Is booting, "just" for winning, fair or acceptable?

[buckeye]

OK, so we touched on this in Basic Training and I mentioned I thought it was slightly better, or less sleazy, than books dealing a second line to screw squares, in that thread, but how much different is it?

Is there a big difference between dealing a cheat line to squares and just BOOTING all winners so that your ONE LINE can then be safely shaded against your client list BECAUSE THEY ARE NOW MOSTLY SQUARES. Isn't it stacking the deck either way? Denying those with some savvy any shot at your lines by booting them? Keeping your client list all squares so they are no danger to you. It hardly seems right. Particularly since they'd never think of booting a player for LOSING TOO MUCH. So why should that be acceptable, to boot "legitimate" winners?

Understand that I am COMPLETELY BEHIND BOOTING SCAMMERS and bonus whores and the cheating element in the player field. I also think movers/beards are violating rules set to protect a books limits and exposure so I can support booting them, or severly limiting them, as well I'm a bit ambiguous on my feelings toward steam chasers because one side of me says they could be improperly labeled or even why are they subjegated to discrimination any more than a square, but they do increase the small books exposure without really giving them any chance to earne. But then I'm all for juice deals that also theoretically are non-earners for the book either. So I could be swayed by a good argument either way for "steamers".

So should books like ITOPS and ... that boot winners be considered in the same light as other books who fleece squares?

Many say its bad business anyway. True sharps can be played off of and "lucky winners" will eventually give it all back and then some. So see/wait out which the winner is, and its a win-win, THEY SAY. Course with many players trying to track and "read" all winners may be a limiting factor. So some books take the easy way out and boot them all instead. I've said it is just like casinos banning card counters. Some casinos don't even wait to confirm you are really a cc ( like Barbary Coast for instance ) they boot/ban all winners just in case.

My opinion is that if they offer a game for which skill can offset and beat it, not cheating as that's a different case, then they should have to allow all to play. If the public at large can lose, then the public at large should be allowed to win. Saying the skilled are cheating by having skills ( which is what cc's are accused of ) just seems like a big fat lie and laws based on it are bogus. They could make small limits or not allow you to vary your bet or shuffle every hand or do other counter-measures to keep cc's at bay, but it is easier to boot them, plus they'd lose some % of their squares/suckers/high rollers who would get disgusted with low limits or frequent shuffles or not being able to make impulse bets, etc.

So what do you techies think?

[AussieVamp2]

Well, business is all about fleecing the squares I guess.

Preferential treatment happens everywhere, fact of life.

[buckeye]

AV2,
I'm not naive and I'm not talking preferential treatment or volume discount or perks for valued customers etc. It's kind of about discrimination in what is supposed to be a PUBLIC ARENA. Is it much different to discriminate by race, color, or "proficiency"?

Books and other businesses should give preferential treatment to their best customers and comps to keep them happy. But if their best(losers) turn it around and start winning then booting them strikes me as incongruous and worthy of condemnation, aka it sucks!

JMHO

[AussieVamp2]

I would suggest that race,etc., are just a tad more important than betting. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img] ( so is insurance, banking, healthcare, etc.)

More like a cafe owner asking you to leave as you have ordered half a cup of coffee and 12 glasses of water and sat there for 9 hours on a busy day.

Sure if sucks when it happens to you, one of the few places it happens to the big money though, so interesting.

[buckeye]

AV2,
I see your point. It's like the Strip Club kicking you out for not tipping enough. They'd rather some drunk fool who gives $10 to every skanky pierced tattoo laden ... replace you because you "value shop" with your titty dollar! LOL But then I didn't ask to sit on the runway and I paid my $10 cover and $5/beer surcharge so leave me the phuck alone to tip who I want. But I digress!

Once again though it is tough to compare any business where the money can only flow one way with gambling where that isn't the case. I guess I consider pain in the butt customers ( like Mr. water drinker ) or my cheap azz in a low-class Strip club to be different than a winner in a casino or s/b. They are just doing what you offer, fair and square not like using a restaurant as a free hotel, and happen to be good at it. Whiners and scammers and bonus whores, or those that call in 10 team $5 parlays 5 minutes to kickoff are more akin to Mr. water.

