The TGT Debate - ‘limiting players during rollovers’ - win a £10 'no-lose' free bet - open to all Premium Members

[musicbox]

This month, we're inviting you to share your thoughts with the rest of the forum on the subject matter of bookmakers 'limiting players during rollovers'.

Perhaps you think books should be able to limit as they please during rollovers? Perhaps you think such behaviour is unfair, or perhaps your views sit somewhere in the middle? Perhaps you couldn't care less... but then maybe the thread isn't for you! But if you do have a view, let's hear what it is and why you hold it.

Although I've always (rather worryingly) fancied myself as a bit of a David Dimbleby, there should be no need for a chairman if we all follow one simple rule: put across a personal view rather than post with the aim of trashing someone else's. Then hopefully everyone who wants to post will feel able to and we'll hear a range of thoughts from experienced players and new players.

At the end of the month, one poster within the thread will receive a £10 'no-loss' free bet for their efforts of debate and persuasion (sounds ever so slightly romantic).

Over to you...

[U4EA]

I think this is a complex debate. There are basically 3 sides to it and, in pragma, only the 3rd one really matters: -

1. The view you have of the bookmaker's intentions/actions etc towards it's customers.
2. The view the bookmakers have of the customer's intentions/actions etc towards it.
3. What is legally binding.

I guess we can argue the first two all day. Are bookmakers "moral"? Do we have a "moral" right to basically arbitrage or advantage-play their markets/schemes/bonuses to our (at least probable) benefit? There are many different elements to the debate and it's one that could go around in circles for days.

Morally speaking, I do not believe they have a right to change their T&Cs during a WR. Change it before? Yes. Change it after? Yes. That's their choice - it's their product. Providing they make the T&Cs clear then they can do whatever they like and it is the Advantage Player's responsibility to make sure they have established the facts prior to accepting the offer.

Legally, can they change the T&Cs during a WR? Honestly, I do really know. But that is what it will come down to. This system is a legal and technical system and it's the responsibility of each side to make sure they are armed with the legal and technical facts of what they are doing.

Edit:

Sorry, I am half asleep here and I realised I probably didn't actually answer the question that was asked. I was thinking more about the Betsson group removing BlackJack from it's qualifying games.

As for limiting during a WR... well, that might really come down to the same thing. I guess part of it might be what you interpret to be a decent sized bet to be accepted. A case in point is BetBoo's new SUB, which carries a very hefty WR and the strong possibility of limiting. If you are given X days to complete the WR then they reduce your limits, where does that leave you? Should they have a declaration in the T&Cs of the stakes they will accept? If you went to court with it, they might rule that the limiting wouldn't make the WR feasible as the punter may be forced to bet on markets they would be less knowledgable about in order to try to clear the WR.

Personally, if I were a judge and they came before me and said they limited the punter because they were arbing, I would point out to them that the actions of the punter were not unfair, and the price management on the market is the job of the bookmaker and not the punter. If this was BetBoo that was before me, I would also ask them to remove that fuck-awful cheesy "Cheer to win or win to cheer?" pish from their website. But that is just personal taste and obviously not legally enforceable.

[Gibber]

Interesting point. I experienced this while doing the Mansion88 Sub when they did a cull and reduced all bets to £100. The case here was an interesting one as it being an asian book I wasn't betting on any out of line odds or using them as an 'arbing' book. I was merely hitting Mansion88 against other 'slower books'. The decision here to limit seemed a rather strange one luckily I managed to bust out my deposit + bonus (plus lots more ).
It is my opinion that a book can be justified in limiting players if they constantly hit slow moving odds and I presume most others would be in agreement. However limiting during a WR is another thing. On depositing you enter a contract with the bookie stating that if you bet through X, we'll give you X if they limit you heavily and furthermore prevent any withdrawals prior to the WR being completed that is not fair play. Although the player is costing the bookie (presumably by hitting slow odds) it could also be deemed to be the bookie's responsibility to keep their lines up to date. I am not sure on the whole legality of limiting during a WR, can anyway else shed some light from a past experience?

