Do sportsbooks really limit winning bettors?

[Rashlyowl]

There is no such thing in gambling, as you said the bookies take advantage of the commission they get from the bets made, once the bets are made the odds are then adjusted immediately & that is the reality. When I played at Rainbet, they didn't limit the winnings, but they did limit the bets, there was a certain maximum amount that could be placed, related to liquidity.

[DrBeer]

Do you believe that sportsbooks really limit bettors just for winning consistently?

To me it doesn’t fully make sense. Sportsbooks don’t need to beat a bettor’s bankroll, they balance action by moving lines and make money from the juice. If heavy money comes in on one side, odds adjust, problem solved.

So why limit someone at all? Is this actually common, or are some bettors lying to make themselves look good? Saying they got limited because they “win too much” sounds better than admitting losses, bonus abuse, or other issues they don’t want to talk about.

Just because someone claims they were limited doesn’t automatically mean they were a real long-term winner.

To do this, the following is necessary:
1. These actions must be meaningful.
2. A mechanism for restrictions.
- Perhaps I have missed something - please add it.
Questions:
1. What is the point for bookmakers to limit players' bets if the bookmakers themselves make money from this? No matter how a player bets, the bookmaker never loses, only wins.
2. If such a mechanism existed, we would have already heard many complaints along the lines of “I was not allowed to place a bet on such-and-such a site” or “my bet size was restricted on such-and-such a platform.” And this would have been quite widespread. Have you heard of anything like this? I haven't!
 

     

[AmoreJaz]

There is no such thing in gambling, as you said the bookies take advantage of the commission they get from the bets made, once the bets are made the odds are then adjusted immediately & that is the reality. When I played at Rainbet, they didn't limit the winnings, but they did limit the bets, there was a certain maximum amount that could be placed, related to liquidity.

Yes, bookies have the upper hand how to contain the bets placed like how much the max a gambler can bet. But limit the winnings?  I don't think so especially if the site is a reputable one. Because if that will happen, it means they are manipulating the results of their bets and it can easily be detected by their patrons. And one mistake from their end can collapse their business. So for me, a credible bookie won't play this kind of card.
Because limiting the winnings can easily be seen of a loyal gambler. He can see the patterns so to speak. So for the bookie to not have troubles, they should always play the provably fair games.

[Bright0515]

on few occasions I actually came across people that said that the bookie they make use of limited their accounts, af first I didn't want to believe it but this particular guy i met showed me how he was constantly winning froma short football game on parties and when it was noticed by the casino his account was restricted,  they reduced his odds on his account personally and he couldn't make good amount of profits the way he used to. so it got me wondering if the bookies really want bettors to win

[Rikafip]

There is no such thing in gambling

Yeah right.

Both sportsbooks and casinos do it all the time. They don't want those who consistently take a lot money from them and they will find a way to limit you, one way or another. Its juts that you never won enough to experience that.

[Sanitough]

they reduced his odds on his account personally and he couldn't make good amount of profits the way he used to. so it got me wondering if the bookies really want bettors to win

What do you mean by that exactly?

Are you saying they reduce the odds on certain markets specifically for the winning gambler you mentioned, or do they simply lower the maximum stake they allow.

Because if you’re really talking about odds, that’s where it gets confusing. Odds offered to other players are usually the same odds offered to limited accounts, assuming limits are real in the first place.

[Ziskinberg]

There is no such thing in gambling, as you said the bookies take advantage of the commission they get from the bets made, once the bets are made the odds are then adjusted immediately & that is the reality. When I played at Rainbet, they didn't limit the winnings, but they did limit the bets, there was a certain maximum amount that could be placed, related to liquidity.

That's basically how the bookies are making money, its from the commission.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bookie.asp

Bookies earn money through a fee called the "vigorish" or "vig," typically around 10% of bets placed.

If you’ve been betting and you usually see odds around 1.90 (decimal odds, which are more common here), that already means around 10% is taken out of your potential winnings. The other side gets the same treatment. So no matter who wins, the bookie keeps roughly 10% from the losing bets. With the amount of volume coming in, that’s basically a guaranteed cut every time, which explains how they grow so big.

I know what you’re thinking, what if a bettor gets 2.00 odds to avoid that. It’s possible, but the trade-off is you’re getting less than a 50% win probability. Over the long run, that still puts the bettor at a disadvantage.

