Tweet
Is a skilled sportsbettor an undesirable customer, from the sportsbooks’ perspective?
Clearly there are a lot of things players can do that are unambiguously dishonest and wrong, and that are to be condemned as much as are the actions of disreputable books. For example, getting multiple bonuses by signing up under several fictitious names, betting through a beard at a place where you have been banned, exploiting software flaws to past post or bet clearly inaccurate lines, losing as a credit player and then disappearing without paying, etc.
But what I’m asking about is not someone who behaves dishonestly or dishonorably like that, but someone who is simply a shrewd and skilled enough player to win more than he loses.
Is there an unspoken “Gentlemen’s Agreement” that a player will not take full advantage of all the (honest) angles that are available out there? For instance:
1. At a sportsbook with a “no juice” special certain days and times, Player makes 100% of his plays during those times, and thus never pays juice.
2. At a sportsbook with parlay odds like the Dunes (juice can be as low as the equivalent of -102 or -103 straight bets), Player only bets parlays there and never straight plays.
3. Player fulfills the bare minimum betting requirements for obtaining the sign-up bonus and immediately withdraws his money, deposits it with another book for another bonus, and cycles through books like this indefinitely.
4. Player is a scalper who is content to bet only the infrequent plays where it is not necessary to take a position and anticipate a line move. Thus, Player is, in effect, never risking any money at all, but is always guaranteed of a small profit.
5. Player is simply a good handicapper, or obtains his plays from some person or group who is, and establishes a clear and consistent pattern of winning more often than he loses over a long period of time.
Etc.
Are bettors who do one or more of these things doing something shady? If I’ve benefited from making a lot of no juice plays at a sportsbook, should I throw them a few –110 plays that are available for less elsewhere just to be sporting or to show my appreciation?
I want to say that there is no such obligation. On the other hand, why would a sportsbook want such customers? Granted, they might not be technically violating any rules, but what are they contributing to the sportsbook’s overhead and such if they are only making the plays they can make with no juice, or only betting scalps with a guaranteed profit? Are they simply to be grudgingly tolerated because it is too complicated to exclude them without also losing the kind of customers you want to have? As a book, would you feel justified in giving such players lesser treatment in the hopes that they’d voluntarily take their business elsewhere?
I want to improve to where I can do as well as possible at sportsbetting. I’d hate to think that being smart enough to shop lines, take advantage of bonuses and promotions, make skilled picks, etc. makes me an undesirable customer, but I have to wonder. After all, we know what casinos think of blackjack card counters—at least the few who can really do it successfully. To the layman, there seems to be a huge ethical difference between a cheater and a skilled card counter, but to the casino, the bottom line is that both are taking money from them, and both should be eliminated if possible. Is the same true of a sportsbook customer who plays in such a way as to withdraw more money than he deposits over the long run? Do sportsbooks have that same attitude as toward the card counters that all that really matters is the bottom line that ultimately the money is moving in the wrong direction?
What do you guys think? Can a player be too savvy about such things? Should he tone it down and not take full advantage of each and every opportunity that comes his way? One would think that the answer is obvious, but I would be curious to hear various perspectives, including from sportsbooks themselves.
Clearly there are a lot of things players can do that are unambiguously dishonest and wrong, and that are to be condemned as much as are the actions of disreputable books. For example, getting multiple bonuses by signing up under several fictitious names, betting through a beard at a place where you have been banned, exploiting software flaws to past post or bet clearly inaccurate lines, losing as a credit player and then disappearing without paying, etc.
But what I’m asking about is not someone who behaves dishonestly or dishonorably like that, but someone who is simply a shrewd and skilled enough player to win more than he loses.
Is there an unspoken “Gentlemen’s Agreement” that a player will not take full advantage of all the (honest) angles that are available out there? For instance:
1. At a sportsbook with a “no juice” special certain days and times, Player makes 100% of his plays during those times, and thus never pays juice.
2. At a sportsbook with parlay odds like the Dunes (juice can be as low as the equivalent of -102 or -103 straight bets), Player only bets parlays there and never straight plays.
3. Player fulfills the bare minimum betting requirements for obtaining the sign-up bonus and immediately withdraws his money, deposits it with another book for another bonus, and cycles through books like this indefinitely.
4. Player is a scalper who is content to bet only the infrequent plays where it is not necessary to take a position and anticipate a line move. Thus, Player is, in effect, never risking any money at all, but is always guaranteed of a small profit.
5. Player is simply a good handicapper, or obtains his plays from some person or group who is, and establishes a clear and consistent pattern of winning more often than he loses over a long period of time.
Etc.
Are bettors who do one or more of these things doing something shady? If I’ve benefited from making a lot of no juice plays at a sportsbook, should I throw them a few –110 plays that are available for less elsewhere just to be sporting or to show my appreciation?
I want to say that there is no such obligation. On the other hand, why would a sportsbook want such customers? Granted, they might not be technically violating any rules, but what are they contributing to the sportsbook’s overhead and such if they are only making the plays they can make with no juice, or only betting scalps with a guaranteed profit? Are they simply to be grudgingly tolerated because it is too complicated to exclude them without also losing the kind of customers you want to have? As a book, would you feel justified in giving such players lesser treatment in the hopes that they’d voluntarily take their business elsewhere?
I want to improve to where I can do as well as possible at sportsbetting. I’d hate to think that being smart enough to shop lines, take advantage of bonuses and promotions, make skilled picks, etc. makes me an undesirable customer, but I have to wonder. After all, we know what casinos think of blackjack card counters—at least the few who can really do it successfully. To the layman, there seems to be a huge ethical difference between a cheater and a skilled card counter, but to the casino, the bottom line is that both are taking money from them, and both should be eliminated if possible. Is the same true of a sportsbook customer who plays in such a way as to withdraw more money than he deposits over the long run? Do sportsbooks have that same attitude as toward the card counters that all that really matters is the bottom line that ultimately the money is moving in the wrong direction?
What do you guys think? Can a player be too savvy about such things? Should he tone it down and not take full advantage of each and every opportunity that comes his way? One would think that the answer is obvious, but I would be curious to hear various perspectives, including from sportsbooks themselves.
Chong Ming(phoenically Cantanese).
Comment