16 ms·

And if you are consistently winning they will ban you! They can legally back off (reduce max bet to a tiny amount) or straight up ban people who bet smart. The

And if you are consistently winning they will ban you! They can legally back off (reduce max bet to a tiny amount) or straight up ban people who bet smart. These books also market what are the hardest to understand and worst bets to consumers. Think 4 way parlays. Like all 4 legs seem reasonable. They probably on their own each have a 70 pct probability. But that means a 24 pct of hitting. Of course they are all over props because people love to bet over. They are taking advantage of the fact that most people don't understand expected value or odds of multiple independent things happening

throwawayq3423 1y ago
I won't bother asking how this is legal because it's clear there are no rules to any of this stuff right now. But it's absolutely insane that as a business you can just take your 20 most unprofitable customers and then just ban them.
- rogerrogerr 1y ago
  Companies outside of betting do this regularly. I know a guy who is banned from returning stuff at Best Buy.
  - Yossarrian22 1y ago
    What kind of arbitrage makes money returning things to Best Buy?
    - infused 1y ago
      Fraud
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - NewJazz 1y ago
      Something stupidly easy to catch, like putting a different TV in the box.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 1y ago
      Years and years ago I had the misfortune of knowing someone that bragged about how he'd buy a video card at best buy, swap a dead card in it, then redo the shrink wrap at his job (an indie computer place) before returning it. There's lots of banal scummy scams you can do like that.
    - SOLAR_FIELDS 1y ago
      I specifically know of people who abuse the Best Buy membership alongside the return policy to essentially rent equipment for periods of time.
  - tracerbulletx 1y ago
    Can you explain how you see this as the same thing? And not returns fraud?
    - rogerrogerr 1y ago
      It’s not returns fraud - he was operating entirely within their policy, just returned too much stuff too often and BB eventually figured out they weren’t making money off him. I don’t think he was even intending to return things when he bought them. Dude just had high standards.
  - xkqd 1y ago
    Likewise. The guy bought two laptops to compare for a week and returned the one he didn’t like, then later that year did the same thing between two TVs. When he went to return the TV he didn’t want, he was told he was banned from returning any other good to Best Buy and it’s monitored against his credit card. He now pays with cash.
    - xienze 1y ago
      Perhaps after just two events that might seem a little harsh, but I definitely understand the store's reasoning here. You've got a guy that is pretty much guaranteed to lose you money in the form of his regular auditioning of big ticket items (can't sell that returned item for full price anymore). Why would a store want to keep a customer like that?
    - SirMaster 1y ago
      Even if you pay with cash, they still check your ID when you return things and keep track of how much you return.
  - xienze 1y ago
    I'm gonna play devil's advocate here. I've definitely seen my fair share of people on Reddit who seem to regularly have the misfortune of opening video card boxes only to find rocks inside. Multiple times -- just a coincidence, I'm sure. Not saying the person you know does this, but return scamming is definitely a thing.
    - rogerrogerr 1y ago
      This dude wasn’t doing that, he was just using Best Buy as an extended trial period for whatever new gadgets looked cool. Eventually they decided they weren’t making any money off him.
  - sigwinch 1y ago
    A brick and mortar casino down here banned a guy for some bathroom activity. But made him agree that it’s to everyone’s advantage if they agreed it was because he was a sharp.
- nradov 1y ago
  Generally most businesses are allowed to refuse service to customers for any reason, or no reason at all (there are certain legal exceptions to that principle for protected classes). As a practical matter, banned online bettors often sneak back in with strawman accounts.
- cortesoft 1y ago
  In the US, a business can refuse service to anyone, generally, as long as it isn’t because the person belongs to a protected class (e.g. you can’t ban all black people or all Jewish people). You could refuse to do business with someone because you didn’t like the way they looked at you, or because you were grumpy the day they came in. Famously, for example, James Dolan bans all sorts of people he doesn’t like from Madison Square Garden and any of the other venues he owns. He notoriously bans all lawyers who work for any firm that sues him (which happens a lot). He even uses facial recognition to catch them, and kicks them out without refunding their tickets. People have tried to sue him for this (many of them are lawyers, after all!) and so far no one has won against him for it, so he keeps doing it. Here is an article about it: https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/45949758/new-york-knicks-msg-banned-list-james-dolan https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/45949758/new-york-knicks...
