Sportsbooks Start Refusing More Bets From 'Wise Guys' Trying To Win (espn.com) 167
Sportsbooks have closed 50,000 betting accounts just in the U.K. -- and placed strict limits on 50,000 more, according to gaming experts contacted by ESPN. "Bookmakers from London to Las Vegas are refusing to take bets from a growing number of customers whose only offense might be trying to win."
Banning or limiting sophisticated players has been a regular part of Las Vegas sports betting for decades, and, like in the U.K., there's absolutely nothing illegal about it. Bettors say the practice is increasing and has even occurred in some of the new states (such as New Jersey) that have entered into the now-legal bookmaking game in recent months. "Americans should be worried," said Brian Chappell, a founder for the U.K. bettor advocacy group Justice for Punters. "It's coming."
In Nevada, refusing to take bets from any customer, from card counters to wise-guy sports bettors, is completely within any casino's legal rights. From Caesars Palace to the Venetian to more local spots like Station Casinos, every bookmaker in town will tell you -- albeit somewhat quietly -- that they've 86'd customers for one reason or another. Seasoned bettors are concerned, though, that the practice of banning or limiting accounts is not only increasing, but the reasoning behind the decisions is becoming more and more suspect. Many believe that the only thing betting intelligently will get you at some shops is a one-way ticket to being thrown out...
In shooting for commercial success, should bookmakers be allowed to refuse to take bets from customers who take steps to try to win? On the other hand, should a business be forced to take on a customer they fear will repeatedly damage its bottom line? The debate is getting ready to play out in state legislatures across the U.S. In May, the Supreme Court struck down the federal ban on state-sponsored sports betting. Full-scale, legal sportsbooks have since opened in Delaware, Mississippi and New Jersey, and many more states are expected to pass sports betting laws and set up regulations in the coming months and years.
"In the end, you have two professions, each trying to increase profits, but only one side gets to make the rules," concludes ESPN.
One London-based veteran of the international sports betting industry even suggests a peer-to-peer betting exchange which simply pairs people betting on opposing outcomes -- thus taking a commission, but not facing any risk.
In Nevada, refusing to take bets from any customer, from card counters to wise-guy sports bettors, is completely within any casino's legal rights. From Caesars Palace to the Venetian to more local spots like Station Casinos, every bookmaker in town will tell you -- albeit somewhat quietly -- that they've 86'd customers for one reason or another. Seasoned bettors are concerned, though, that the practice of banning or limiting accounts is not only increasing, but the reasoning behind the decisions is becoming more and more suspect. Many believe that the only thing betting intelligently will get you at some shops is a one-way ticket to being thrown out...
In shooting for commercial success, should bookmakers be allowed to refuse to take bets from customers who take steps to try to win? On the other hand, should a business be forced to take on a customer they fear will repeatedly damage its bottom line? The debate is getting ready to play out in state legislatures across the U.S. In May, the Supreme Court struck down the federal ban on state-sponsored sports betting. Full-scale, legal sportsbooks have since opened in Delaware, Mississippi and New Jersey, and many more states are expected to pass sports betting laws and set up regulations in the coming months and years.
"In the end, you have two professions, each trying to increase profits, but only one side gets to make the rules," concludes ESPN.
One London-based veteran of the international sports betting industry even suggests a peer-to-peer betting exchange which simply pairs people betting on opposing outcomes -- thus taking a commission, but not facing any risk.
Problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
Either party is free to walk away from the transaction rather than go ahead with it. How is that a problem?
Seems equal and fair to both sides.
Re:Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I could see an argument...
Casinos are big businesses with a lot of resources to put into creating a contrived situation to their advantage, as well as manipulating people. They choose the games. They set the process. They have every opportunity to rig the odds in their favor already. It's not a symmetrical relationship.
They're even allowed to present themselves as though players have a real shot at winning. So should they also be allowed to disqualify players for winning too much? It seems to slant things even more in their favor. No one is forcing them into this business. No one is making them run blackjack tables. If it won't be profitable enough to run this bookkeeping operation straight, without additional manipulation, then maybe they just shouldn't do it. But once they offer a game, they should be forced to adhere to the rules of their own game that they set.
No Problem if Open About It (Score:5, Insightful)
So should they also be allowed to disqualify players for winning too much?
