Arbusers

luctens wrote: The soft bookmakers all restrict customers based on flawed logic that these idiots believe and have copied each other into submission by them thinking that it is a profitable move. If one of them changes or sees enough proof in Black Type Bet doing well, then one of the other bookmakers will probably change their policies and the rest will most likely follow, as that's what the betting industry is best at, copying each other.

yeah because Black Type is the 1st book who ever thought about making not limiting players a business model..  tell me, how long have you been betting again?

luctens wrote: I would say that Bet365's less aggressive restriction policies compared to Stan James are a significant factor on why they have done so much better than bookmakers like Stan James.

there you go again with your crazy assumptions.  you take 2 random books, and their difference surely must be down to their agressive limiting, yeah right.  Paddy Power (very restrictive) bought Betfair (posterchild of a business model for sharps), how does that fit into your logic?  William Hill is worth 4 billion, Unibet is worth several billion, Betsson is worth several billion.  Now there's a nice example of a company that started out as a betting exchange, didn't make enough money, opened a sportsbook, started limiting very very hard, and made so much money doing this over the last couple of years they bought one book after the other (who themselves were all less restricting before being bought, and apparently didn't make enough money doing this to stay independent) and created a business model to be utterly worthless to anyone that bets with a brain. The BWin-franchise, Ladbrokes, all very restrictive and all worth billions. You see the pattern?  And Stan James is the best example you can think off? really?

luctens wrote: Again your peddling this crap that if a bookmaker in it's current form was made to bet everybody to lay to lose £500-£1000 that they would go out of business as a result. Just think about what you are saying there, it's simply a load of complete and utter crap.

Just convince a soft book this is a good idea with your weird logic and false assumptions (good luck with that), and please, please, let me be the beta-tester.  That little experiment won't last a month.

luctens wrote:
You are making out that we should be feeling sorry for the bookmaker and all understand the predicament the bookmaker is in and that all the bookmaker is only doing this for is preserve their existence so we should accept that they are not being greedy at all in doing this. Complete rubbish, they are doing this for greed and greed alone. And you saying they wouldn't even survive a year if the bookmakers were made to bet all customers to lay to lose £500-£1000, just listen to yourself for goodness sake. You are saying it like laying to lose £500-£1000 is a big bet, that's a bog-standard bet where I come from, and for you to say that they wouldn't survive a year if they bet everybody to lay to lose that paltry amount, that's simply complete rubbish.

Is this a joke? Are you even reading what I'm writing?

Who cares about 500-1000 being a little or a lot, it is about an INEFFICIENT BUSINESS MODEL.
I didn't say anything about figures, you came up with them...

But we can take these amounts just to prove a point.
If I use 500€ stakes and take on average 3% overvalued odds (one can easily take twice that value, which is what normally makes you a 2-3% arb), let's say place 10 bets a day (not too many), and let's say I work 300 days a year.

10 x 500 x 300 x 0,03 = 45.000

That's on average 45.000,00€ I'm taking from the soft bookie in a year.

You said there were around 50k smart bettors in the UK (which is completely false, but who cares).

50000 x 45000 = 2.250.000.000 JUST FROM THE UK, with a fair situation.

This makes 2.250.000.000,00€ in profit for the smart bettors against the soft bookie of your choice.

Was it 450m you said that bet365 made? Was it just from the UK or worldwide?

So think twice when you say they wouldn't go out of business in a year if they eliminated limitations.

i don't know who you are trying to impress with your made up stats..

And by the way, if I felt sorry for any bookmaker I wouldn't even spend time on this forum...

Note: just in case that you want to continue arguing, we take average 2,0 odds

middler wrote:

luctens wrote:
You are making out that we should be feeling sorry for the bookmaker and all understand the predicament the bookmaker is in and that all the bookmaker is only doing this for is preserve their existence so we should accept that they are not being greedy at all in doing this. Complete rubbish, they are doing this for greed and greed alone. And you saying they wouldn't even survive a year if the bookmakers were made to bet all customers to lay to lose £500-£1000, just listen to yourself for goodness sake. You are saying it like laying to lose £500-£1000 is a big bet, that's a bog-standard bet where I come from, and for you to say that they wouldn't survive a year if they bet everybody to lay to lose that paltry amount, that's simply complete rubbish.

Is this a joke? Are you even reading what I'm writing?

Who cares about 500-1000 being a little or a lot, it is about an INEFFICIENT BUSINESS MODEL.
I didn't say anything about figures, you came up with them...