JMHO

[count zero]

Businesses have an implicit charter to perform a function. When they unilaterally abandon this charter to maximize profits, they are just leeching off society. Their niche could be occupied by another businessman competent enough to earn a fair profit while at the same time providing the services that that particular business is supposed to provide. A reductio ad absurdem shows this clearly: if every bookmaker in the world operated this way, there would be no place at all for actual handicappers to play, and the whole of gambling would be reduced to sucker-fleecing. Any gambler with an iota of talent would be systematically excluded. You can see this happening in any number of other venues: insurance, medical care, etc. Insurance companies know they'll make more money if they only insure people who will never file a claim; HMOs know they'll make more money if they only accept people who are unlikely to get sick. So regardless of the method they use -- whether it be separate lines for squares or the boot for sharps -- books that do this are self-interested mediocrities draining off money that should be going to honest, capable operators who are good enough to be able to serve *all* members of the group whose needs that particular business is supposed to fill.

Bottom line: if you aren't good enough to turn a profit without perverting the nature and function of your business, then get out of the way and turn over your spot to someone who is.

[AussieVamp2]

Sure.

Of course, cafes, sportsbooks, cinemas, strip clubs or whatever, all entertainment, not important services, don't really need them. You could certainly suggest that say, US cinemas are fleecing the public there charging twice as much as here for example...........

[all-in]

Count, HMO's cancel your policy just as soon as there is too much activity. Insurance companies cut their losses as soon as you wrap a vechicle around a tree...........other industries do throw out the companies and indivduals that cost them money.

[Shawn]

Count...

That's a very well-reasoned statement about inherent responsibilities of businesses. I don't happen to agree with it completely because I don't think the social contract should be so strong. I think that if a business is operating within the law it should be able to operate as it sees fit. Nevertheless I applaud your call for businesses to act ethically and I wish everyone would listen to his better angels when making business decisions. I think it's a personal choice to act with class. It's a choice I wish everyone would make; if a person chooses to act without class, I may not respect the person so much, but I respect his right to act as he sees fit.

Back to betting...

Scammers are one thing, screenchasers another, and bonusmongers a third. But I've never understood why books chase handicappers who win. Never mind all this altruistic stuff! -- Why throw away valuable info? The guy who hits 54% ATS is, in my mind, one of my "best customers"

S

[buckeye]

Shawn,
You say as long as they are operating within the law they are okay, but shouldn't the law protect us from discrimination? Businesses now spend millions making sure that wheelchairs can get into and around buildings, even if they have no wheelchair-bound clients. What about an "Americans with ABILITIES" act to protect we lowly bettors from the corrupt gambling establishment?

Seriously, the insurance industry may be a better comparison. They bet, using profiles and historical percents, etc. that you won't make a big claim or need them at all. If they bet wrong and you do need their $ for the reason you bought their service they shouldn't be able to kick you out. They lost their bet, now that you are a liability they shouldn't be allowed to renege, IMO! So now that you are a bigger risk they raise your VIG or lower your claim limit ( max bet ) - it seems unlawful/unethical to me. I know they do it but I don't care for it there either!

As for the 54% player, would you really opinionate your lines based on that? bet out based on it? Seems a tad low for those things to me.

BTW, nice post cz, VERY GOOD READ!

[Blade]

I agree with count zero.

If a bookie can't make money without booting winners then they should probably find another business.

[The Major]

I do not think a player should be booted for winning. I do however think it is ok for the books to reduce the players limits as low as the want to.

Russ

[Shawn]

Buckeye...

If I had a guy hitting 54% I'd use it to opinionate my lines a little, sure.

You raise a couple very interesting points.

On one, I agree with you. I find it very unusual that companies and people can bet by calling it "insurance" (even on the outcomes of sporting events) and yet bookmaking is largely illegal in the States. I guess I'm a little peeved by this anomaly, but I have good friends in the legal sports insurance business and I wish them all the best.