  - lesuorac 1y ago
    IIUC, that article is written in 2025 and cites stuff pre-2023. IN 2023 the city threatened them with violating the terms of their liquor license [1] (which doesn't prevent you from refusing service to anybody short of actually illegal behavior). I can't really find any follow-up about this. [1]: https://nypost.com/2023/12/06/business/msg-could-lose-its-liquor-license-after-appellate-court-ruling/ https://nypost.com/2023/12/06/business/msg-could-lose-its-li...
    - renewiltord 1y ago
      Doesn't prevent you from refusing short of illegal. Incredible sequence of negatives there.
      - lesuorac 1y ago
        The doesn't doesn't belong.
  - biztos 1y ago
    Not my world, but I respect this. Imagine how fun it would be to own, say, Disneyland and keep AI-enforced ban lists for your every whim. Glasshole 2.0? No Mickey for Meta!
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- biztos 1y ago
  There are absolutely companies that “stack rank” their customers and cut the bottom N%, or even just keep the top N, period. I have always found this to be maddeningly counterintuitive, because surely at least some of these customers yield a net profit. But I have to admit that I’ve seen it done to very profitable effect.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
hippo22 1y ago
There are betting exchanges where the platform charges a commission but doesn’t care if you win or lose.
- bryanrasmussen 1y ago
  How can it not care if you win? They still have to pay out correct? Do they then limit the maximum payout that can be expected? I don't know as I don't bet but it seems counter-intuitive that just charging a commission would change the dynamic.
  - koolala 1y ago
    Aren't the payouts purely user funds so they aren't actually risking anything? They do charge commission.
    - bryanrasmussen 1y ago
      If that were the case though they would be prone to the same problems that any bookie is, an upset where a few high bets wipe everything out.
      - bluecalm 1y ago
        It's an exchange. You offer to bet X and wait for a matching offer. If no one wants to bets that much your order waits in a queue - same as on a stock market. There is 0 risk for the exchange and the bettors can only use what they put in front. Bookies run some risk because they accept the bet first and try to hedge (or got more people to bet on the other side) later. The exchange doesn't have this problem. Exchange doesn't even need to charge commission cause they make money on float.
  - stonesam92 1y ago
    The exchange is not taking the other side of the bet; they're just matching you up with another user who wants to take the opposite position to you and then taking a fee for providing that service.
Terr_ 1y ago
I think the problem isn't banning per-se, because I can "ban" companies as well. The problem has something to do with the asymmetry of information or bargaining-power. Unlike card games, the house has quite an advantage in data-mining.
- phire 1y ago
  I'm pretty sure they actually use their data-mining advantage to make their betting offers as attractive to regular users as possible, and therefore maximise profit. It's so easy to just ban any user who gets "too lucky" (simply ban the top ~0.1% of your userbase every week) why waste resources on offering actually fair bets? And the requirement for "fair bets" probably interferes with the requirement for bets to be as attractive to "regular users" as possible.
  - Phemist 1y ago
    > And the requirement for "fair bets" probably interferes Don't forget the possibility of promotions, which is a major thing for marketing and distinguishing yourself from the pack. A world of fair bets would be a world where you would need to market your superior odds (e.g. what pinnacle does).. which is directly at odds with fleecing your under-educated customer base.
- biztos 1y ago
  How does the house not have a data-mining advantage in card games? They would know whether you make bad choices on Tuesdays, how people of your nationality and consumer preferences react to seeing an Ace, they can deal the better card to the person they’d like to have win, or the opposite, they know what effect the equivalent of a hot waitress bringing you free drinks will be on you specifically as well as on people statistically similar to you and at what moment in time… Do you just not play against the house when you play cards? And do you 100% trust the house to deal randomly? Does the house not care at all who wins at cards? Sorry if these are stupid questions, I don’t gamble, but it seems like they have lots of actionable data if they want to use it. Even if they only use it to get you to play more (or less).
protocolture 1y ago
I know a guy who sells odds to online betting platforms. If they don't purchase his odds (effectively paying him not to play), he just plays them. Wins either way. I dont think he has ever been banned, but I think thats because they appreciate the option to purchase his service.
- gjgtcbkj 1y ago
  Well you have a truth telling friend.
  - protocolture 1y ago