They cannot disqualify players for winning too much - if they have already taken the bet then they have to pay out. However, there is nothing wrong with them refusing to take new bets from them in the future provided that they are open and clear about their terms which must include a "if you win too much we will refuse all future bets" so that it makes it even clearer that gambling is never going to make you money.
As for rigging the odds, the odds are ALWAYS rigged in the casino's favour: this is how they make money! Provided that the odds are rigged in a way that everyone knows about i.e. results depend on a truly random odds of cards, dice etc. then it's fair. If you don't like the odds then you don't play the game...in the exactly same way that if the casino does not like the odds it too can refuse to play.
Re: (Score:2)
They cannot disqualify players for winning too much - if they have already taken the bet then they have to pay out.
I don't know about this new bookmaking venture, but I've read that it's a thing in casinos in general that they can confiscate your winnings. I'm not a lawyer, but I've read news stories about people winning at slot machines, and casinos claiming it was a malfunction and refusing to pay out. I've read stories of people getting accused of counting cards in blackjack, and the casino takes them aside, confiscates their winnings, and says, "Don't come back."
However, there is nothing wrong with them refusing to take new bets from them in the future provided that they are open and clear about their terms which must include a "if you win too much we will refuse all future bets" so that it makes it even clearer that gambling is never going to make you money.
Yeah, I suppose my overall point is that it's not ne
Normally 2^32 (42.9 million) on $5,000 machine (Score:3)
Here's an interesting thing about the slot machine errors you hear about. Most of the time, though the sign on the machine says "$5,000 jackpot", the display shows the "current balance" as 42949672.95. Most programmers and many IT people will recognize that number. It's the largest number that can be represented on a 32-bit machine. It's also one penny less than zero, on a 32 bit machine (numbers wrap around) The machine was supposed to show zero, but somehow got off by a cent, what programmers call an "off
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that I didn't know there are actual malfunctions of slot machines. Still, the fact is that the slot machine can say that you've won money, and casinos can and will say, "Nope, that's a malfunction. We're not going to pay." And I don't think it's just for the clear computing error that you described, but I remember reading a story where the casino just said that the slot machine was paying out more often than it was supposed to, and they didn't know why, so they figured either the machine was bro
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that that is where they cross the line. Either the machine has actual randomness and so what it "should" pay out is governed by statistics, meaning that it can be expected to pay above the expected amount occasionally, or it is hard set to never pay out when it's at it's set limit and everyone who plays it for a chance to win is being actually defrauded since they have no actual chance of winning.
How much vs how often (Score:2)
The most carefully inspected and regulated part of the machine is the PRNG, the randomizer. It randomly determines whether it's a jackpot, a second-place prize, etc.
This should not be confused with the dollar amount associated with each prize, which is posted on the machine and not random at all. A big sign on the machine will say "jackpot $5,000â or "jackpot $20,000â. That is of course not random at all.
The other part of the machine, which isn't inspected and regulated as carefully as the PRNG a
Re: (Score:2)
I'm referring to payouts over time. It is either possible for the PRNG to come up winner 3 times in a row and so the machine pays out 3 times (however unlikely) or there is further game logic that prevents that and so anyone playing after a jackpot is being defrauded since the result from the PRNG won't matter.
I'm betting (heh) that the same casinos that 'decide' the machine must be malfunctioning if it pays out twice in a row don't also 'decide' it's malfunctioning if it doesn't pay out in a few years.
In r
Re: (Score:1)
2^32 is 4294967295, not 42949672.95
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike the betting unit.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about this new bookmaking venture, but I've read that it's a thing in casinos in general that they can confiscate your winnings.
Legally? Any earlier poster already mentioned that somewhere in the US casinos were banned from preventing people from card counting. I'm sure they may do things like this since casinos are not exactly known for their good behaviour but whether they are legally allowed to do all of this seems rather more doubtful.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a lawyer, but my impression from the news stories I read was that they could just refuse to pay out your winnings if they suspected you of "cheating". And then I suppose you could sue them or something.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure they aren't allowed to lie about the odds, and thus can't do that.
Re: (Score:2)
I think any private business (as opposed to government agency) should be able to refuse to do business with anyone for any reason.
Fuck "protected classes".
Re: (Score:2)
I think you got your signals crossed and posted the wrong "conservative" rhetoric. The only "class" I was talking about was "everyone", and the only thing I was talking about protecting them from was fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
I refuse to take your refusal.