On your discrimination angle, I'm not so sure. We'd have to ask Philo if you have a valid point of "discrimination against the able" but I'm not convinced you do. ADA and similar legislation in other countries is predicated on levelling the playing field for the disadvantaged. This is supported by many of the disadvantaged themselves (I am seriously disabled, and I do not support such legislation usually, but never mind), and is designed to appeal to the better angels of everyone else. Ensuring that the playing field is fair to the sharps is a concept that, whatever its merits are, appeals to nobody but the sharps. You may make the moral stand that everything should be equal for everyone. I would counter that, if sportsbettors are animals, Orwell got it right when he said that some animals will always be more equal than others so artificial equality can never be positively good.

Finally, I was talking about businesses operating within the law. Onshore bookies do not operate within the law--in America anyway. Offshore bookies operate within the law of their jurisdiction. Incidentally, many jurisdictions prevent local citizenry from having accounts. Most "protect the sharps" movements, then, would have to be led by the necesarily disenfranchised...

[buckeye]

Shawn,
Very interesting reply. I guess I just don't understand protecting from discrimination by race, color, sex, religion, etc. Protecting the uneducated or naive or weak from fraud. But not protecting a skilled craftsman from discrimination. Aren't they "worthy" of the same protection that everyone else is? I'm not familiar with Orwell's philosophy but would it protect or level the playing field for the weak as well. I say the strong shouldn't be subjected to discrimination any more than the weak or anyone else. JMHO

As for the law aspect, think of it in terms of Las Vegas sportsbooks (onshore and legal) instead of illegal locals or offshores with their "questions about legality by jurisdiction". Many offshores have a "LV rules apply where not specifically stated" clause and I say that should extend beyond a few rules. Whether a sportsbook winner or a card counter I don't think the rules/laws should allow them to boot winners. JMHO

I don't quite understand the idea that if it is considered illegal by the two-faced illogical gov't, that all standards or ethics are suspended and waived. I know it is done, just don't agree that it should be accepted. Like I said before, if the hooker robs the John at gunpoint is it not armed robbery because he was guilty of a crime (assuming being a John is illegal)? Seems like a two wrongs kind of argument to me.

GL

[The Actuary]

A businesses first and foremost function is to stay in business.
Regardless of the means provided they are within legal bounds.

Creating and maintaining commerce in and of itself creates enormous socio-economic benefit.

TA

[buckeye]

<< Regardless of the means provided they are within legal bounds. >>



That's the tough part TA. What are the legal bounds and who sets them? If they aren't sufficient to protect consumers or businessmen from fraud and price gouging are those practices fair game then? If the laws overstep their bounds and tax you such that you can't possibly stay in business, is that okay? Are the laws set to protect customers and owners or just one-sided bogus screw jobs by political whores who sell their vote to the highest bidder?

I'm not for anarchy, but there are plenty of laws that don't cover right from wrong. There are obscure laws governing what consenting adults do in their own bedroom in some cities ( felatio, cunnilingus, sodomy, etc. are outlawed ). Many laws are inadequate or loony. To say that laws are the determining factor is being a bit short-sighted IMO. Gambling laws are examples of how ridiculous and illogical laws can be. Going off on a tangent I'm inclined to believe in vigilante justice more than most. If you kill some scumbag that rapes or kills one of your loved ones, you want me on your jury. I'll hold out for not guilty till the cows come out, so to speak! In that case the second wrong is just ( just doesn't add up to a right ). I may be liberal about some things, but I am pro-death to all murderers and rapists. Some crimes are so heinous that death to the perpetrator is the best answer, IMO. NICE TANGENT EH?

JMHO

[count zero]

"...A businesses first and foremost function is to stay in business. Regardless of the means provided they are within legal bounds..."

This begs the question, since whether booting, sharp-lining and limit-lowering should be legal is precisely what's at issue.

Many people misunderstand the concept of begging the question. It doesn't mean anything like "causing the question to arise." It means that it's a fallacy to include what you're trying to prove as a premise in your argument. When you're arguing whether medicinal marijuana should be legal, it begs the question to say "it should be illegal because it's a crime to smoke pot."

End of philosophy lesson. Now where's my damn medication...

[PATTON]

What an interesting thread!