    He might not be entirely truthful, but I have never seen him lie about his special subjects, economics and sport.
- stuckkeys 1y ago
  I would like to become friends with your friend.
kianN 1y ago
It’s even worse with parlays: the events are potentially negatively correlated. There may be a 70% chance that Giannis has 3 or more turnovers and a 70% chance the bucks win, but the odds of both happening are less than 49% because more turnovers directly reduces the likelihood of a Bucks win.
mrkramer 1y ago
>And if you are consistently winning they will ban you! They can legally back off (reduce max bet to a tiny amount) or straight up ban people who bet smart. I'm not from US, I'm from EU but I'm still paranoid of that so I only sports bet at state owned lottery/betting company.
- biztos 1y ago
  How do you know they would not also ban you if you were exceptionally “good” at betting? Is there some specific EU regulation guaranteeing the right to place bets even if the house is losing?
  - mrkramer 1y ago
    Company is owned and run by state and I doubt they would allow themselves to have any shenanigans with their customers. You can always sue them, you can sue private companies too but private ownership is just an extra worry. That's why I also have a bank account at the state owned bank not the private one.
    - biztos 1y ago
      That’s probably a good intuition and definitely smart about the bank — I was dropped by Commerzbank in Germany without explanation — but if I were so good at betting that I worried about a ban, I’d want to double check the actual rules.
      - mrkramer 1y ago
        I mean state is probably the better custodian of your money and your interests than the private investors unless you live in a rogue state run by criminals.
        biztos 1y ago
        Leaving aside the question of whether it has to be a rogue state to be run by criminals, I think that operating a gambling syndicate is never in the interest of the citizenry, and that includes the Lottery, which is functionally a tax on the poor. For very gaudy spectacles of that exploitation, turn on the TV at Christmas in Spain.
epolanski 1y ago
I know few mathematicians that work in betting world and model data (both odds as well as user profiling). It is not true that you get banned if you win too often, but it is true that you get banned, and flagged, if your winning patterns are suspicious. It's essentially like in a casino. You can win more than once and big, good for you. But if patterns emerge, you get banned. E.g. Betting small sums on football and suddenly betting very big on a specific baseball game and winning. Do it few times and you're banned as it's obviously strange.
- Phemist 1y ago
  In these cases one should apply the cybernetic principle. The purpose of the system is what it does. The intention of the mathematician friends of yours may be to prevent money laundering and match fixing from being profitable (and thereby providing a public good). However, so many genuine sharp and/or plain lucky bettors are caught in these AML & Match Fixing cross-fires, it would be very naive to assume these are all just unfortunate false positives. Sportsbooks are however legally hamstrung in what they can admit to of course. By doing so they would also admit to completely ignoring and even violating one of the core duties imposed on legal sportsbooks: the duty of care (in EU countries at least this is supposedly an important aspect of the legalisation). By kicking someone off your platform, you definitely no longer have any way to nudge their behaviour into something less self-destructive. Some players might quit, but for those that do not: Illegal sportsbooks will try to take even more advantage of their players, and now you have also indirectly caused the financing of all kinds of other activities that AML regulation is specifically designed to prevent. My hot take: your mathematician friends looking at suspicious betting patterns are a way for sportsbooks to greenwash and "legalize" their exploitative practices.
  - epolanski 1y ago
    > My hot take: your mathematician friends looking at suspicious betting patterns are a way for sportsbooks to greenwash and "legalize" their exploitative practices. I have no clue, but I'm sure that it's meant to make money, not be a charity. If someone does show some suspicious alpha he gets banned. Users with non-suspicious alpha are generally kept on the platform but they get limits (how much can they bet). I absolutely believe that the betting industry is exploitative in any case. It's not a business where I would want to be involved.
skizm 1y ago
I mean technically stock trading platforms can ban you if you trade too well. Usually happens with options, not buy and hold positions. Retail trading platforms need users that are statistically no different than random to sell their order flow to HFT firms.
Tangokat 1y ago
The big asian bookies don't ban you if you win, they use your sharp bets to improve their price accuracy. Not legal to bet on them if you're from the US though (land of the free??). The biggest betting syndicates use platforms like Punterplay to place bets (often via API) at multiple bookies (Pinnacle, Singbet, SBObet, Betfair, Matchbook, 3ET, VX etc) at the same time. In a somewhat ironic turn of events the more regulation you have, the worse it is for the customer. Big regulatory burdens require the bookies to extract more from the users, making the offerings more predatory. This is also why the likes of Kalshi can provide a better product to customers at the moment - because they ignore all the regulation.