Re: (Score:2)
I refuse to take your bet.
Awwwh, come on, see...I'm betting heavy on the Reds to win the series. Everyone knows the Sox are a sure-fire to win. Give a crackpot a break here, pal, you can't lose!
Re: (Score:1)
Either party is free to walk away from the transaction rather than go ahead with it. How is that a problem?
Seems equal and fair to both sides.
unless it involves cakes, then it's a matter of fundamental civil rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Steps compatible with game's agreed-upon rules (Score:3)
The key is 'take steps to try to win'. WTF does that even mean? Cheating falls under that description.
Let's try "Take steps that comply with the agreed-upon rules of the game to try to win." In Blackjack, for example, these are some of the rules:
Memorizing basic strategy, or the best local play ba
Re: (Score:2)
The key is 'take steps to try to win'. WTF does that even mean? Cheating falls under that description.
Let's try "Take steps that comply with the agreed-upon rules of the game to try to win." In Blackjack, for example, these are some of the rules:
Memorizing basic strategy, or the best local play based on a player's cards and the dealer's visible card, just about compensates for the rest of the house advantage. Modifying the strategy based on observed favorable and unfavorable cards since the last shuffle may put the player over the edge. Why should that be cheating? And if it is, why don't the casinos tell their guests?
I didn't say it was cheating. I didn't see that specified in the article or the summary. I was just referring to a stupidly generalized statement. Had they talked specifics as you did, it would have been much better.
Re: (Score:2)
Either party is free to walk away from the transaction rather than go ahead with it. How is that a problem?
Seems equal and fair to both sides.
Do you mean like baking cakes? Or providing banking services?
Re: (Score:3)
Somewhere a tree is furiously making oxygen for you to breathe.
You should find it and apologize.
New Jersey Supreme Court (Score:5, Interesting)
New Jersey Supreme Court ruled casinos could not bar skilled blackjack players known as card count so the same thing may happen with this over them.
This is unsustainable, though. (Score:3)
The gambling "business model" is simple, it stakes the odds heavily against the punters, and in favor of the operator, which collects the profits. It works like an insurance - the insurer only stays in business because there are not many big payouts.
The difference is that unlike the insurance payout, which is a consequence of a highly undesirable event, and hence of something the punters are motivated to avoid, in gambling the "insured" has no large downside if they win.
Once the punters get smarter, the gam
Re:This is unsustainable, though. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not analogous comparison.
Even the best "wise guys" are playing under the same statistical rules as the casino. They are just not as easy a mark because they know the probabilities as well as the casino's stats guys do.
Insurance fraud is, as the name suggests, a fraud. The person committing insurance fraud is not simply taking opposite side of the bet the insurance company is taking; the person committing insurance fraud knows something that the insurance company doesn't know (because of deliberate concealment, etc.). Its card game equivalent is someone who literally knows what the next card up will be (not just probabilities of particular card coming up), either through prescience (they shouldn't be wasting their talent at gambling) or by cheating (then that is like insurance fraud and is illegal).
Re: (Score:3)
Even the best "wise guys" are playing under the same statistical rules as the casino
No, they are not. If they were, the odds of them winning would be the same as those of the regular punters. There'd be no "winning streaks" or extraordinarily large payouts.
What people who "game" the system do is use tricks. My trick is, for example, arbitration on betting sites. I've not only changed the odds, I've changed the game.
I don't know what tricks do people at the casino do, but it is highly unlikely they don't us
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they are. They're just at the not stupid end of the statistical spread of people at the table. That is they don't hit on 20, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Off-topic, but it's amazing what kinds of detail some Super Mario game speed runs involve. Here's an example of an analysis: How is this speedrun possible? [youtube.com]
But of course, if there was actual money involved (especially money to be lost by Nintendo) in pursuits like this, it
Aren't NJ casinos failing ? (Score:2)
New Jersey Supreme Court ruled casinos could not bar skilled blackjack players known as card count so the same thing may happen with this over them.
Aren't New Jersey casinos failing at a far greater rate then their Las Vegas counterparts?
Re:Aren't NJ casinos failing ? (Score:5, Insightful)
New Jersey Supreme Court ruled casinos could not bar skilled blackjack players known as card count so the same thing may happen with this over them.
Aren't New Jersey casinos failing at a far greater rate then their Las Vegas counterparts?