But we can take these amounts just to prove a point.
If I use 500€ stakes and take on average 3% overvalued odds (one can easily take twice that value, which is what normally makes you a 2-3% arb), let's say place 10 bets a day (not too many), and let's say I work 300 days a year.

10 x 500 x 300 x 0,03 = 45.000

That's on average 45.000,00€ I'm taking from the soft bookie in a year.

You said there were around 50k smart bettors in the UK (which is completely false, but who cares).

50000 x 45000 = 2.250.000.000 JUST FROM THE UK, with a fair situation.

This makes 2.250.000.000,00€ in profit for the smart bettors against the soft bookie of your choice.

Was it 450m you said that bet365 made? Was it just from the UK or worldwide?

So think twice when you say they wouldn't go out of business in a year if they eliminated limitations.

i don't know who you are trying to impress with your made up stats..

And by the way, if I felt sorry for any bookmaker I wouldn't even spend time on this forum...

Note: just in case that you want to continue arguing, we take average 2,0 odds

Very much in agreement here.

Luctens, not a single argument you make is based on facts.  Everything is based on assumptions and guesses you pull out of thin air.  Your reasoning is somewhat sound, assuming your figures are remotely correct.  They are not though.

Don't think for a minute a business with a huge profit like Ladbrokes limits people because they are too lazy or incompetent to figure out a way to make even more money.  Your reasoning is incorrect, a book cannot be greedy/lazy and limit people and at the same time "not" be greedy by being too stupid to figure out not limiting people would make them more money.  See the contradiction there?  A business will billions of turnover does not make a decision like this out of lazyness, it's pure profit driven.  Limiting makes business sense, pure and simple.

What you've all got to understand is that whatever anybody says about "skilled arbers" or whatever, the vast majority of arb bets are getting through to the bookmakers, whether in that person's name or somebody else's or whatever, the fact is that these soft bookmakers are receiving millions of pounds of arb bets each day, so it's not as if these restrictions are actually shielding these bookmakers from taking these arb bets, as people are finding ways to get these bets on anyway.

So the only difference a minimum bet guarantee would make is that these people could bet in their own name without having to search out other people in order for them to get their bets on, and although these bookmakers are currently already taking millions of pounds a day in arb and value bets as a result of people betting in somebody else's name, they aren't going out of business as a result, so that completely throws any point out of the window that these bookmakers betting everybody to lay to lose £500-£1000 would go out of business as a result, as in reality for the vast majority of arbers etc, bookmakers are laying to lose £500-£1000 to everybody already, it is just currently in disguise under other people's names.

So what I'm suggesting about a £500-£1000 lay to lose guarantee is actually already happening in reality, but no bookmaker is currently going out of business as a result, so no bookmaker would go out of business as a result if bookmakers accepted a lay to lose of £500-£1000 from each customer betting in their own name.

luctens wrote: What you've all got to understand is that whatever anybody says about "skilled arbers" or whatever, the vast majority of arb bets are getting through to the bookmakers, whether in that person's name or somebody else's or whatever, the fact is that these soft bookmakers are receiving millions of pounds of arb bets each day, so it's not as if these restrictions are actually shielding these bookmakers from taking these arb bets, as people are finding ways to get these bets on anyway.

So the only difference a minimum bet guarantee would make is that these people could bet in their own name without having to search out other people in order for them to get their bets on, and although these bookmakers are currently already taking millions of pounds a day in arb and value bets as a result of people betting in somebody else's name, they aren't going out of business as a result, so that completely throws any point out of the window that these bookmakers betting everybody to lay to lose £500-£1000 would go out of business as a result, as in reality for the vast majority of arbers etc, bookmakers are laying to lose £500-£1000 to everybody already, it is just currently in disguise under other people's names.

So what I'm suggesting about a £500-£1000 lay to lose guarantee is actually already happening in reality, but no bookmaker is currently going out of business as a result, so no bookmaker would go out of business as a result if bookmakers accepted a lay to lose of £500-£1000 from each customer betting in their own name.

Not true, if you would unrestrict these account all the arbers would simply use 5 or 10 accounts to place the same bets instead of changing accounts after it gets limited.  It's not happening in reality now as a limited account becomes basically useless, while your proposal would increase arbing profits hugely.  On top of that, it would make the entrance level for arbers so much lower as the threshold of starting (I'm not going to bother arbing, bookies will limit me anyway after 2 bets...) is lowered a lot.

