Topic: Sportsbooks - Industry Standards, our importance and inflated sense of authority (Read 445 times)

Then don't take $10k bets on markets where you expect $1k total.

If a sportsbook expects to have a total of $1000 wagered on an event that is roughly even money odds, if someone bets $10,000 on one side, the sportsbook would need to adjust the odds in favor of the other side so much in order to attract enough bets, that they would end up losing money regardless of the outcome.

Betting limits are a function of a projection of the total amount that will be wagered on an event.

I get it. I'm just saying I have zero sympathy for a business that puts itself into a position where the only way to make a profit is to fuck the customer. If the problem is their use of shitty third-party odds providers, or offering some illiquid markets, or whatever - that's on them for chasing profits above common sense.

Wish bookmakers were able to hedge their bets and win the juice from each game, each betting type etc.

In reality, very few games-if any, are not one-sided. There are many reasons for this.

For example, there are 200 bookmakers that are using betconstruct software, another 100 using sbtech software etc. When you place a max bet on Kissamikos to win at bookmaker A who is using betconstrust platform, what will happened after? Betconstruct will lower the odds. But hey, there are 199 more betconctuct books who now offering lowered odds for Kissamikos, without even accepting a single penny in that team.

If same punter place a max bet on Juventus to win at same betconstuct bookmaker, what will happened? Nothing! Betconstruct will continue offering same odds for Juventus as they are following bet365 odds who is following Maxbet odds for those mainstream games. Yet, the betconstruct bookie who accepted the max bet will end with one sided game.

Few years ago there was a myth that asia bookmakers have high limits, accept winners etc and that their profit was arising from juice so they were not profiling players. Few years later we saw Sbobet and Maxbet getting rid agents, we saw asia bookmakers void winning bets by simply calling them ''abnormal bets'', we saw pinnacle cutting limits in almost every market etc.

It is obvious that bookies can't handle smart action. Imo they never had that ability. Only pinnacle may be able to to this for mainstream games. In less known leagues, they are forced to take position as well.

They can adjust the odds until it's no longer one-sided.

Sportsbooks have betting limits that can potentially be evaded via multiaccounting. Wager limits are put into place in order to reduce the likelihood that betting will become too one-sided such that the sportsbook stands to lose if there is a particular outcome.

Ah, but that's arbitrage. And probably a violation some sort of "no professional gambling, and we decide if you're a profesional" clause in the TOS. TBH I don't think multiaccounting matters outside of bonus abuse - if you can profitably hedge your bets the site has probably screwed up the odds anyway.


Great then. No ambiguity at the time of withdrawal. No more pretending that Bitcoin is anything other than a (conveniently irreversible) deposit method for those sites. And perhaps slightly less pretending that they care about their own TOS until the gambler starts winning, if they put a solid effort into actually enforcing those TOS. As it stands now, they're fine with users breaking the rules as long as it's profitable, which is not my idea of fairness.

Thanks for the correction.  I'm not much of a gambler, so I was aware of these abuses.

Hmm, hedging your bets is not what bookies are afraid of or the reason, why they don't allow multi-accounting. (Maybe you meant arbitrage ? Even though that is no problem with multi-accounting as well or would just be a small one). The reasons multi-accounting is not allowed are:

a) Bonus/Promotion abuse
Most bookies offer a bonus for your first deposit. This bonus has some rollover requirement, but is free money in the end. If multi-accounting was allowed, I could just take this bonus gazillion times and meeting the rollover requirement easily by doing the same in another bookie and play opposing bets in markets with low vig all the time, like US sports for example. Bet over in bookie A, bet under in bookie B and I will lose only a few % per bet, while getting my money withdrawable again.
The same goes for some promotions, where the more entries you can make, the higher your chances to win these promotions. 

b) Getting rid of unprofitable players
Winning users/accounts get a personal limit and can only stake very low then. These users only cost the bookie money and thus their accounts are made basically unusable. If multi-accounting would be allowed, these users could just make new accounts over and over, which is of course not wanted.
This is not fair (I think), but it is what it is and as said above a good risk management has its pros as well. The asian bookies have a better approach, since they don't limit these players but just follow their bets, maybe even with better odds and/or higher stakes and thus they are making money even with a generally unprofitable customer. And you can also use (or should I say abuse ?) these winning players to sharpen your odds, i.e. check what they are doing and adjust your odds accordingly.