Yes, but that's mainly due to the ability for Native American tribes to engage in full Class III gaming, which started to bloom in the '90s after States began making pacts following the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988 [wikipedia.org]. Nowadays, people on the Eastern seaboard don't need to go to Atlantic City to get the full "Vegas-style" casino experience on the east coast, which adds up to problems.
Re: (Score:1)
Someone should construct a crazy plan just to see what the courts would do...
A casino run by a transexual Native American refuses service to a gambler who wants a cake made which has the winning lottery ticket numbers...
Re: (Score:2)
Nowadays, people on the Eastern seaboard don't need to go to Atlantic City to get the full "Vegas-style" casino experience on the east coast, which adds up to problems.
The full Vegas-style casino experience includes being able to walk out of one casino and right into another without putting down your alcoholic beverage. Tribal casinos aren't trying to provide that. They are just taking advantage of gambling addicts, not people who are trying to get the Vegas Experience. There are still only three places in the states where you can choose from a whole series of casinos without having to drive.
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious, what are the other two places?
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious, what are the other two places?
Besides Vegas, there are Reno and Atlantic City. There are locations with multiple casinos elsewhere, like Lake county in California which has three, but they are substantially separated — in this case, one is way away in the southern end of the county, one is sort of in the middle, and the last one is across the lake from the second one, near the top. (Lake is a big county.)
Re: (Score:2)
Nowadays, people on the Eastern seaboard don't need to go to Atlantic City to get the full "Vegas-style" casino experience on the east coast, which adds up to problems.
The full Vegas-style casino experience includes being able to walk out of one casino and right into another without putting down your alcoholic beverage. Tribal casinos aren't trying to provide that. They are just taking advantage of gambling addicts, not people who are trying to get the Vegas Experience. There are still only three places in the states where you can choose from a whole series of casinos without having to drive.
While that's fair, those who just want the Class III gaming without getting a city-wide (or strip-wide/block-wide) vibe are still now better served (or at least tolerably served) locally.
Re: (Score:2)
While that's fair, those who just want the Class III gaming without getting a city-wide (or strip-wide/block-wide) vibe are still now better served (or at least tolerably served) locally.
They're missing out on the food selection. There's some surprisingly good food in Vegas. Otherwise, the experience is pretty much still the same. Loyalty club, mediocre drinks, lots of machines, all the usual games and tournaments.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, gamblingn at a tribal casino is a lose-lose proposition. At least in Vegas and other regulated placed, if you win, you generally have a good shot at keeping your winnings. To claim "machine malfunction" actually requires a malfunction.
Not so at a tribal casino who can deny you your winnings for any reason whatsoever, and because the regular court s
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why New Jersery isn't known for its casinos and this company probably isn't (or won't be) hosted there (anymore).
We only want losers!! (Score:3)
That sounds about right. Everyone is in it to make money and the sports book can’t make money on smart sophisticated bettors. They need the gambling addicts that bet on the Cleveland Browns to win the Super Bowl. Or people that parlay 5 games on Sunday.
“suggests a peer-to-peer betting exchange which simply pairs people betting on opposing outcomes -- thus taking a commission, but not facing any risk.“
So the options market. I think there are already companies doing that for sports betting. I remember meeting someone years ago that was moving his operations around every year from Central and South America to Asia and back again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think there are already companies doing that for sports betting
There are. Betfair is the market leader in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
Las Vegas wasn't built on people winning. Gambling was invented for losers.
Tout (Score:5, Insightful)
I got $50 that says there will be blackmarket workarounds for this.
I grew up around bookies. There was a social club around the corner from my house where you could get a bet down, and everyone from the local bartender to the local barber had a shirt pocket filled with slips of paper of action they'd taken from working guys.
It's funny when vice becomes sanitized for public consumption. It loses a little something. Sure, poor people and degenerate gamblers won't be able to help themselves from lining up at the government-sanctioned betting parlors, but the business around the margins won't be going anywhere. It'll become tax designed to redistribute wealth upward. but the ones who know will always be able to find some honest crook to take their action.
Not the workaround you may be thinking of ... (Score:2)
I got $50 that says there will be blackmarket workarounds for this.
Yes, if you win too much the black market operators break your legs.
