Circa Sports director Jeffrey Benson accused of unfairly banning sharp bettor, Benson accuses player of past posting

[Dan Druff]

An interesting argument broke out on Twitter, regarding the vaunted Circa Sportsbook.

Circa, the classiest and newest downtown Vegas property, runs a customer-friendly sportsbook. They claim to welcome sharp action (though they do limit sharps regarding max amount bet), and they swear they won't ban anyone for simply being good.

Jeffrey Benson, the young director of the book, is very social media savvy, and is well liked in the industry.

On April 28, a supposedly sharp bettor who posts as "Pointsux" on Twitter, alleged that Benson banned him from Circa Sports:

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/#!/x/status/1784740722555666762



Interestingly, he quotes his own November 2023 tweet from when he was limited to no longer betting second halves, at which point Benson accused him of past posting (placing bets when already knowing the result):

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/#!/x/status/1730054740346880184



Benson posted a response stating that he was tired of Pointsux "taking shots" at them, and finally had to ban the guy. Pointsux then posted a weird response modifying Benson's statement:

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/#!/x/status/1784761015915495914

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/#!/x/status/1784757562363232377

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/#!/x/status/1784780879501594927

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/#!/x/status/1784781626003911024

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/#!/x/status/1784783319240216620


Pointsux does not seem to be denying that he past posts, making it highly likely that Benson is correct. It's also unlikely that Benson would state this publicly if Pointsux wasn't really doing it.


I had always wondered about past posting vulnerabilities in live betting. I even mentioned it to my son when we went to a Dodgers game a few weeks ago. I said to him, "You know that home run we just saw, if I was sitting on my phone on a betting site, I could have bet on the game right when the ball hit the bat, and gotten the odds like the home run hadn't happened yet. That would be a big advantage. I wouldn't do it because it's cheating, but I bet this would work. There has to be some delay to this."

Looks like I was right.

[kewlJ]

Even calling this "past posting" seems a stretch to me. When I hear "past posting", I think of a player making or adding to a bet in say roulette, after the time that bets are allowed to be made. Often times this involves an associate creating a distraction. This is illegal. You can be arrested and prosecuted for this activity.

What is described here is not anything that even approaches being illegal. I would call it a player using all available information, even up to the second information to make his bet. If the sportsbooks, electronic or B&M, can't keep up to moment, they should not offer the up to the second "live betting". Maybe their live betting should be limited to between innings (in baseball), or during timeouts in other sports.

Frankly the vig in live betting is so ridiculously high, I assumed that was part of the protection of this type of thing for the sportsbook.

[MDawg]

This dude is a fraud. He just tries to piece together things that he imagines goes on based on a culmination of bits and pieces of stories he pulls from the Internet. Clown world.

[redietz]

Even calling this "past posting" seems a stretch to me. When I hear "past posting", I think of a player making or adding to a bet in say roulette, after the time that bets are allowed to be made. Often times this involves an associate creating a distraction. This is illegal. You can be arrested and prosecuted for this activity.

What is described here is not anything that even approaches being illegal. I would call it a player using all available information, even up to the second information to make his bet. If the sportsbooks, electronic or B&M, can't keep up to moment, they should not offer the up to the second "live betting". Maybe their live betting should be limited to between innings (in baseball), or during timeouts in other sports.

Frankly the vig in live betting is so ridiculously high, I assumed that was part of the protection of this type of thing for the sportsbook.

I agree with kewlJ on much of this. The "past posting" -- if it's 30 seconds or less -- probably doesn't accomplish much except possibly in baseball. The vig has the "past posting" problem baked into it, I would think. The greed of offering continual, in-game wagering has its technical challenges.

Two comments. There is one offshore (who I will not name) that allows "past posting" of wagers in a technical sense. I can get a wager in 90 seconds or so after tipoff/kickoff. One would expect offshores to do this because the added volume of wagers taken at the bitter end more than offsets any occasional minor "edge" gained by a player. And yeah, I'm using quotation marks because:

I am aware of one somewhat blatant example of real, actual past posting in the late 90's that resulted in people being called in by the feds to testify, one nepotism-hire (in his job all of a few weeks) getting fired and given the proverbial "bus ticket," and a real hassle for all concerned. I'm not sure it would be appreciated were I to expand on that in public, so probably not something I can discuss on a podcast. But it happened, and it demonstrated that past posting was a real thing that could be executed in Las Vegas. Not quite like The Sting, but close.

[Don Perignom]

But it happened, and it demonstrated that past posting was a real thing that could be executed in Las Vegas. Not quite like The Sting, but close.