Alfa1234 wrote:

luctens wrote: What you've all got to understand is that whatever anybody says about "skilled arbers" or whatever, the vast majority of arb bets are getting through to the bookmakers, whether in that person's name or somebody else's or whatever, the fact is that these soft bookmakers are receiving millions of pounds of arb bets each day, so it's not as if these restrictions are actually shielding these bookmakers from taking these arb bets, as people are finding ways to get these bets on anyway.

So the only difference a minimum bet guarantee would make is that these people could bet in their own name without having to search out other people in order for them to get their bets on, and although these bookmakers are currently already taking millions of pounds a day in arb and value bets as a result of people betting in somebody else's name, they aren't going out of business as a result, so that completely throws any point out of the window that these bookmakers betting everybody to lay to lose £500-£1000 would go out of business as a result, as in reality for the vast majority of arbers etc, bookmakers are laying to lose £500-£1000 to everybody already, it is just currently in disguise under other people's names.

So what I'm suggesting about a £500-£1000 lay to lose guarantee is actually already happening in reality, but no bookmaker is currently going out of business as a result, so no bookmaker would go out of business as a result if bookmakers accepted a lay to lose of £500-£1000 from each customer betting in their own name.

Not true, if you would unrestrict these account all the arbers would simply use 5 or 10 accounts to place the same bets instead of changing accounts after it gets limited.  It's not happening in reality now as a limited account becomes basically useless, while your proposal would increase arbing profits hugely.  On top of that, it would make the entrance level for arbers so much lower as the threshold of starting (I'm not going to bother arbing, bookies will limit me anyway after 2 bets...) is lowered a lot.

If people are going to use 5 or 10 accounts at the same time, a minimum bet guarantee isn't going to stop that as they would be running 5 or 10 accounts at the same time already anyway, so that's not going to change those sorts of people's tactics.

A minimum bet guarantee of this kind won't add many more people to the value betting pool. Most people accept that arbing etc is possible but there's a lot of hoo-ha around to make it happen. There aren't a significant amount of people that are put off doing it in the first place because of restrictions.

And I go back to my previous point, bookmakers are taking millions of pounds of arb and value bets etc from people each day, whether in their name or somebody else's but they are surviving just fine, so there is no reason whatsoever to say that just introducing a minimum bet guarantee for such a paltry amount would somehow automatically put them out of business, it just wouldn't happen, that's just simply scaremongering talk by the bookmakers.

From what you're saying, Black Type Bet right now are so obviously about 6 months away from going broke just because they're taking bets from everybody to lay to lose at least £500? Don't be silly.

Coral are accepting horse racing bets in their shops from anybody to lay to lose at least £500-£5000 and have been doing so for about 2 years. Why have they not stopped taking horse racing bets in their shops by now because obviously doing this should have meant they were losing millions by now going by your hyperbole? No chance.

Australian bookmakers have been accepting bets to lay to lose at least £500-£1000 on horse racing for 2 years now. Why haven't they stopped offering horse racing because obviously this has been such a disaster for them and they're losing millions as a result? Because they're not losing millions, they've actually said it has had a positive effect on their business.

So we have 3 tangible examples of firms that are laying everybody to at least £500 and up to at least £5000 in some circumstances, they've all said it has been a positive, none of them have stopped offering any certain sports as a result, and none of them have closed down or even close to closing down as a result. Why do you think that is? Because the crap that bookmakers would go out of business if they had to service all customers to lay to lose £500-£1000 is complete rubbish, it is simple classic scaremongering from the bookmakers and you are extremely gullible by believing any of that crap that the bookmakers serve up to you.

luctens wrote:

Alfa1234 wrote:

luctens wrote: What you've all got to understand is that whatever anybody says about "skilled arbers" or whatever, the vast majority of arb bets are getting through to the bookmakers, whether in that person's name or somebody else's or whatever, the fact is that these soft bookmakers are receiving millions of pounds of arb bets each day, so it's not as if these restrictions are actually shielding these bookmakers from taking these arb bets, as people are finding ways to get these bets on anyway.

So the only difference a minimum bet guarantee would make is that these people could bet in their own name without having to search out other people in order for them to get their bets on, and although these bookmakers are currently already taking millions of pounds a day in arb and value bets as a result of people betting in somebody else's name, they aren't going out of business as a result, so that completely throws any point out of the window that these bookmakers betting everybody to lay to lose £500-£1000 would go out of business as a result, as in reality for the vast majority of arbers etc, bookmakers are laying to lose £500-£1000 to everybody already, it is just currently in disguise under other people's names.

