


We do regularly review the stake factors on accounts in line with the
business patterns of our customers and we may look to alter the factor
in the future.


We can also offer you the Telephone Betting number which is +44 208 866
4488. If you phone your bets in using this number we may be able to
accommodate your bets. This is because a decision will be made by one of
our trading team according to whether the bet suits the book. By
contrast, restrictions on the internet are applied across the board.

If we can be of any further assistance, please contact us again and we
will be more than happy to help you.

Yours sincerely,

David
Customer services[/color]

[billyshears]

Ladbrokes are A+ for sure. It is a business decision to limit. That should not affect a rating at all.

The manner in which Ladbrokes have behaved in applying limits should most definitely affect their rating.
Limits should be specified when you join and should be adhered to, with whatever odds are offered by that company. Companies like ladbrokes should not, suddenly without prior notice, be allowed to arbitrarily limit customers to pennies (in effect cutting them off) just because those customers take a reasonable price. The message is clear: bet with us as long as you want, but don't bet on any good odds we might have on offer.

These rating are meant to guide bettors; when one sees an A+ rating, prospective customers shouldn't expect this kind of treatment.

[UV82]

I wish the industry was more regulated - these books do whatever they like ... they limit, the void bets, tehy dont pay etc...

By the way most UK book will limit you after 1 or 2 smart bets... they are in the business of winning and if they think that you are a threat to them your limit will go down to penuts.

The A+ rating is because the money is safe with them, unlike many books in the industry.

[Peep]

I just got chopped by Ladbrooke's, across the board.

I was beating them up.

Happens at most all books, no reason to whine, take your check and move on mate.....

[HeeeHAWWWW]

The manner in which Ladbrokes have behaved in applying limits should most definitely affect their rating.
Limits should be specified when you join and should be adhered to, with whatever odds are offered by that company.

So..... they should be forced to take bets from you?

Every book in the world limits, other than pinnacle really. Try betting stale lines on football(soccer) at some US books and see how long you last - they'll boot you just as fast as betting US sports at Ladbrokes.

[Cyntax]

I was limited by Ladbrokes last week.

In the beginning I could bet as much as 30000 sek on one game, now I am limited down to about 15-240 sek/match.

I sent an email and asked why I could only bet 240 sek.
Got a fair/straight answer: -You are a winner, we don't want winners as customers. Go away!

€1=10.34 sek
30000 sek = €2900
240 sek = €23

[HeeeHAWWWW]

No book wants winners as customers. Once they identify you as such, they're going to boot you.

[UV82]

that is not only unfair, it is disgusting and that is why the industry needs to be regulated

Can you imagine one client walking into a Casino if there was a sign up there - "winners are not welcome"

Obviously they will not advertise that bit but that is exatly how they think & act so they should be ashamed and the public must know about it.

[Peep]

Can you imagine one client walking into a Casino if there was a sign up there - "winners are not welcome"

Uh, they do not welcome winners. The one game that a player has half a chance at, blackjack, has be diluted down by 6-5 blackjack payouts and banning of card counters. Why would they ban card counters, who were braking no rule? Because winners are not welcome in casinos.

[moonbeam]

I've had the same experience as other posters on here. If you catch a few good-price early lines, they just reduce your limit on ALL bets to a few bucks (even if you lose!). I also had the same experience with Bet365 (on Japanese baseball).
Surely if this site's rating system is to be trusted (and if they truly care about protecting the player), it must take actions like this into account.

To bet on Japanese baseball is a bit strange I guess

But it doesn´t matter. European books limits everyone, it doesn´t matter if you win or lose

[raddle_snake]

For ladbrokes, I think is ok for them to get an A rate..

[Financials]

For ladbrokes, I think is ok for them to get an A rate..

I wouldn't give Lads a C rating, let alone an A. I have been betting financials with them and, yes, i have been beating them. I am not surprised that they restrict my account... but they do it on every account that beats them by about £100!!! Again, you might say that that is their risk management and that's okay ... but heres the rub .. it's how they restrict your account that just plain cheating by an allegedly A rated bookmaker!

They add a delay to your bets and accept the bets only if the market has moved against you, rejecting them if it moves for you .. essentially they then accept the bet only when the price is wrong! Not only that they often let the 'bet acceptance' procedure run right up until settlement time and then, as the settlement value is known decide whether to accept your bet. Unsurprisingly they don't have a habit of accepting winning bets at this stage!

It's okay for bookmakers to protect thir shareholders and owners, but what sort of cheating is it to only accept losing (or look like losing) bets from customers and rejecting all others (whether they be 'in the money' or 'at the money' . Theres good risk management and theres risk avoidance bordering on theft... Lads who won't take a bet unless they know the market has moved in their favour is hardly grade A material??? Any what sort of 'fair games' is it when any customer having only 5 or 6 £20 bets get closed? I've seen slot machines in chip shops pay out more!

As is said, i don't mind having my account closed, it's part of the game.. i just hate been cheated!

[acw]

They add a delay to your bets and accept the bets only if the market has moved against you, rejecting them if it moves for you .. essentially they then accept the bet only when the price is wrong! Not only that they often let the 'bet acceptance' procedure run right up until settlement time and then, as the settlement value is known decide whether to accept your bet. Unsurprisingly they don't have a habit of accepting winning bets at this stage!

Typical Pommie way of cheating.
Sad thing is that in other parts of the world they start doing the same thing.

[JoshW]

Typical Pommie way of cheating.
Sad thing is that in other parts of the world they start doing the same thing.

Pretty much every way to slow down winning bettors spreads eventually. It is the corporate mentality.

"Yeah, we are making money, but how can we make more money?" The easiest answer is to limit, slow down, or throw out players who are likely to win long term. Leaves you with the easy earns.

Thankfully, exchanges hedge against this, as does huge balls, and finding ways to make money on volume with minimal limiting.

[turnip]

When books announce they'll limit you up front, I don't think it should hurt their rating, as long as they don't keep you trapped in a ridiculous rollover. Instead, it should get them the 'R' stamp for "recreational."

[fixxer]

A rate for me no doubt

[Ortho]

If they're not an A, it's hard to see any online shop with a high street presence deserving an A.

[mminkovski]

ladbrokes is good, but they limit too fast