[Victorybit1]

I haven't really experienced this personally so I can't really say for sure if that really happens or not but if there's one thing I know is that the bookies and casinos are always quick to detect bettors that cheat. For anyone to get restricted it means that they win consistently and this isn't really possible without  a hack or chest. I believe that the bookies would always have their reasons to take such action

[Alphakilo]

I haven't really experienced this personally so I can't really say for sure if that really happens or not but if there's one thing I know is that the bookies and casinos are always quick to detect bettors that cheat. For anyone to get restricted it means that they win consistently and this isn't really possible without  a hack or chest. I believe that the bookies would always have their reasons to take such action

For one, bookies always monitor a bettors account and that's how they know who and when to award free bonuses and rewards and when they notice a gambler is so good that their strategy doesn't fail, the bookies have no option than to be scared and therefore try to limit these winning bettors by any means necessary so as to remain in business and maintain their house edge.
These gambling businesses may have more rights than you think in some jurisdictions because they hold the cards and you accepted their terms of agreement in the first place.
So they can limit anyone based on their ethics and ethos of business operations.

[Makus]

I don't know much about sport bettors winning and later complaining that their account was restricted, that would be very weird because not everyone uses hacks or cheats to win. The bookies are supposed to have measures taken to know those that makesof illegal means to win or make profit. but it makes no sense when the casino limits bettors that won without cheating and others that actually make use of these cheat codes. as for me I don't think there are systems that can make you win the bookmakers consistently though

[Dump3er]

Do you believe that sportsbooks really limit bettors just for winning consistently?

To me it doesn’t fully make sense. Sportsbooks don’t need to beat a bettor’s bankroll, they balance action by moving lines and make money from the juice. If heavy money comes in on one side, odds adjust, problem solved.

So why limit someone at all? Is this actually common, or are some bettors lying to make themselves look good? Saying they got limited because they “win too much” sounds better than admitting losses, bonus abuse, or other issues they don’t want to talk about.

Just because someone claims they were limited doesn’t automatically mean they were a real long-term winner.

I am not sure what these limits look like in detail, but their are certainly limits for some games for obvious reasons. I would like to understand how bettors know that they specifically got limited?

Especially for high rollers it makes only sense for casinos to establish limits, of course depending on how big the platform is. But if a player wants to place an extremely high bet, it first depends on the game, and secondly depends on the ability of the casino to handle potential losses on their part.

What I have seen is that the less popular a game is (for example if it is a lower league), limits are imposed and from a certain point of view, this is comprehensible. Then the question is if those limits count for every player, there is no reason to complain.

[MRY]

Do you believe that sportsbooks really limit bettors just for winning consistently?

To me it doesn’t fully make sense. Sportsbooks don’t need to beat a bettor’s bankroll, they balance action by moving lines and make money from the juice. If heavy money comes in on one side, odds adjust, problem solved.

So why limit someone at all? Is this actually common, or are some bettors lying to make themselves look good? Saying they got limited because they “win too much” sounds better than admitting losses, bonus abuse, or other issues they don’t want to talk about.

Just because someone claims they were limited doesn’t automatically mean they were a real long-term winner.

I am not sure what these limits look like in detail, but their are certainly limits for some games for obvious reasons. I would like to understand how bettors know that they specifically got limited?

Especially for high rollers it makes only sense for casinos to establish limits, of course depending on how big the platform is. But if a player wants to place an extremely high bet, it first depends on the game, and secondly depends on the ability of the casino to handle potential losses on their part.

What I have seen is that the less popular a game is (for example if it is a lower league), limits are imposed and from a certain point of view, this is comprehensible. Then the question is if those limits count for every player, there is no reason to complain.

The policy of betting limit shows that we are based in the environment where both the parties are very risk averse. You see that the more a league is popular the more capital high stake players can afford to bet. So far, the boundaries are universal and we have no strong need to protest against the system. I think you are quite rational in your way to understand why platforms should restrict the amount of money to spending in playing some games.

[Cryptohygenic]

To me it doesn’t fully make sense. Sportsbooks don’t need to beat a bettor’s bankroll, they balance action by moving lines and make money from the juice. If heavy money comes in on one side, odds adjust, problem solved.

So why limit someone at all? Is this actually common, or are some bettors lying to make themselves look good? Saying they got limited because they “win too much” sounds better than admitting losses, bonus abuse, or other issues they don’t want to talk about.

The limitation I have ever encountered in the sportbooks is well understood to me that the companies has to set maximum payout limit and so, bettors are advised to be watchful of how much they wagers and their potential winnings because, it is not all of the companies that has the money to pay winners who may win above their targets and they would not want to go in debt all because of a customers hit win. Though I will be skeptic what would be if them if they deprive players from consistent wins which potential wins might not even be the problem to afford. Unless the site does not have the capacity winners

[Dump3er]

-

The policy of betting limit shows that we are based in the environment where both the parties are very risk averse. You see that the more a league is popular the more capital high stake players can afford to bet. So far, the boundaries are universal and we have no strong need to protest against the system. I think you are quite rational in your way to understand why platforms should restrict the amount of money to spending in playing some games.