So what I'm suggesting about a £500-£1000 lay to lose guarantee is actually already happening in reality, but no bookmaker is currently going out of business as a result, so no bookmaker would go out of business as a result if bookmakers accepted a lay to lose of £500-£1000 from each customer betting in their own name.

Not true, if you would unrestrict these account all the arbers would simply use 5 or 10 accounts to place the same bets instead of changing accounts after it gets limited.  It's not happening in reality now as a limited account becomes basically useless, while your proposal would increase arbing profits hugely.  On top of that, it would make the entrance level for arbers so much lower as the threshold of starting (I'm not going to bother arbing, bookies will limit me anyway after 2 bets...) is lowered a lot.

If people are going to use 5 or 10 accounts at the same time, a minimum bet guarantee isn't going to stop that as they would be running 5 or 10 accounts at the same time already anyway, so that's not going to change those sorts of people's tactics.

A minimum bet guarantee of this kind won't add many more people to the value betting pool. Most people accept that arbing etc is possible but there's a lot of hoo-ha around to make it happen. There aren't a significant amount of people that are put off doing it in the first place because of restrictions.

And I go back to my previous point, bookmakers are taking millions of pounds of arb and value bets etc from people each day, whether in their name or somebody else's but they are surviving just fine, so there is no reason whatsoever to say that just introducing a minimum bet guarantee for such a paltry amount would somehow automatically put them out of business, it just wouldn't happen, that's just simply scaremongering talk by the bookmakers.

From what you're saying, Black Type Bet right now are so obviously about 6 months away from going broke just because they're taking bets from everybody to lay to lose at least £500? Don't be silly.

Coral are accepting horse racing bets in their shops from anybody to lay to lose at least £500-£5000 and have been doing so for about 2 years. Why have they not stopped taking horse racing bets in their shops by now because obviously doing this should have meant they were losing millions by now going by your hyperbole? No chance.

Australian bookmakers have been accepting bets to lay to lose at least £500-£1000 on horse racing for 2 years now. Why haven't they stopped offering horse racing because obviously this has been such a disaster for them and they're losing millions as a result? Because they're not losing millions, they've actually said it has had a positive effect on their business.

So we have 3 tangible examples of firms that are laying everybody to at least £500 and up to at least £5000 in some circumstances, they've all said it has been a positive, none of them have stopped offering any certain sports as a result, and none of them have closed down or even close to closing down as a result. Why do you think that is? Because the crap that bookmakers would go out of business if they had to service all customers to lay to lose £500-£1000 is complete rubbish, it is simple classic scaremongering from the bookmakers and you are extremely gullible by believing any of that crap that the bookmakers serve up to you.

The difference is that arbers would be able to do it continuously with 5-10 accounts, not just 1 account that's not been limited yet so the arbing turnover would definitely increase.  You are giving the example of horse racing only.  What about all other soft lines?  Allow me a min 500 bet on every line they give out and they will be dead very soon as I WILL be making millions.  Basketball, 2nd division Belgian games...huge arbs to be found all the time because the lines are really soft.  It's a death sentence for bookies, I don't see how you cannot understand this.  They allow those min bets because they have sharpened their odds on horse racing.  If they don't do that for all markets and allow unlimited bets, it's simply not sustainable.  Why has it been positive for them?  Because of the positive PR it gives out.

I can accept some middle ground, they won't die if they allow a €20 min bet on small markets and a €100 bet on the bigger markets...that would probably be somewhat positive for them in terms of PR because it would give regular punters the impression they no longer have a limit on their account and it would at least allow them to place all the bets they'd want to get on...but allow bigger bets for all clients?  No, that IS a death sentence (look at the numbers above, which you have simply ignored).

[quote author=vinciguerra  Their odds are a mess, they have arbs everywhere. But they don't care as they know they'll take you out before you hurt them. That's the business model.
[/quote]
I agree with vinciguerra general point but I was wondering about calling a mess in a book's odds a viable business model. I understand that it comes hand in hand with limiting but does it make it “a business model” (conscious and well thought through long term policy how to increase profits), or is the limiting just the only way to survive for a book that have messy odds all aver the place?

Also, I can understand those books promoting themselves with soft lines (best odd for a big event ads etc) to attract new punters, ideally make them download their app to be able to make a bet and this way changing them into potential regulars (since they already have their app). But if they try to attract those new customers by offering “the best” lines on given events they effectively educate them and sell them on the idea that odds matter. Many won't put two and two together but those who will will find themselves limited very soon. 

