Is lowering limits acceptible either?

buckeye · 10-21-2002, 04:00 PM

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

count zero · 10-21-2002, 05:59 PM

Obviously, limit-lowering is a fractional approach to barring. If your limits are cut by 50%, you've just been 50% booted. So all the same arguments apply.

docriver · 10-22-2002, 03:55 AM

how about this :

book deals a line of +3 -110, -3 -110 ... but all your wagers need to be approved. if the market line is +2.5 even, -2.5 -120 and you try to get +3 -110, they say "Wager declined, call in for -120"...but if you take -3 -110, they accept the wager.

This in effect is a 30 cent line, isn't it? +3 -120 for the smart guys...-3 -110 for the dumb guys.

This is a huge book doing it. It seems to be monstrously wrong to me. What do you guys think?

buckeye · 10-22-2002, 04:32 AM

doc,
In the big dual lines thread in the Mess Hall, even the bookies defending using square lines indicated they thought reneging on a quoted line was unethical.

So everyone seems to agree that once a line is quoted it should be honored, EITHER WAY. I'd say expose the sleazebags doing this to you!

BTW, we know that GameDay ( they admit it ) and Bowman's deal square lines, I highly suspect WWTS does, and according to others like krackman and lander, so do VIP, Millenium, nasa.

GL

docriver · 10-22-2002, 04:44 AM

I guess I never thought of this as dealing two lines....but its actually even worse than that because I don't get the option of getting +3 -120 / -3 even (if I did, I'd be ok with that)...my option in these cases is +3 -120 / -3 -110.

I'm thinking over if I should say what book. I have a ton of money there, frankly I don't think I will say the book simply because I need to slowly take out the cash.

buckeye · 10-22-2002, 05:08 AM

That's understandable doc, though the risk of them doing something to you (dicking u around on your w/d ) for telling the truth in this firum is likely low but I think we all understand. I'd just ask you to broadcast it once you take down your balance. To me we should all be sharing such info with each other on these kinds of BS moves by books. So once you're out let us know who the bastids are, as long as you are being truthfull then F THEM if they don't like being exposed for reneging on quotes!

Thx, and GL!

Conrad · 10-22-2002, 11:18 AM

Lowering limits can sometimes be a more polite way of saying "please leave." It's like having a buffet restaurant ban you for eating too much or allowing you to walk up to the buffet only twice and no more. Personally I don't approve of this below-the-belt tactic but I'm sure many others believe a book has the right to do what it wants.