limits at sportsbook

This is kind of a question to Redietz, Moses, others that bet sports. I was in Vegas this past week and got word that Trubisky was definitely not going to play before it was announced with certainty. I was hoping to middle the total and started betting the under all around town. I also sent my wife to a couple casinos to reduce the exposure. I am not a regular or a known sports bettor so I was concerned about how much action they would take. While I was able to bet as much as 10K, they would only let my wife bet 2K.


Any logical explanation?


The total only moved 2 points so it really didn't turn into a great opportunity, so I stayed a little heavy on the under. The game was never really in a good spot for the middle as it played out.

Why would you try to middle it if you had (supposedly) a +EV side? In fact, and correct me if I'm wrong, if one side is +EV (say, the under), then middling would be worse, because betting the over on the lower total would still be way too high off the expected total and would cancel out the +EV from betting the under.

As far as limits go, at least at MGM properties, oftentimes they'll only let you bet a certain amount at a time. After the bet goes through, you can bet it again. Sometimes they'll move the line in between bets and sometimes they won't. Obviously if the line goes down and it's not "good" anymore, then you don't have to bet it. Not sure about big sports like NFL, but a while ago I bet on some weird ass matchup and moved the line from like +140 to -120 or so because I kept betting it (the line should have been closer to -130 IIRC). For an NFL total, I could potentially see them wanting to readjust or at least verify every time at least $10k or $20k goes to one side. So in your case, it may have been that they were willing to take another $12k on the side you were betting, you bet $10k, your wife bet $2k, and at that point it hit their "limit" before they wanted to readjust the line or re-verify it and leave it the same.

RS-I should have been clearer. I sent my wife to different casinos than I had bet at for the first run and she was limited to 2K at TI and Paris. I was able to bet more than her at other casinos and then at paris and TI on the second run. Is there a gender bias? Do big players use female shills to get more bets in?


While I felt the under was a play because of the info, I no longer bet sports (with rare exceptions) so my only interest was in what I perceived to be a possible middle. I apparently over estimated how much the total would move. I did leave a modest amount more on the under to cover the juice and a little profit.

As a former sports bettor, it is not a good idea for me to delude myself that I know anything and start betting again when I no longer have the info or contacts. I don't like to do anything for which I am ill prepared.

Heh...well that's kinda weird. I don't know of any kind of biases or why they may (potentially) limit a female vs a male. My only guess would be that maybe someone else was betting the opposite side of you, in between her betting and your betting, or maybe the casino got more confident for whatever reason on the side you were taking in between the two of you betting? Really, I have no idea, just a guess. Redeitz or someone else who does more sports betting probably has a better idea than I do. I rarely bet tickets live in person, unless there's something that's REALLY good and want to get down a good amount of action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

RS-I should have been clearer. I sent my wife to different casinos than I had bet at for the first run and she was limited to 2K at TI and Paris. I was able to bet more than her at other casinos and then at paris and TI on the second run. Is there a gender bias? Do big players use female shills to get more bets in? .

---

Sometimes those middle bets just happen. Not something you can plan. I remember a few years ago the Celtics dropped from a -6 to -3.5 when they decided to rest Kevin Garnett. I thought the Celts were a good bet a that point. I walk to the next casino and saw it was still -6. A report just came out the Heat were sitting Dwayne Wade. So I went the other way. Celts won 112-108 in OT. :cool:

Now if your betting more than $2k at a William Hill sportsbook a card is required. Perhaps that was the case and they put your last names together? Some casinos have a limit of action the will take on a certain sport or game. Football isn't usually a problem. Hockey and Baseball are difficult to get down $2k bets. Especially on overnight lines. I've seen females make some large bets. But I've never thought of them as a shill because of the "deer in the highlights" expression.

Certain books get scared of certain games. The injured Chicago QB could've had something to do with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

RS-I should have been clearer. I sent my wife to different casinos than I had bet at for the first run and she was limited to 2K at TI and Paris. I was able to bet more than her at other casinos and then at paris and TI on the second run. Is there a gender bias? Do big players use female shills to get more bets in?


While I felt the under was a play because of the info, I no longer bet sports (with rare exceptions) so my only interest was in what I perceived to be a possible middle. I apparently over estimated how much the total would move. I did leave a modest amount more on the under to cover the juice and a little profit.

As a former sports bettor, it is not a good idea for me to delude myself that I know anything and start betting again when I no longer have the info or contacts. I don't like to do anything for which I am ill prepared.

---

Hey regnis -- I've been busy. Glad I caught this post. My best guess is what you suggested -- the books independently probably figured your wife for a beard, so limited her action because they couldn't ascertain who was behind it. Obviously, with the injury, and the fact it was a total, they probably decided it was more likely she was a beard than if there had been no injury and the bet was on the side. There are two other, oblique aspects to this. The bet at Paris -- CET is known for often bracketing bet limits based on the card status of the patrons. So a seven stars can be given more leeway than a diamond and so on. I don't know if you guys showed cards or not, but bear that in mind.

Also, and this is a LOL, you may have picked the wrong place for those bets in Paris. A well-known big-time horse contest player (former trainer), who we have discussed, recently was shut down while betting NBA quarters and halves at Paris. So, being an enterprising and not terribly subtle soul, he started recruiting waitresses (some working in Paris) to put some of his action in for him. Well, that lasted about 48 hours -- LOL. So you got stuck doing a mirror-type thing to what he had been doing, and Paris was where he'd been doing it!

Just bad timing, regnis. Pretty funny. You picked the one place he got flagged with waitress beards! Unbelievably bad time and place. I have to tell the guys about this one.

RS, let me just make the comment -- nobody can look at something like that and say, "That's positive EV." It is a very shaky thing to do that in the NFL. Very shaky. Regnis did what I would do -- probably bet one way, then come back 80-85% the other way. I'd probably do it offshore where I have discounts on half points and such, but I'd do what regnis did. Listen to the old guys on this one -- at least in the NFL.

Unbelievably bad time and place. Indeed.