In short it's difficult for me to see it as a business model as opposed to what the sharp bookies do. Big softs are rather a business that is already established and pretty profitable, all the management do is tinkering a little here and there to adopt to changing circumstances without making anything revolutionary (like sharpening the odds throughout the board). After all it's corporate suits that are in charge and their priority will always be to cover their ass and not expose it by making a revolution (even if it was to bring great results in the end, during the turbulences one might be kicked out of the cockpit for flying into them so why take a risk?). If it wasn't the case they would have sharpened the odds long time ago. After all the customers they want to keep don't care after odds.

Of course, beside the corporate atrophy the other factor that prevents them from sharpening the odds is competition from other big softs that would keep promoting themselves with “the best odds”. So it's sort of catch 22 for them that creates this schizophrenic behaviour of them promoting themselves and attracting new customers with soft lines only to limit them immediately for using those lines.

Alfa1234 wrote:

luctens wrote:

Alfa1234 wrote: Not true, if you would unrestrict these account all the arbers would simply use 5 or 10 accounts to place the same bets instead of changing accounts after it gets limited.  It's not happening in reality now as a limited account becomes basically useless, while your proposal would increase arbing profits hugely.  On top of that, it would make the entrance level for arbers so much lower as the threshold of starting (I'm not going to bother arbing, bookies will limit me anyway after 2 bets...) is lowered a lot.

If people are going to use 5 or 10 accounts at the same time, a minimum bet guarantee isn't going to stop that as they would be running 5 or 10 accounts at the same time already anyway, so that's not going to change those sorts of people's tactics.

A minimum bet guarantee of this kind won't add many more people to the value betting pool. Most people accept that arbing etc is possible but there's a lot of hoo-ha around to make it happen. There aren't a significant amount of people that are put off doing it in the first place because of restrictions.

And I go back to my previous point, bookmakers are taking millions of pounds of arb and value bets etc from people each day, whether in their name or somebody else's but they are surviving just fine, so there is no reason whatsoever to say that just introducing a minimum bet guarantee for such a paltry amount would somehow automatically put them out of business, it just wouldn't happen, that's just simply scaremongering talk by the bookmakers.

From what you're saying, Black Type Bet right now are so obviously about 6 months away from going broke just because they're taking bets from everybody to lay to lose at least £500? Don't be silly.

Coral are accepting horse racing bets in their shops from anybody to lay to lose at least £500-£5000 and have been doing so for about 2 years. Why have they not stopped taking horse racing bets in their shops by now because obviously doing this should have meant they were losing millions by now going by your hyperbole? No chance.

Australian bookmakers have been accepting bets to lay to lose at least £500-£1000 on horse racing for 2 years now. Why haven't they stopped offering horse racing because obviously this has been such a disaster for them and they're losing millions as a result? Because they're not losing millions, they've actually said it has had a positive effect on their business.

So we have 3 tangible examples of firms that are laying everybody to at least £500 and up to at least £5000 in some circumstances, they've all said it has been a positive, none of them have stopped offering any certain sports as a result, and none of them have closed down or even close to closing down as a result. Why do you think that is? Because the crap that bookmakers would go out of business if they had to service all customers to lay to lose £500-£1000 is complete rubbish, it is simple classic scaremongering from the bookmakers and you are extremely gullible by believing any of that crap that the bookmakers serve up to you.

The difference is that arbers would be able to do it continuously with 5-10 accounts, not just 1 account that's not been limited yet so the arbing turnover would definitely increase.  You are giving the example of horse racing only.  What about all other soft lines?  Allow me a min 500 bet on every line they give out and they will be dead very soon as I WILL be making millions.  Basketball, 2nd division Belgian games...huge arbs to be found all the time because the lines are really soft.  It's a death sentence for bookies, I don't see how you cannot understand this.  They allow those min bets because they have sharpened their odds on horse racing.  If they don't do that for all markets and allow unlimited bets, it's simply not sustainable.  Why has it been positive for them?  Because of the positive PR it gives out.

I can accept some middle ground, they won't die if they allow a €20 min bet on small markets and a €100 bet on the bigger markets...that would probably be somewhat positive for them in terms of PR because it would give regular punters the impression they no longer have a limit on their account and it would at least allow them to place all the bets they'd want to get on...but allow bigger bets for all clients?  No, that IS a death sentence (look at the numbers above, which you have simply ignored).