Re:Not the workaround you may be thinking of ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Absolute nonsense. There is a time-honored tradition of small-time bookies laying off action on bigger bookies, going right up the chain. They don't make their money on your wins or losses, but on the "vig". They get a small slice of all the action. No reputable bookie would ever harm a winner. Violence only enters into it if you go on the arm (credit) for a bet and don't pay your losses. Even then, it's the threat more than the actual violence.
Bookies love winners, because they're great advertising. They do not like losers who cannot pay.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Still no. They don't make their money from wins and losses, but from the vigorish. If you want to win $100, you have to bet $110 (on a straight-up proposition). If the money gets too heavy, they lay it off on a bigger book. They're not going to lose.
I'm shocked
Re: (Score:2)
Everything we know about bookmaking we learned from Breaking Bad, an old mobster movie, and some jokes we heard in grade school. /s
Re: (Score:2)
Look. If I go into my local bookmaker, put a tenner on a horse and walk back out with eleven quid, he's lost money.
Sure, he can lay off the bet. He isn't getting better odds than he offered me though, or I would have gone to the bookie with whom he transacted.
Losing a quid he can handle. But if I put on a pony, every race, and keep winning, every race, he's basically paying me to be a customer. There is no fucking vig, he's consistently and repeatedly giving more money to me than he's receiving.
That's bad b
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you're the only customer.
If there are 50 other customers and they're losing ten quid each time but seeing you walk away ahead, that's good business. If nobody is winning, most people aren't going to keep betting.
If you're winning you're not getting paid to be a customer. You're an advertising expense.
Re: (Score:2)
The article suggests some business owners do not want that advertising expense.
My point is that there is a real cost, contrary to the claims by the person to whom I replied.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say he's paying you more than you bet. I said you're paying him.
I think I understand the confusion here. You're in the UK, and you're talking about state-sanctioned legal betting. I'm talking about the underground bookies in the United States. They work completely differently.
Re: (Score:2)
The concept is he doesn't care about your one bet. If you win, sure he loses on the bet with you. But if you lose he loses on the bets of some other people.
It doesn't matter what the outcome is, some punters win and some lose - but the bookie comes out ahead either way (assuming he didn't screw something up). He literally doesn't care what the outcome is since he makes money no matter what - if that's not the case then he screwed up the odds somewhere along the line.
Re: (Score:2)
Not ethical to require players to be dumb (Score:2, Interesting)
Although gambling is a vice and there aren't many good things to say about it, if it's accepted as social entertainment then it should at least be offered to everyone equally, without discrimination.
Letting casinos and bookies refuse access to those who can count and think is tantamount to preying on the mentally weak, and that should be made illegal with great prejudice by government. If this means that the gambling industry would lose money then they will switch to more random games very very rapidly, an
Re:Tout (Score:4, Funny)
I got $50 that says there will be blackmarket workarounds for this.
I grew up around bookies. There was a social club around the corner from my house where you could get a bet down, and everyone from the local bartender to the local barber had a shirt pocket filled with slips of paper of action they'd taken from working guys.
Are you telling me that Fat Tony and Uncle Vito won't ban you if you win on a regular basis because you're too smart for their games? They won't send Rocco, Angelo or Joey The Snake to your house to tell you that you have beautiful children and that you should probably consider maybe not going back to the club? Most players are losers long term and thus are always welcome, even when they happen to win, but I'm sure the real wise guys don't make regular winners feel too welcome. I'm not sure your workaround is all that workable, and I'd rather see gaming regulations prevent the casinos from banning players who play by the rules simply because they are good. If we let them set up shop and we limit their competition for them, they shouldn't be able to change the rules at will or choose who they do business with.
Re: (Score:3)
That is correct. First of all, bookmakers have gotten incredibly good at setting the line. Almost all the time, the same amount of money comes down on either side. When it doesn't, they lay their bets off on a bigger book.
It all evens out, but the vigorish is forever. Ten points on every bet, win or lose. The house literally cannot be beat. And big winners just get more
Re: (Score:2)
Ten points on every bet, win or lose.
Who the fuck pays a bookie to take a bet?
You place the bet, if you win you get your money back. You sure as fuck don't pay for the privilege of risking your money.
Which fucked up bookies do you frequent?
Re: (Score:1)
As I understand it, this isn't true anymore and it's part of the reason bookmakers are upset about smart money. Putting the line somewhere that keeps the sides balanced is the safest way of running a sports book, but it isn't necessarily the most lucrative. The bookmaker can make more if
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's happening in legal, state-sanctioned sports betting, but my comments here have been entirely about the underground betting market. If you go back up-thread to my first comment, you'll understand.