[munk]

My opinion on this is that legally 'no' a gaming company should not be able to alter the terms of the contract you entered into - at least not to such a point that it means you lose a significant amount of money because of that alteration. In fair trading parlance baiting and switching is well known - where an agent acts to bait a customer with a very attractive offer and then later switches the terms of the contract in such a way that at best the offer is no longer attractive and at worst ends up costing the customer money. A lot of these kind of bait and switch operations have been targeted by the Office of Fair Trading and from time to time people are prosecuted etc etc.

HOWEVER of course the gaming industry is a completely different kettle of fish and the majority of outfits are not regulated to a level that protects players fully in every possible situation. Whilst there are a handful of regulatory bodies out there, only the Gambling Commission in the UK tends to have any teeth (or rather in most cases, the gumption or will) when it comes to enforcing or actually regulating the companies that they licence. Certainly somewhere like the Maltese Licensing and Gaming Authority (LGA) aren't renowned for being overly strict when it comes to enforcing regulations on their licensees. Cynically one could say that a good reason for gaming sites moving their operations overseas is that the regulations imposed on them are a great deal laxer than in the UK.

And of course it's not a black and white matter by any stretch of the imagination when you're talking about gaming promotions. By nature the wording of offers is usually extremely open to interpretation and always contains a clause which allows the promoter to change any or all of the terms as and how they see fit, essentially giving them a get out clause to avoid having to pay any bonuses.

The job of enforcing promotional terms and conditions isn't something the regulatory bodies are really there for - they're there to ensure players are protected from other types of unscrupulous actions that a licensee might take part in, like fraud and non-payment of winners. I'm sure most of them don't see their role as being one in which they make sure their licensees stick the the terms and conditions of every promotion that they run. More realistically they can really only intervene if and when they receive an outstanding number of reports about one specific promotion being abused by the promoter (who in turn no doubt will argue that the promotion was being abused by it's players!).

I have to admit I've been answering a slightly different question - should gaming companies be allowed to alter the terms and conditions of a promotion retrospectively? - but the same holds true for the case where a gaming company applies a limit to the size of a wager to retroactively make the EV less positive or even negative (for example because of the amount of man hours it takes to complete the WR when a significant limit is placed on the size of wager).

Personally if I was limited to an extremely low limit (ie a pound per wager when my remaining WR was thousands of pounds) I would definitely feel justified in complaining to a regulatory body. However of course the chances of getting a decent/quick resolution are next to zero.

In gambling there are occasions when your money is at risk in ways other than the lay person would expect (I'm sure a lot of us have had that bemused look from friends and relatives when we explain that the largest risk involved with gambling is losing money when an outfit slow pays). Loss of money due to a balance held at an unstable company which goes into liquidation is one significant example. However arguably loss of money due to unscrupulous activity on the part of the gaming company is much more insidious way, because it's something that could happen with *every* single promotion you take part in.

The trick is trying to spot when/where it's going to happen next and that's even more of a gamble than anything else. The only hope in my opinion is that sites like TGT can empower players by making the relevant information more available.

[LFC81Eoin]

Limiting during WR

I do not have experience of limting during wagering requirements but i have an opinion on limiting . Bookies have to set the odds and balance their books . They are there to make money and employ alot of people to watch betting patterns etc. If i was a bookie would i limit people ... Of course i would , if i offered a sign up bonus bet 25 get a free 25 with the stake not returned and minimum odds evens and within a day or two of the offer been around i have about a thousand people come online lodge exactly 25 , bet it once at evens , require within an hour where the freebet is , then when they get it back it at odds of 7.0 and then request a withdraw and never see them again.

People might say "well its there problem they put the offer up , they should be balancing there books " but bookies obviously know whats going on , i mug punted for years and was never limited at all , i think it comes down to common sense , if an offer is bet 25 why not deposit 30 or 50 and if wins for god sake give them a day or two to sort the freebet out and maybe even have another bet before that , or even stick the freebet on a team you fancy , ok they might have crap odds but your getting a free 25 after losing less than 5 quid normally .