- jimz 1y ago
  Casinos have a ton of leverage in some states. Here in Nevada MGM and Caesar's and Wynn, thanks to their expansion, are effectively treated as too big to fail and given huge amount of deference in how they operate by the gaming commission. But there are also incredibly problematic protectionist regulations that I and several other residents who didn't really know each other tried to get rid of through the admin law process, primarily allowing remote signups which would also allow out of state entities to set up shop without literally having a physical casino. Having to physically go to a casino and sign up in person was onerous and clearly pointless, and then impossible during the pandemic, and became a really silly charade. What was supposed to start as public meetings right before the pandemic got dragged out, meetings would get rescheduled at the last minute, and casinos made entirely spurious rationales like "there aren't enough local datacenters" (Google Cloud's Henderson datacenter is surely sufficient for in state traffic?), that they would want taxpayer money for potential loss of revenue (capitalism dude, what are you afraid of?) Meetings would get scheduled in Carson City and that's literally six hours away by car. Agenda items would suddenly be altered. It was a hot mess. We managed to get iGaming in theory legalized but they straight up never even pretended to start working on regulations for it, and now with the 90% loss deduction limit by the IRS on the OBBB books basically have 12.5% house edge on any line to start if it's properly priced. My model can beat 2.5% but 12.5% is insane. If the feds are going to ban pros constructively, well, I can't out lobby a casino. And the pro betting constituency isn't big enough to pander to, frankly. If there's action, it can't actually happen on shore. I realize that "people who can beat the books due to specialist knowledge and can bankroll drawdowns to the extent that returns long term profit" is also publicly not sympathetic and generally people either think we're touts (if it makes me money touting absolutely won't help me, in fact the fewer people I have to interact with the better) or something. Wagering by hand sucks, but no model is perfect, just some are more useful than others, and someone in accounting may be able to figure out that ban or bankrupt is not a sustainable strategy to run books. But with the feds involved to put that imprimatur of authority in writing, I guess I'm never getting my limits lifted. Good luck finding stable liquidity elsewhere.
Balgair 1y ago
The hot new interview question for 2025-2035 will not be: - How many golf ball fit in a school bus? Or the like that dominated Google hiring for nearly a decade. No the hot new interview question will be: - Do you have an account with any of the major sports bettors in good standing? The Goofus answer to this is : Yes, I can bet whatever I like with them (they are an idiot that doesn't understand how money works. Hire appropriately) The Gallant answer is: No, I don't do sports betting. (This shows they at least know to lie about it) The Galaxy answer is: No, they banned me (only sharps get banned, meaning they are either very lucky or very good with probabilities and numbers) There exists now the potential for a small service company that can help interviewees and the spouses of gambling addicts: We'll make you look like a sharp to the sports betting companies. You sign up for the service and a big-time sharp takes over your accounts (or directs you personally) and tells you what to bet and where. They then give you the money to bet, making you effectively a mule for them. It's win-win. Real sharps get a mule, you get to look like a sharp and you have the proof. This also works for the family of addicts (probably the larger market), as their affected loved-one gets banned/downgraded and all the money stops flowing out of their accounts.
- sidewndr46 1y ago
  Isn't mule or proxy betting incredibly illegal in the US? It would seem to violate every known money laundering law I can think of
- piltdownman 1y ago
  'Proper' gamblers use exchanges like Betfair rather than Sportsbooks, where the host takes a rake off the spread with individuals laying against you. The only major issue with this is not being able to do things like place betting accumulators. FOI in EU means you can get the notes attached to your account - the insights can be staggering, down to friend and family connections with Jockeys or Racing Stables, Sports Personalities or High Net Worth individuals.
- devilbunny 1y ago
  > (This shows they at least know to lie about it) Or they just don’t do it? I don’t enjoy gambling at all. I don’t do it in casinos, I don’t do it online, and I don’t even do it with friends where there’s no “house” to pay off. I think the worst night gambling I’ve ever experienced, I lost $20. I still remember it.