Re: (Score:2)
"Sports book" is right in the headline of this story. It's what we're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this turns out not to be the case. At least I've heard about it - there would be bookies near some of the high stakes poker games before they were in casinos. And they would let you "insure" your hand of cards against a huge raise. Like anything, the player loses a bit either way, and the insurer comes out ahead in the long run. Basically a footnote in history now, but it did reportedly exist.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Gambling" as we know it institutionally is a borderline criminal enterprise masquerading as a sport and preying on dopamine addicts' fantasies as they deliberately steal their money. I like the idea of idiocy being a protected right.
But when idiocy involves money it has the power to destabilize society, if done wrong on a large scale. Some take "wrong on a large scale" to new depths for their own profit, others go bankrupt 6 times despite that theft.
Someone is always left holding the bag if we allow our
Re: (Score:3)
Being able to gamble with a particular provider is not a right, or a necessity, or a job. Gambling doesn't have to be fair. Expert players are welcome to shop around but crying about discrimination is pretty weak.
Casinos have existed for centuries, as have most casino games. In 2018 it's absolutely pathetic for professional players to cry about the system being unfair. You don't have to play - people don't have to let you play. Suck it up.
Being able to set up shop as a gambling house in my community is also not a right or necessity. In many areas not called Las Vegas, gambling licenses are very limited, meaning their business is well protected. We have already regulated the "gaming" industry pretty heavily - just ask the casino operators, they'll all fall all over themselves to agree, and yet they still make a lot of money. So I see no problem with telling them they can't ban people who abide by their rules simply because they win. Gambling
Odd definitions of cheating (Score:1)
I don't much care whether businesses are selective in their customers - that's fair enough - but I do find it funny when they try to equate moderate intelligence and cheating.
Counting cards is just readily available information - rules, what cards have been revealed - plus brains. Winning at the horses is just statistics and calculating when you should bet and when you're better off doing nothing. Calling either one cheating - equating it with hobbling a horse or bribing the dealer the rig the deck - is b
Re: (Score:2)
A better way (Score:2)
Bookmaking should run on paramutual basis, that way the house always gets a defined take and the betters are competing against themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Betting IS on a parimutuel basis when there is enough time to establish a line from betting. Weekly college games have too short a horizon, so the bookies have to make a guess as to a good line, and try to lay off to someone elsewhere when the hometown effect is too big. Not necessarily in Vegas for Division I schools, but there are too many other games with too small a following. How do the British handle weird one-time bets like whether an upcoming royal wedding is going to blow up before the ceremony,
Re: (Score:3)
always bet (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
on black
Just make sure you play your taxes if you win. The Money Train always stops at the IRS even if you're Passenger 57. Even the sharpest Blade won't get you out of that kind of Major League troubles.
I'll show myself out now.
Re: (Score:2)
Westley Snipes, is that you?
Why do we let them have it both ways? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like common sense that those who we allow to make a fortune in the business shouldn't be allowed to ban us, the citizens, simply because we win while playing by the mutually agreed upon rules. Being good should not be grounds for a ban, and if they don't want to follow that, we should pull their gaming licenses. If they are allowed to take every penny we have, we should be allowed to win as much as we can, too. Either allow everyone to play a particular game, or no one, their choice.
Wise Guys? (Score:1)
This is a strange usage of 'Wise Guys' - generally I've seen that refer to folks who are mobbed up and I can see valid concerns that such individuals might try to muscle the outcome through either bribery or intimidation of the athletes/referees involved. I see no reason to bar someone who is able to find arbitrage between the probabilities of outcomes and general population wagering. The lines/odds are skewed from the oddsmakers' true expectations to account for differing fan base sizes.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a strange usage of 'Wise Guys' - generally I've seen that refer to folks who are mobbed up and I can see valid concerns that such individuals might try to muscle the outcome through either bribery or intimidation of the athletes/referees involved.
Say it with me, people: "Black Sox!" Arnold Rothstein thanks you.
Okay, I'm confused... how do they know? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this trivial to circumvent? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fundamental problem that's causing this to happen is that gambling is not a productive economic activity.
In each of these steps, both buyer and seller profit from the economic transaction. Both parties benefit, so both parties want the transaction to occur. That's what productive economic activity does - increases net economic activity by increasing productivity for both sides of each transaction. It's net positive sum.