Multiple accounts hurt sportsbooks' bottom line, and help gamblers hedge their bets.  This will never change, it's the nature of gambling.  By adding the multi-account restrictions into their ToS sportsbooks are just trying to protect their business interests.  If you're a gambler that wants to hedge-bet why not use two or more different sportsbooks?

There are definitely opportunities for sportsbooks to use KYC to selectively void successful bets, and I'm sure that does happen.  I believe that asking for KYC right off the bat, however is a non-starter.  Most clients won't oblige a sportsbook that requests documents before deposits, and unfortunately it's most likely because they're in violation of one of the sportsbook's terms from the begging.  I'll use myself as an example: I live in a state where online gambling isn't allowed, and my favorite sportsbook doesn't offer it's services in my country.  So to use my favorite sportsbook I have to travel to a neighboring nation.  If they were to ever ask me for my KYC dox, I would have no choice but to disclose that I live in a country where their service isn't offered, and hope that my explanation would suffice.  Of course, if they were to suspect that I used their service while in my home country (through the use of VPN, for example) they would not only be in the right to lock my account, it might be their legal obligation.

There's also the stigma on the industry itself: The gambling industry is probably the second oldest profession in human history, and only slightly less stigmatized than the oldest.  It's understandable, many people find it addicting, and it can be damaging.  So here comes the government, once again claiming to protect us from ourselves.  Being somewhat conservative (small case libertarian) in my political views, I find government intervention more damaging.  I live in a state where they allow a certain ethnic group to build casinos (it really sounds preposterous when I type it out like that,) and there's no lack of them popping up in old cow pastures and on desolate hillsides.  I'm perfectly allowed to throw my paycheck into a slot machine, on a craps game, or a roulette wheel, but I can't (legally) make a much less risky bet by gambling on a football game from my desk.

Sportsbooks aren't run by dumb people, so they must know this.  Which is one of the reasons they often find themselves in disputes with their clients.  It's such a slippery slope; on one hand sportsbooks want to attract as many clients as possible, and on the other hand they want to abide by local laws and protect their interests.

Which brings me to the point of my post:  THIS IS CRYPTO!  I've never considered myself an outlaw, but there have been at least a couple of nanny-state laws at which I've scoffed.  This is the freedom that crypto currency allows us; to do the things that the nanny-state prohibits with their hypocritical efforts to protect us from ourselves.

I hope you're right about some form of blockchain or smart contract technology that help resolve these issues.  But until then, I think we're destined to see online casinos attempt to protect themselves with restrictive Terms of Service, and gamblers will continue to violate them.

When you place a bet on the outcome of an event, you are risking money, and the sportsbook might need to pay you if you bet correctly. If the sportsbook has priced the bet correctly, the sportsbook will stand to make money regardless of the outcome because the sum total of the payout will be less than the sum total of the losing bets. Sportsbooks might be risking a small percentage of the total wagers on an event early in the betting, but once betting has been open for a while, they wont stand to lose much on any given bet.

A non-custodial sportsbook would need to put up their own funds on each bet, which would raise the cost of running the sportsbook.

An oracle could still play the same types of games as described in the OP.

Non-custodial in this context refers to the custody of the funds, not the resolution. The resolution would still need some sort of oracle and that's fine since we're dealing with events IRL. The problem is the casino holding player funds hostage and instituting bullshit rules on top of the actual bet resolution.

I don't think it is possible for a sportsbook to be non-custodial. The outcome of sporting events cannot be cryptographically verified.