throwawayq3423 1y ago

I won't bother asking how this is legal because it's clear there are no rules to any of this stuff right now. But it's absolutely insane that as a business you can just take your 20 most unprofitable customers and then just ban them.

rogerrogerr 1y ago
Companies outside of betting do this regularly. I know a guy who is banned from returning stuff at Best Buy.
- Yossarrian22 1y ago
  What kind of arbitrage makes money returning things to Best Buy?
  - infused 1y ago
    Fraud
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - NewJazz 1y ago
    Something stupidly easy to catch, like putting a different TV in the box.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 1y ago
    Years and years ago I had the misfortune of knowing someone that bragged about how he'd buy a video card at best buy, swap a dead card in it, then redo the shrink wrap at his job (an indie computer place) before returning it. There's lots of banal scummy scams you can do like that.
  - SOLAR_FIELDS 1y ago
    I specifically know of people who abuse the Best Buy membership alongside the return policy to essentially rent equipment for periods of time.
- tracerbulletx 1y ago
  Can you explain how you see this as the same thing? And not returns fraud?
  - rogerrogerr 1y ago
    It’s not returns fraud - he was operating entirely within their policy, just returned too much stuff too often and BB eventually figured out they weren’t making money off him. I don’t think he was even intending to return things when he bought them. Dude just had high standards.
- xkqd 1y ago
  Likewise. The guy bought two laptops to compare for a week and returned the one he didn’t like, then later that year did the same thing between two TVs. When he went to return the TV he didn’t want, he was told he was banned from returning any other good to Best Buy and it’s monitored against his credit card. He now pays with cash.
  - xienze 1y ago
    Perhaps after just two events that might seem a little harsh, but I definitely understand the store's reasoning here. You've got a guy that is pretty much guaranteed to lose you money in the form of his regular auditioning of big ticket items (can't sell that returned item for full price anymore). Why would a store want to keep a customer like that?
  - SirMaster 1y ago
    Even if you pay with cash, they still check your ID when you return things and keep track of how much you return.
- xienze 1y ago
  I'm gonna play devil's advocate here. I've definitely seen my fair share of people on Reddit who seem to regularly have the misfortune of opening video card boxes only to find rocks inside. Multiple times -- just a coincidence, I'm sure. Not saying the person you know does this, but return scamming is definitely a thing.
  - rogerrogerr 1y ago
    This dude wasn’t doing that, he was just using Best Buy as an extended trial period for whatever new gadgets looked cool. Eventually they decided they weren’t making any money off him.
- sigwinch 1y ago
  A brick and mortar casino down here banned a guy for some bathroom activity. But made him agree that it’s to everyone’s advantage if they agreed it was because he was a sharp.
nradov 1y ago
Generally most businesses are allowed to refuse service to customers for any reason, or no reason at all (there are certain legal exceptions to that principle for protected classes). As a practical matter, banned online bettors often sneak back in with strawman accounts.
cortesoft 1y ago
In the US, a business can refuse service to anyone, generally, as long as it isn’t because the person belongs to a protected class (e.g. you can’t ban all black people or all Jewish people). You could refuse to do business with someone because you didn’t like the way they looked at you, or because you were grumpy the day they came in. Famously, for example, James Dolan bans all sorts of people he doesn’t like from Madison Square Garden and any of the other venues he owns. He notoriously bans all lawyers who work for any firm that sues him (which happens a lot). He even uses facial recognition to catch them, and kicks them out without refunding their tickets. People have tried to sue him for this (many of them are lawyers, after all!) and so far no one has won against him for it, so he keeps doing it. Here is an article about it: https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/45949758/new-york-knicks-msg-banned-list-james-dolan https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/45949758/new-york-knicks...
- lesuorac 1y ago
  IIUC, that article is written in 2025 and cites stuff pre-2023. IN 2023 the city threatened them with violating the terms of their liquor license [1] (which doesn't prevent you from refusing service to anybody short of actually illegal behavior). I can't really find any follow-up about this. [1]: https://nypost.com/2023/12/06/business/msg-could-lose-its-liquor-license-after-appellate-court-ruling/ https://nypost.com/2023/12/06/business/msg-could-lose-its-li...
  - renewiltord 1y ago
    Doesn't prevent you from refusing short of illegal. Incredible sequence of negatives there.
    - lesuorac 1y ago
      The doesn't doesn't belong.
- biztos 1y ago
  Not my world, but I respect this. Imagine how fun it would be to own, say, Disneyland and keep AI-enforced ban lists for your every whim. Glasshole 2.0? No Mickey for Meta!
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
biztos 1y ago
There are absolutely companies that “stack rank” their customers and cut the bottom N%, or even just keep the top N, period. I have always found this to be maddeningly counterintuitive, because surely at least some of these customers yield a net profit. But I have to admit that I’ve seen it done to very profitable effect.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