I'm luckily only limited at about 2 or 3 bookies , i wanna be doing this for a long time so i cant risk losing all my accounts , a while ago i watched people here arbing horses all day long at bookies against betfair , do i think they deserve to be limited YES DEFINITLY , why should labrokes or Betfred or whoever have to worry about someone lashing 500 on a horse cause there trader is busy doing something else or is slow off the mark , after a few of them bets its easier to identify who does it and just slap a "f$£k you " 50 quid max win on there account and its one less problem .

I've nothing against people making money from bookies , i do it myself but what pisses me off more than ever is people rubbing it in there face , its no way to keep offers alive , sign up to book have a few bets , don't always take there best odds , in my opinion long term gains will be much more beneficial than the short term ones.

Ps sorry if i offended anyone .

[Andy]

Limiting a players stakes I think is entirely up to them, BUT they should not be able to do it during a bonus rollover. It is a fundamental change to the circumstances you signed up to. If they want to limit you now then fine but the bonus should become unlocked at that point.

I personally think that limits are OK but it should be on the market itself rather than the player. For example I might only get $250 on a line BUT it still sits there at the same odds and somebody else can also get maybe $100 on it if they want. But I was not allowed $350! My money is just as good as his though? I have never understood and disagree with that policy. If they took $250 off me then cut the odds then fine, or offer me $350 at lower odds, but why limit me and yet take somebody else money on the exact same thing?

It is a "tactic" of some books to semi limit certain players, just enough so they still arb and/or take value odds, but it doesnt cost the bookie much. These accounts are monitored and the second they bet on something (to quite small stakes) the bookie knows to lower the odds straight afterwards for everybody else. Is that moral? Well it is a game isnt it, cat and mouse, I think thats fair enough. Nobody is FORCING the player to bet there.

Keeping high limits is a lot common sense though, I am only limited at a few of the high street bookmakers largely because I bet in a casual way and look at the bigger picture (much as Eoin implies). BUT the other side is I do actually get stuck in and have a bet. I read sometimes people avoid promotions or get scared when they have a long odds bet win in case they are "gubbed", it really doesnt work like that.

A bit OT towards the end there, back to the question, is it wrong to limit during a rollover, yes it is, if they want to limit they can but at that point they need to credit the bonus instantly on deciding that.

[Human123]

For example I might only get $250 on a line BUT it still sits there at the same odds and somebody else can also get maybe $100 on it if they want. But I was not allowed $350! My money is just as good as his though?

That is so true...

Surely if they have done their book correctly it shouldnt matter who is betting what?

[butty]

it's up to a bookmaker whether they apply limits to an individual account and whether that happens during a promotion doesn't make a great deal of difference to the decision process. It's a pita but get on with it.

Of course the fairest method having decided a restriction should apply would be to apply a pro rata wr or offer a pro rata bonus and the option of withdrawal. sometimes this can be negotiated but most times not.

I don't really understand the player vs market argument since it seems (to me) to contradict the 'betting in a casual way' / 'bigger picture' betting patterns argument. I also don't understand completely the 'cover' bets theory to maintain an account but I don't think thats the original question.

[Clackerooney]

They're a business at the end of the day and they need some tools in their arsenal to stop getting cained by scum bags.

I've been limited during rollover. Oddscompany did it when I was betting large on obscure football leagues, fair play to them. That isn't an account I wanted to keep so I tried my luck, got caught red handed, then withdrew and moved on.
I don't think it's worth getting your knickers in a twist about.

Other accounts I like and I keep. I like Bet365. I like their adverts, I like their offers, their website, I think they're ace in general. I use them nicely and have had an unlimited account for years.
A lot of bonus abusers got themselves all worked up for being limited during one of their offers. I was on 365's side for that one (sorry guys )

[Clackerooney]

That is so true...

Surely if they have done their book correctly it shouldnt matter who is betting what?

I think of it sort of like a night club or pub. The management can bar whoever like they if they're not getting into the spirit of things.

If I ran a nice friendly pub and a group a hard nuts came in and started staring at everyone I'd bar them. Yeah, their money is as good as everyone elses but I don't like them and they're not playing nicely.
Bad analogy but I know, but hopefully gets my point across!