October 25, 2016, 07:44:05 AM
News: If it is not in arbusers, it doesn't exist.

Is This Considered Bonus Abuse?

Pages: [1]
« previous next »
Author Topic: Is This Considered Bonus Abuse?  (Read 1134 times)

Karma: +1/-5
Posts: 62

View Profile
« on: April 19, 2015, 06:18:51 AM »

Say you have a $300 Freeplay bonus.  Is it considered bonus abuse if you bet it all on an underdog with big moneyline odds?  Thus what many ppl do is bet a big moneyline dog with their Freeplay, then hedge the other side so they can capture a good percentage of the bonus

I'm curious but has any site taken away your winnings if you do this?  I mean, how would they know you hedge the other side?  Well obviously they wouldn't but the big issue is say the freeplay wins and say you took a +500 ML underdog.  Then you took the other side at another book then lose at the other book.  Has any book ever and if so, which book decided to take your freeplay away?  The issue is not only you lose your winnings at the FP book but you take a huge loss at the other book etc.

I seen some T and C where they say if there is any bonus abuse, bonus and winnings can be confiscated.  This isn't the same thing though right?
« Last Edit: April 19, 2015, 06:28:10 AM by viking2 » Logged

Getting better

Karma: +15/-12
Posts: 205

View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2015, 07:52:51 PM »

Some books have the maximum odd to use FP, I think it's their insurance against that kind of "abusing". But it didn't happen to me that bookmaker voided my FP won bet with big odd and I didn't hear about such situation. Bookies don't know if you're hedging your position or if you are hitting underdog just because you think he'll win, so don't be afraid of confiscating yours winnings.

Probably a Pro

Karma: +39/-1
Posts: 382

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2015, 10:50:19 PM »

Even if you won't hedge betting   long  is still  the correct  play and I  think they know that.
But like the previous poster I never had  problems  with  free bets either so I wouldn't  worry  too much.

Pages: [1]
« previous next »