hippo22 1y ago

There are betting exchanges where the platform charges a commission but doesn’t care if you win or lose.

bryanrasmussen 1y ago
How can it not care if you win? They still have to pay out correct? Do they then limit the maximum payout that can be expected? I don't know as I don't bet but it seems counter-intuitive that just charging a commission would change the dynamic.
- koolala 1y ago
  Aren't the payouts purely user funds so they aren't actually risking anything? They do charge commission.
  - bryanrasmussen 1y ago
    If that were the case though they would be prone to the same problems that any bookie is, an upset where a few high bets wipe everything out.
    - bluecalm 1y ago
      It's an exchange. You offer to bet X and wait for a matching offer. If no one wants to bets that much your order waits in a queue - same as on a stock market. There is 0 risk for the exchange and the bettors can only use what they put in front. Bookies run some risk because they accept the bet first and try to hedge (or got more people to bet on the other side) later. The exchange doesn't have this problem. Exchange doesn't even need to charge commission cause they make money on float.
- stonesam92 1y ago
  The exchange is not taking the other side of the bet; they're just matching you up with another user who wants to take the opposite position to you and then taking a fee for providing that service.

Terr_ 1y ago

I think the problem isn't banning per-se, because I can "ban" companies as well. The problem has something to do with the asymmetry of information or bargaining-power. Unlike card games, the house has quite an advantage in data-mining.

phire 1y ago
I'm pretty sure they actually use their data-mining advantage to make their betting offers as attractive to regular users as possible, and therefore maximise profit. It's so easy to just ban any user who gets "too lucky" (simply ban the top ~0.1% of your userbase every week) why waste resources on offering actually fair bets? And the requirement for "fair bets" probably interferes with the requirement for bets to be as attractive to "regular users" as possible.
- Phemist 1y ago
  > And the requirement for "fair bets" probably interferes Don't forget the possibility of promotions, which is a major thing for marketing and distinguishing yourself from the pack. A world of fair bets would be a world where you would need to market your superior odds (e.g. what pinnacle does).. which is directly at odds with fleecing your under-educated customer base.
biztos 1y ago
How does the house not have a data-mining advantage in card games? They would know whether you make bad choices on Tuesdays, how people of your nationality and consumer preferences react to seeing an Ace, they can deal the better card to the person they’d like to have win, or the opposite, they know what effect the equivalent of a hot waitress bringing you free drinks will be on you specifically as well as on people statistically similar to you and at what moment in time… Do you just not play against the house when you play cards? And do you 100% trust the house to deal randomly? Does the house not care at all who wins at cards? Sorry if these are stupid questions, I don’t gamble, but it seems like they have lots of actionable data if they want to use it. Even if they only use it to get you to play more (or less).

protocolture 1y ago

I know a guy who sells odds to online betting platforms. If they don't purchase his odds (effectively paying him not to play), he just plays them. Wins either way. I dont think he has ever been banned, but I think thats because they appreciate the option to purchase his service.

gjgtcbkj 1y ago
Well you have a truth telling friend.
- protocolture 1y ago
  He might not be entirely truthful, but I have never seen him lie about his special subjects, economics and sport.
stuckkeys 1y ago
I would like to become friends with your friend.