All arbitrage bets/Sure bets should be honored.

Arbing is a simple but effective strategy that guarantees profits for those who do it correctly.

Arbing involves wagering on all possible outcomes of a game through two or more sportsbooks.

Example: FortuneJack has odds 2.05 for Barcelona to win against Real Madrid
              Sportsbet.io has odds 2.05 for Real Madrid Double Chance against Barcelona

So, if someone bets 100 euros on Barcelona win at 2.05 via FortuneJack and another 100 euros at Real Madrid Double chance at 2.05 at Sportsbet, he will end with 5 euro profit risk free no matter the outcome of the game.

Arbitrage technique can take the form or arbing, sharbing, middling etc. 

Arbitrage opportunities can appear for many reasons: Bookmakers differing in opinion, Bookmakers taking a specific position or running a promotion, Bookmakers slow to move their odds or simply making a mistake etc.

On paper, Sportsbet.io shouldn't have interest if i managed to cover my bet on Barcelona with opposite bet at Fortunejack and vice versa.

In reality though, bookmakers hate arbitrage betting. They hate customers who bet in a way that ensures themselves profits as they know very well that in longterm, they will loose money from such activity.

In recent years, we see many ready to use software in the market that notify the user when an arbitrage opportunity appears among 2 or more bookmakers. Softwares like betburger, betonvalue, rebelbetting etc are very popular among betting community. Many use custom made bots for this purpose as well.

On the other side, bookies have access to those softwares as well. They also have their own tools for that purpose. As a result, they can identify arbitrage bettors after 1-2 bets.

Many bookies have a prohibit term in their TOS that they don't allow arbitrage betting. The problem is that they can't prove if a user is arbitrage bettor or not. In our example, i could have choosen to bet on Barcelona for any reason. I could have choose to cover my bet on another bookie though which is prohibited from TOS.

We many time saw complaints regarding arbitrage betting, when bookie confiscate profits from arbitrage bets etc.

Even though i hate arbing myself, according to industry standards those bets should be honored in full. You will never saw Bet365 confiscating profits due to arbitrage. Pinnacle even welcome arbitrage bettors as they are very sure about their odds/lines.

What options are left for the bookmaker though? It is simple. They honor the arbitrage bets, pay the user his profits and they boot him/limit his account so they cover their asses. All placed bets should be honored though.

This is 100% true. When she talk like this she makes me more horny for her.

Who knows of such a place ? Non custodial is key.

Let's drive the scammers out or force them to be provably fair with no sneaky ways to not payout.
I don't gamble but I want to push all the poor fools that do towards a provably fair systems.

Must be a smart contracts based system by now that has good range and is non custodial.

Where is the merit for her above post??. Usually she spouts nonsense and gets a shit ton?

From a gambler's POV, if the sportsbook takes your deposit and accepts your otherwise valid bet (no cheating, fixing, hacking, "pulp bets" like spyrosc200 mentioned) they should pay out. It simple, fair, relatively easy to enforce, with perhaps some gray area regarding match fixing but at least the major sports should be fine. Any TOS bullshit saying otherwise is predatory and such sites (which is like 99% of them) should be avoided. All of the multiaccounting nonsense shouldn't even exist. If you don't allow multiple accounts, KYC everyone before deposit, or at least KYC before claiming any bonuses or whatever the multiaccounting rule is supposed to prevent. If you don't allow certain countries, KYC before deposit. But of course that would be too expensive, in terms of actual KYC cost and lost revenue, so they let you deposit and play as long as you're losing.

This is a thinly veiled scam and we all go along with it because we can't live without those big flashy sites that offer us odds on SB halftime wardrobe malfunctions. When someone gets fucked over because some third party KYC verification outfit run by two guys and a goat in India rejects their passport we laugh at them here and tell them they should have read the TOS that says the very-respected-never-scammed-site has sole discretion in resolving such disputes and it is very respected so it would never scam. Might even be technically correct, it would just use KYC as an excuse to not pay out because that goes 100% to their bottom line so why not.