Absolutely not. I wouldn't call a person betting sports risk averse. That couldn't be further from the truth.

No the problem for sports books is that lower profile games in unknown leagues are far easier to be compromised. That is why betting limits make a lot of sense.

It's a difference whether you bet on the UCL final or on a third league football game in Indonesia from the perspective of the provider. That is why betting limits are a standard there and from my experience they can be very low.

I would like to understand whether some bettors are specifically targeted and informed about their personal limits or whether they encounter limits on games where are limits actually appropriate for the aforementioned reason.

[junder]

I also think the same thing too but since there are many gamblers out there it may be true, but just that there many fake stories which most gamblers are using to cover their losses. Honestly, ever since I started playing gambling I have not heard someone being limited by spotsbook these is my first time of hearing something like this, even the ones that I'm using doesn't operate that way.

I think also there seems to be no restrictions on the winnings that the player can get, but it depends on the amount of the bet. The player has the freedom to get any winnings but the problem is that there will not be the winnings that the player certainly wants so much. And the other thing is that the bookie also has the power anyway, so they can turn things around, especially since we don't know what will happen when the match takes place.

[KTChampions]

~
I would like to understand whether some bettors are specifically targeted and informed about their personal limits or whether they encounter limits on games where are limits actually appropriate for the aforementioned reason.

I think it's obvious that we're talking about personal restrictions, which, by the way, are generally far from resembling common sense, since these are limits of something like $10 for any event, whether it's the Champions League final or local games. But as I understand it, this applies to marginal bookmakers who don't have the resources to understand why a bettor wins (maybe he's smart, maybe he's lucky, but maybe he's abusing some weak points), so they simply lower the limits for all consistently successful bettors.

[Unsoldier]

I also think the same thing too but since there are many gamblers out there it may be true, but just that there many fake stories which most gamblers are using to cover their losses. Honestly, ever since I started playing gambling I have not heard someone being limited by spotsbook these is my first time of hearing something like this, even the ones that I'm using doesn't operate that way.

I think also there seems to be no restrictions on the winnings that the player can get, but it depends on the amount of the bet. The player has the freedom to get any winnings but the problem is that there will not be the winnings that the player certainly wants so much. And the other thing is that the bookie also has the power anyway, so they can turn things around, especially since we don't know what will happen when the match takes place.

I think the truth is somewhere in between. Bookmakers do have limits, but most of the time they apply to stake sizes or to accounts that consistently win, not to regular players. That’s why many gamblers never face this and think it’s a myth. In the end, bookmakers always keep the edge on their side.

[wiss19]

Do you believe that sportsbooks really limit bettors just for winning consistently?

To me it doesn’t fully make sense. Sportsbooks don’t need to beat a bettor’s bankroll, they balance action by moving lines and make money from the juice. If heavy money comes in on one side, odds adjust, problem solved.

Yes, they do limit gamblers. Every sportsbook wants to make money and when they notice a pattern where the bettor is beating the house consistently, they tend to limit such accounts. Usually you get limited faster if you are betting on small leagues and winning. Like if you bet $20k on a very small challenger tennis game, you are likely to get limited. But if you bet the same on NBA, you'll get limited after many wins.

Just because someone claims they were limited doesn’t automatically mean they were a real long-term winner.

Yeah and that's why decent sportsbook will not limit after just a few wins. They will wait and watch more bets before coming to a conclusion. If your account is old and trusted then you are even less likelier to get limited.

[Nwada001]

I haven't really experienced this personally so I can't really say for sure if that really happens or not but if there's one thing I know is that the bookies and casinos are always quick to detect bettors that cheat. For anyone to get restricted it means that they win consistently and this isn't really possible without  a hack or chest. I believe that the bookies would always have their reasons to take such action

For data collection purposes and security purposes, casinos always program an algorithm that is always busy collecting users' data, betting history, their win rate, and the amount that they have been winning over time. The bettor doesn't need to cheat the system first before they will be suspected; if they just win constantly, they could be investigated, and if it's just natural, the best thing to do is allow the player to continue without any limitation.

[Questat]

The bettor doesn't need to cheat the system first before they will be suspected; if they just win constantly, they could be investigated, and if it's just natural, the best thing to do is allow the player to continue without any limitation.

I don’t think that makes sense. Gamblers usually get limited when they’re winning consistently, so even if everything is done naturally, it can still fall under their definition and trigger limits.

On the other hand, cheating is a different issue. That doesn’t just deserve a limit, it’s clearly grounds for an account ban since it’s a direct violation of the TOS.
Casinos don’t want cheaters, plain and simple.