kianN 1y ago

It’s even worse with parlays: the events are potentially negatively correlated. There may be a 70% chance that Giannis has 3 or more turnovers and a 70% chance the bucks win, but the odds of both happening are less than 49% because more turnovers directly reduces the likelihood of a Bucks win.

mrkramer 1y ago

>And if you are consistently winning they will ban you! They can legally back off (reduce max bet to a tiny amount) or straight up ban people who bet smart. I'm not from US, I'm from EU but I'm still paranoid of that so I only sports bet at state owned lottery/betting company.

biztos 1y ago
How do you know they would not also ban you if you were exceptionally “good” at betting? Is there some specific EU regulation guaranteeing the right to place bets even if the house is losing?
- mrkramer 1y ago
  Company is owned and run by state and I doubt they would allow themselves to have any shenanigans with their customers. You can always sue them, you can sue private companies too but private ownership is just an extra worry. That's why I also have a bank account at the state owned bank not the private one.
  - biztos 1y ago
    That’s probably a good intuition and definitely smart about the bank — I was dropped by Commerzbank in Germany without explanation — but if I were so good at betting that I worried about a ban, I’d want to double check the actual rules.
    - mrkramer 1y ago
      I mean state is probably the better custodian of your money and your interests than the private investors unless you live in a rogue state run by criminals.
      - biztos 1y ago
        Leaving aside the question of whether it has to be a rogue state to be run by criminals, I think that operating a gambling syndicate is never in the interest of the citizenry, and that includes the Lottery, which is functionally a tax on the poor. For very gaudy spectacles of that exploitation, turn on the TV at Christmas in Spain.

epolanski 1y ago

I know few mathematicians that work in betting world and model data (both odds as well as user profiling). It is not true that you get banned if you win too often, but it is true that you get banned, and flagged, if your winning patterns are suspicious. It's essentially like in a casino. You can win more than once and big, good for you. But if patterns emerge, you get banned. E.g. Betting small sums on football and suddenly betting very big on a specific baseball game and winning. Do it few times and you're banned as it's obviously strange.

Phemist 1y ago
In these cases one should apply the cybernetic principle. The purpose of the system is what it does. The intention of the mathematician friends of yours may be to prevent money laundering and match fixing from being profitable (and thereby providing a public good). However, so many genuine sharp and/or plain lucky bettors are caught in these AML & Match Fixing cross-fires, it would be very naive to assume these are all just unfortunate false positives. Sportsbooks are however legally hamstrung in what they can admit to of course. By doing so they would also admit to completely ignoring and even violating one of the core duties imposed on legal sportsbooks: the duty of care (in EU countries at least this is supposedly an important aspect of the legalisation). By kicking someone off your platform, you definitely no longer have any way to nudge their behaviour into something less self-destructive. Some players might quit, but for those that do not: Illegal sportsbooks will try to take even more advantage of their players, and now you have also indirectly caused the financing of all kinds of other activities that AML regulation is specifically designed to prevent. My hot take: your mathematician friends looking at suspicious betting patterns are a way for sportsbooks to greenwash and "legalize" their exploitative practices.
- epolanski 1y ago
  > My hot take: your mathematician friends looking at suspicious betting patterns are a way for sportsbooks to greenwash and "legalize" their exploitative practices. I have no clue, but I'm sure that it's meant to make money, not be a charity. If someone does show some suspicious alpha he gets banned. Users with non-suspicious alpha are generally kept on the platform but they get limits (how much can they bet). I absolutely believe that the betting industry is exploitative in any case. It's not a business where I would want to be involved.

skizm 1y ago

I mean technically stock trading platforms can ban you if you trade too well. Usually happens with options, not buy and hold positions. Retail trading platforms need users that are statistically no different than random to sell their order flow to HFT firms.