Buckeye, to address your last post, let me say first that you should not confuse "legality" with "morality." IOW, that which is legal is not necessarily moral, nor is that which is immoral necessarily illegal. The law is a bunch of rules that we all must follow. Nothing more or less. The great thing about the United States is that we established the principle that everyone should abide by the same laws, which should be clear to all. Moreover, the process by which the laws are established should be transparent, and performed by individuals who are accountable to as broad a class of individuals as possible. The laws can be, and are, changed as experience sees fit.

Thus, the law can be as all-encompassing as we wish it to be. It can be as restrictive as Imperial Prussia, where supposedly all was forbidden except that which was specifically allowed, or as free as a 1960's hippie commune. My own view is that the law should be as free as possible, leaving individuals to conduct their affairs with as little hinderance from government as possible, consistent with having an orderly society. Within such a framework, eventually the good practices will drive out the bad. This used to make me quite the laissez-faire liberal (definitely with a lower-case "l"), although these days I see the need for laws that protect consumers from fraud (or health and safety) as our economy grows increasingly complex.

You mention the laws against discrimination, and allude to the Americans with Disabilities Act, and ask why not an act to protect another class, namely successful gamblers. Insofar as anti-discrimination laws are needed to protect people's access to the political process (Voting Rights Act, etc.) I agree with such laws. Moreover, a government policy of refusing to enforce discriminatory provisions is acceptable to me. However, I disagree with laws like ADA that force action in a purely commercial setting and so oppose laws that would ensure gamblers access to books, as this is purely a commercial affair.

As far as whether booting winners should be legal or not, I would say such a practice should not be banned and hence legal, as one ordinarily should have the freedom to do business with persons of one's choosing. I would not like being booted myself, but then again I have avoided signing up with books like SIA that many people agree do boot winners. Moreover, I think such a policy is also moral, as long as you are up-front about such a policy and don't use it as an excuse to steal peoples' money.

This leaves it up to the market to decide which business model is better - booting winners or keeping them, and perhaps using their selections to shade your lines, as Shawn suggests doing. If winners find it difficult to find books that will take their business, they could set up their own books, or use b-to-b (bettor-to-bettor) exchanges to do their thing.

I feel the same way about dealing two lines. A book is free to offer whatever lines it wants to any of its customers. Again, I think it is better for a book to be up-front about this practice, and if not then it is wrong. But legally and morally there is nothing wrong with essentially charging two different customers two very different prices for essentially the same thing - the airlines have been doing it for years.

[PATTON]

<< A businesses first and foremost function is to stay in business.
Regardless of the means provided they are within legal bounds.

Creating and maintaining commerce in and of itself creates enormous socio-economic benefit.

TA >>



Actuary:

The one moral quandry I have with gambling (for a living) concerns the socio-economic benefit.

I believe that in order to gamble, first I have to take care of my family's needs. I cannot gamble to the deteriment of their basic shelter, clothing, and food needs - and those basics are at a pretty high level! Moreover, I cannot cheat anyone, such as past-posting etc. Finally, I cannot take advantage of someone, such as a person with a gambling addiction. I feel that by wagering offshore in legal jurisdictions, and not with locals (who, I understand, often come with the added baggage of organized crime ties), I meet these requirements.

Moreover, if one is gambling simply for fun, then gambling is no different from any other industry; people get a kick out of it, and if they want to blow their disposible income that way rather than go to the movies or fly fishing in Montana, so be it. Providing a (fair) gambling outlet to such people is a perfectly legitimate business pursuit.

However, if one wants to make a living gambling, then it is not entertainment. If one is going to make his living this way, what socio-economic benefit does he provide to society in exchange? Isn't such a person only using his superior knowledge to wrest a share of the money from book operators?

In composing this post, the idea arose that the benefit would be as follows: If the only action were squares, the books could shade their lines, often grossly, to the squares' detriment, wiping them out faster. By having wiseguys who consistently win, books are forced to keep their lines in closer accord with reality (all lower case reality) and allowing the sqares a "fairer" line/payout, aloowing them to maximize their utility from gambling.

I hope this solves my dilemma - what do you think?