[buckeye]

Major responds that booting a winner is wrong but lowering their limits to anything is fair game. Is there really a difference between booting someone and lowering their limits from 2 dimes to $50, or less? I say there isn't, you are just effectively booting them by cutting them down to "next to" nothing.

I'd much rather see a standard max limit set forth in policy and the RAISED on an exception basis. That way EVERYONE can get the same and they could raise it for those they want to allow more. Now they obviously would raise big losers more than winners but that seems more equitable to me. The losers aren't forced to bet more just given the option if they care to exercise it. That's a lot different than suckering them with rip-off shaded lines, you are just giving them a bigger cut at the standard lines. Many do this anyway in that their phone limits are much bigger than online or you can request more and they may give you it on the phone.

But selectively CUTTING/LOWERING limits seems just as "wrong" as booting, to me.

JMHO