Tangokat 1y ago

The big asian bookies don't ban you if you win, they use your sharp bets to improve their price accuracy. Not legal to bet on them if you're from the US though (land of the free??). The biggest betting syndicates use platforms like Punterplay to place bets (often via API) at multiple bookies (Pinnacle, Singbet, SBObet, Betfair, Matchbook, 3ET, VX etc) at the same time. In a somewhat ironic turn of events the more regulation you have, the worse it is for the customer. Big regulatory burdens require the bookies to extract more from the users, making the offerings more predatory. This is also why the likes of Kalshi can provide a better product to customers at the moment - because they ignore all the regulation.

jimz 1y ago
Casinos have a ton of leverage in some states. Here in Nevada MGM and Caesar's and Wynn, thanks to their expansion, are effectively treated as too big to fail and given huge amount of deference in how they operate by the gaming commission. But there are also incredibly problematic protectionist regulations that I and several other residents who didn't really know each other tried to get rid of through the admin law process, primarily allowing remote signups which would also allow out of state entities to set up shop without literally having a physical casino. Having to physically go to a casino and sign up in person was onerous and clearly pointless, and then impossible during the pandemic, and became a really silly charade. What was supposed to start as public meetings right before the pandemic got dragged out, meetings would get rescheduled at the last minute, and casinos made entirely spurious rationales like "there aren't enough local datacenters" (Google Cloud's Henderson datacenter is surely sufficient for in state traffic?), that they would want taxpayer money for potential loss of revenue (capitalism dude, what are you afraid of?) Meetings would get scheduled in Carson City and that's literally six hours away by car. Agenda items would suddenly be altered. It was a hot mess. We managed to get iGaming in theory legalized but they straight up never even pretended to start working on regulations for it, and now with the 90% loss deduction limit by the IRS on the OBBB books basically have 12.5% house edge on any line to start if it's properly priced. My model can beat 2.5% but 12.5% is insane. If the feds are going to ban pros constructively, well, I can't out lobby a casino. And the pro betting constituency isn't big enough to pander to, frankly. If there's action, it can't actually happen on shore. I realize that "people who can beat the books due to specialist knowledge and can bankroll drawdowns to the extent that returns long term profit" is also publicly not sympathetic and generally people either think we're touts (if it makes me money touting absolutely won't help me, in fact the fewer people I have to interact with the better) or something. Wagering by hand sucks, but no model is perfect, just some are more useful than others, and someone in accounting may be able to figure out that ban or bankrupt is not a sustainable strategy to run books. But with the feds involved to put that imprimatur of authority in writing, I guess I'm never getting my limits lifted. Good luck finding stable liquidity elsewhere.

Balgair 1y ago

The hot new interview question for 2025-2035 will not be: - How many golf ball fit in a school bus? Or the like that dominated Google hiring for nearly a decade. No the hot new interview question will be: - Do you have an account with any of the major sports bettors in good standing? The Goofus answer to this is : Yes, I can bet whatever I like with them (they are an idiot that doesn't understand how money works. Hire appropriately) The Gallant answer is: No, I don't do sports betting. (This shows they at least know to lie about it) The Galaxy answer is: No, they banned me (only sharps get banned, meaning they are either very lucky or very good with probabilities and numbers) There exists now the potential for a small service company that can help interviewees and the spouses of gambling addicts: We'll make you look like a sharp to the sports betting companies. You sign up for the service and a big-time sharp takes over your accounts (or directs you personally) and tells you what to bet and where. They then give you the money to bet, making you effectively a mule for them. It's win-win. Real sharps get a mule, you get to look like a sharp and you have the proof. This also works for the family of addicts (probably the larger market), as their affected loved-one gets banned/downgraded and all the money stops flowing out of their accounts.

sidewndr46 1y ago
Isn't mule or proxy betting incredibly illegal in the US? It would seem to violate every known money laundering law I can think of
piltdownman 1y ago
'Proper' gamblers use exchanges like Betfair rather than Sportsbooks, where the host takes a rake off the spread with individuals laying against you. The only major issue with this is not being able to do things like place betting accumulators. FOI in EU means you can get the notes attached to your account - the insights can be staggering, down to friend and family connections with Jockeys or Racing Stables, Sports Personalities or High Net Worth individuals.
devilbunny 1y ago
> (This shows they at least know to lie about it) Or they just don’t do it? I don’t enjoy gambling at all. I don’t do it in casinos, I don’t do it online, and I don’t even do it with friends where there’s no “house” to pay off. I think the worst night gambling I’ve ever experienced, I lost $20. I still remember it.