Gambling doesn't work like that. It's zero sum. For someone to win money, someone else has to lose it. That puts it in the same economic category as theft and scams. So gamblers will only want to participate in transactions where they think they can rip off the other participant. (Gambling as entertainment can be legit. The relaxation you get from entertainment can help increase your productivity in other tasks, offsetting the monetary cost of the entertainment. But for this to work for gambling, it has to be done in moderation.)
Re: (Score:2)
The banned gamblers just need to start a website where they sell memberships, and provide their recommendations for bets. Subscribers then win in their stead, and pass some of their winnings on to the banned gamblers as subscription fees.
Isn't that how DeNiro's character in "Casino" ended up? I remember seeing a Saturday morning program with a half dozen such characters giving their throw-away recommendations to get subscribers.
PS: Gambling advice on a Saturday morning, but no cartoons? What the hell happened to Bugs Bunny, people?
How about people who lose? (Score:3)
If you lose all the time, are you also banned from playing (for your own protection, of course)? A quick bit of googling suggests the answer to that is 'no', so I don't think the casino's should be allowed to ban winners either.
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK - kind of.
Anyone betting a lot can be asked to make a declaration of their income. Part of this is to ensure that it's "legit" but also that their betting is not in excess of what would be "reasonable" for someone of that income.
It's fairly ineffective though as a) It is done on a per-bookmaker basis not cumulatively and b) It doesn't take a detailed account of your liabilities - so someone who is single and someone who has kids etc. are treated the same.
Losers only please! (Score:1)
Can't force people to engage in commerce (Score:2)
If someone walks up to me and asks me to make a bet with them, it is my decision to enter into the bet. I can refuse the bet for any reason, up to and including having lost previous bets to this person.
Why would sports betting be any different?
If you don't think there's a house advantage, you're a fucking moron, probably an addict, and it's healthy to learn that you will be screwed in this deal.
Guaranteed Way to Win at Gambling (Score:1)
Do not play
Intelligence is always punished (Score:2)
The business model relies on stupid people coming in and spending their money on a gamble which they will surely lose, at which point they go back home and drink too much Bud Lite while bemoaning how the gods have screwed them. Then they go back to work and forget about it because their retirement plan is Social Security so it doesn't matter how much money they waste as long as they keep going to their drudgery tool jobs. At those, intelligence is punished as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Other than bask in the warm glow of your own sense of superiority, what do you do for entertainment? Whatever it is, the exact same stupid statements can be made about it.
Post a sign (Score:3)
Only for stupid customers“
UK Betting (vs America) (Score:2)
Because of the restrictions on betting in America, US readers may not be aware of how it is over here.
Adverts for betting are prevalent, particularly in the advert breaks in the middle of a televised sporting event. The adverts will commonly offer promotional odds for a particular bet which they may expect to make a loss on in the expectation of future custom.
These bookmakers may decline or restrict service to particular individuals if
a) They believe them to only be taking advantage of promotions and not do
We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone (Score:2)
I've seen that sign several times over the years at various businesses. Seems that's all that sportsbooks are doing.
Taking a commission, but not facing any risk (Score:2)
So keep the limits low! (Score:2)
If you restrict everyone to the levels that the "dumb" bettors are ponying up, the "wise guys" will be more than offset. This doesn't require identifying them, just accepting the fact that unbalanced bets mean excessive exposure. The whole point of a sports book is to pull the same amount of money to each side of the line so the losers cover the winners, and skim off some vigorish along the way. If a bet is too large to be covered on the other side, then it should be acceptable to refuse it.
Rule #1: The house ALWAYS wins in the long term. (Score:2)
For those who have any doubt: See rule #1
For those with questions: See rule #1
For those who have a "system": See rule #1
For those who think they've gotten around rule #1: See rule #1
For those who've spotted a flaw in the maths: See rule #1
If you don't understand this rule, then don't participate.
No sympathy for the bookmakers (Score:2)
If you can't make money by running an honest business that treats all its customers fairly, you are in the wrong line of business. A business should not have the right to refuse to serve customers for reasons other than disturbing the peace or the like.
Business post signs saying things like "we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody" but it isn't true. They are already legally prohibited from banning people because of their race, for example.
There are existing precedents for other forms of gambling.
Re: (Score:1)