If somebody wanted to try and get away with running 5 or 10 accounts at the same time, then they would do that now, replacing them with a new account every time one of the accounts gets closed down, so if they wanted to try and get away with doing that, they would be doing that already. A minimum bet guarantee would just mean that they would try and get away with it with the same 5 or 10 accounts rather than chopping and changing as accounts would get limited as they would do now, so a minimum bet guarantee wouldn't have any effect on anybody trying those sorts of tactics, as if they wanted to try getting away with that now, they would simply be doing it already.

I'm not just talking about horse racing, Black Type Bet have their guarantees on most sports, not just horse racing. But on the topic of horse racing, for these bookmakers currently offering their guarantees on horse racing but not other sports, surely with what you're saying that they'd be going bankrupt on horse racing as they are offering these guarantees, so surely they would be forced to drop horse racing altogether because that would be losing them millions as a result of them offering these guarantees? Well the facts are that nobody offering these guarantees have gone out of business, dropped horse racing or anything of the sort, they'll all reported positive impacts on all of their businesses as a result of these horse racing guarantees. And in the time Black Type Bet have been going doing it on most sports, they've said it's been going fine and I haven't heard of one customer complaint with them, but if we're to listen to people like you, Black Type are going to be in the oblivion in 6 months just because they're laying bets of £200 at 5/2. You really need to get back in the real world.

And what you say about sharpening their odds for horse racing, by all accounts none of the bookmakers involved have changed their pricing structures as a result of offering these guarantees, so they are operating with the same prices now as they did before, with the only difference being their minimum bet guarantees, and have any of these bookmakers gone out of business or dropped horse racing as a result? No, not one of them, they're all saying it's going well.

And it's not about the positive PR or whatever you're talking about, as Australian bookmakers have been compelled to bet all customers by law, so bookmakers there aren't able to pick and choose just for PR, they all have to do it. The simple thing is that all bookmakers that have fully embraced these minimum bet guarantees in Australia have all reported increased turnover and increased profit in horse racing, whereas I'm sure if I'd have said to you 2 years ago that Australian bookmakers have to bet all customers on horse racing to lose £500-£1000, I'm sure you'd have been around with your doom-mongering like you are now and saying that by now these Australian bookmakers would be out of business or would be forced to drop horse racing otherwise they'd go broke having to bet everybody, and you'd have been horribly wrong as all of the Australian bookmakers that have embraced these changes have reported increased turnover and increased profit on horse racing, not the inevitable doom and destruction that you would have predicted.

The difference with me and you is that you're talking about how you think things may happen in theory, but I'm talking about the real world, I'm talking about what's actually happening right now day to day with bookmakers that have minimum bet guarantee arrangements, and all bookmakers that have embraced the different minimum bet guarantee arrangements have said that it has been an overall positive for their businesses, so there is absolutely no reason why if bookmakers can operate with their current pricing structures in horse racing and other sports that Black Type are doing betting everybody to lose at least £500-£1000 but sometimes significantly more but doing very well out of it, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever why other bookmakers would go out of business if they adopted these minimum bet guarantees. What you are saying is simply crap you would hear from bookmakers, it's all just scaremongering and in practice in the real world, no bookmaker would go out of business just for having to lay £200 at 5/2 to any customer, and for you to try and claim that to be true shows you are completely brainwashed and deluded.

Are you sure you're an arber luctens? I don't know any arbers who have the time on a Sunday afternoon to write multiple lengthy essays on a web forum.

P.S. - Blacktype limited me after 2 weeks. They said I was using automated software (I wasn't.)

asked the same question in Australian thread

If i had sportsbook and i would be owner. I would defenately let arbers to bet 20$bets
Severeal reason
1)They can give you alert wrong line
2)even arbers have friends who are gamblers. Goog publicity more $$$
3)If arber can bet he can turn gamber himself. To find some casino, or other games, becaouse he has money in that site

Ingarb3 wrote: Are you sure you're an arber luctens? I don't know any arbers who have the time on a Sunday afternoon to write multiple lengthy essays on a web forum.

What I do with my time when arbing is simply none of your business.

Ingarb3 wrote: P.S. - Blacktype limited me after 2 weeks. They said I was using automated software (I wasn't.)

Well I haven't heard of anybody else except from you having a single problem with Black Type, and you've already previously stated you have had loads of accounts closed by Smarkets, so you were obviously up to some funny games with Smarkets, so I expect you have also been up to some funny games with Black Type.

So I'll side with the many people that haven't got a bad word to say about Black Type over the one person that has previous form for playing funny games so much so that they've had multiple accounts closed by Smarkets in the past.