Unlike Steamtyme I'm just sick and tired of all this and don't think it will improve. I registered on a state-licensed fiat casino site recently. It's been fantastic. Don't know why I even put up with this pseudo-Bitcoin gambling nonsense until now. Some nostalgia dating back to just-dice and bustabit I guess; sadly that spirit clearly doesn't translate to sports betting. A properly decentralized non-custodial solution could change my mind but I have a feeling if it happens it will be on Ethereum.

Another point of contention I have seen is that of promotions and (new account) bonuses.

I suspect the above are 'loss leaders' that some crypto sportsbooks use to try to get new customers. When customers are suspected of abusing these promotions and bonuses, sportsbooks will sometimes conduct additional due diligence before allowing withdrawals and may process withdrawals in what some may describe as a questionable way.

Happened a lot to me in the past (in niche sports) and I remember only one time, when my bet was voided and I was furious, because I felt cheated.

I think your example 3 shouldn't get voided, because this is a competition afterall and when you have better information/insights, then you should get rewarded, this is value betting. Especially if the odds stand for a long time until Asia comes out with their odds closer to match day. If you could bet on Berkane around 2-ish for some days, then these are obviously not wrong odds (although for you they are, because you know your stuff), but poor compiling.

A scenario, where I would be fine with getting this voided is, when I bet on Berkane maybe max bet, the market is suspended immediately and is re-opened with 1.05 afterwards. But when you max bet and the odds go from 2.10 -> 2.00, you max bet again and it goes from 2.00 -> 1.85, then these bets must stand.

You can add the ''void of bets on pulp odds'' as an industry standard.

Even though in many cases courts forced bookmakers to pay punters the bets placed with pulp odds, according to industry standards bets on pulp odds are/should be voided. This is how the giants like pinnacle or bet365 still behave with pulp odds so we can still consider void of those bets as ''industry standard''.

However, some books/odds providers have difficulties understanding the difference between pulp and value odds.

Example 1: Barcelona to win against Alaves is wrongly set at 110/1 instead of 1.10/1. While all bookies worldwide had more or less odds set at 1.10, sportsbet or FJ etc set odds incorrectly at 110/1. This is obvious error from the trader and those bets are voided from industry leaders.

Example 2: Barcelona to win against Alaves is set correctly from Sportsbet at 1.10/1 and Alaves double chance is set 6/1. Suddenly, there was a covid outbreak in Barcelona with 25 covid cases and as a result Barcelona was forced to play with U21 team. Market reacted and now Alaves double chance pay1.25/1. This is called value betting and all bets on early odds should be honored.

I think the difference between the above cases are clear.

There is still a 3rd zone, still grey in my eyes. It happened to me in the past.

Example 3: Bet365 opened odds for Berkane at 2.10. It was mispriced. All other smaller bookies/odds provided copied those mispriced odds. So we came to a point whereas whole planet was offering mispriced odds! When asia offered odds on match day, they set odds at 1.05 for Berkane to win and all other bookies followed asia odds. Can we say that odds for Bernake to win set at 2.10 were wrong when whole planet was offering those odds? It is difficult to say.

The example above is a real example, happened to me last year. I personally got paid from 3-4 books and voided from another 2.

https://www.betexplorer.com/soccer/africa/caf-confederations-cup-2019-2020/berkane-fosa-juniors/nXnSnoNt/

After 2 years, i still can't judge if i should be thankful that i got paid from the 3-4 books or be angry that the other 2 books voided my bet.

Worth to mentioned that cases like example 3, are really very very rare, personally can recall only 2-3 such cases in 10 years.

I appreciate the engagement and opinions so far. I am just sitting back awaiting more opinions/engagement/discussion before jumping back in. I'll update anything that is sent to me in PM as well if given permission to share.