I haven't seen the movie, but pro gambler Dave Miller told the story of how he past-posted at M Resort's Cantor sportsbook. The video was linked previously in the Pro thread -- probably by Mickey. Here it is again, starting just before the 17 minute mark:

[Dan Druff]

Even calling this "past posting" seems a stretch to me. When I hear "past posting", I think of a player making or adding to a bet in say roulette, after the time that bets are allowed to be made. Often times this involves an associate creating a distraction. This is illegal. You can be arrested and prosecuted for this activity.

What is described here is not anything that even approaches being illegal. I would call it a player using all available information, even up to the second information to make his bet. If the sportsbooks, electronic or B&M, can't keep up to moment, they should not offer the up to the second "live betting". Maybe their live betting should be limited to between innings (in baseball), or during timeouts in other sports.

Frankly the vig in live betting is so ridiculously high, I assumed that was part of the protection of this type of thing for the sportsbook.

This is a mostly fair analysis, but the guy knew what he was doing, and he was intentionally abusing delays in the live betting system.

I'm not saying the guy should go to jail.

I'm saying the dude shouldn't whine and cry foul when his account at Circa got banned (especially after being warned previously).

The guy made it sound like he was just too good, and Circa's claim that they welcome sharp action was false. Turns out that the ban wasn't due to him being a sharp bettor, but rather exploiting the live betting system, and refusing to stop doing so. Huuuuuuuge difference, making the dude's claim totally dishonest.

[redietz]

A little past-posting historic trivia: Thirty-five years ago, there were two primary "monitors" of sports services and their records. There was McCuskers' "Tipsters or Gypsters?" -- printed annually with updates during the season, and the AADSS (Association of Documented Sports Services), which ran a contest that advertised records in lieu of actual simple monitoring. The contests allowed you to increase amounts and number of bets weekly, exponentially if necessary, so it was more or less useless, but the AADSS was a recognized, published-weekly, monitor. Those weekly summaries of the AADSS listed the profits and records of the top 10 contest leaders but kept the broke folks (if you ran out of the initial mythical 10K stake) off the PR mailings.

One year, a guy figured out how to past post on the call-in auto-recording for the AADSS. It wasn't a full-game past posting, but it was at least a quarter. Created quite a mess for them, and they weren't exactly the BBB in the first place. People did figure out that the guy was sticking mostly to the early (1 PM) NFL games, at which he won about 80%. Everything else was coin-flipping. Eventually, the AADSS announced it, but it took almost a full season. I don't think anybody ever pinned down if the AADSS, or one of its administrators, was in on the past-posting.

[redietz]

Quick correction to the above: AADSS stands for "American Association of Documented Sports Services."

[Half Smoke]

.
my opinion is that the Federal and/or State Governments should assert themselves by increasing their regulation of the gambling industry which has experienced tremendous growth and expansion over the past few years

sports books should not be allowed to ban or limit any player for winning (not referring to past posting - that's a different issue)

if they fear winning players so much they can lower their maximum bets for everybody - if their profit is less because of this - too bad

can you imagine Walmart banning a shopper because he only bought items that were on sale and they can't make enough profit on him______?

Government regulation may not be popular but a great many businesses are affected by it and one of the reason it exists is to ensure fairness to the consumer - in this case the winning sports bettor

this is a much more difficult issue to address for the game of blackjack and the cat and mouse game between the casinos and the APs

but for sports betting it's very clear cut - casinos shouldn't be allowed to ban or limit winning players - it sucks and it isn't right


.

[accountinquestion]

Many years ago I heard about a similar situation. Some guys were manning their live lines via satellite (in europe) and had no appreciation for the lag introduced by that pathway. This is all right when it started up. That moment when APs crush it and guys like Redietz sit around pontificating about yards rushed in the rain on sundays.

[accountinquestion]

.
sports books should not be allowed to ban or limit any player for winning (not referring to past posting - that's a different issue)
...

but for sports betting it's very clear cut - casinos shouldn't be allowed to ban or limit winning players - it sucks and it isn't right


.

I find this take crazy. So books have to make the juice so bad that NO ONE can ever win. If you can't ban winning players then you can't ban their beards. So basically anyone would be able to scale up infinitely and cherry pick all spots.

You have to remember books actually run a business. What you're asking for will not be a good thing. The counter-measure to such a thing would be even worse.

[redietz]

Many years ago I heard about a similar situation. Some guys were manning their live lines via satellite (in europe) and had no appreciation for the lag introduced by that pathway. This is all right when it started up. That moment when APs crush it and guys like Redietz sit around pontificating about yards rushed in the rain on sundays.

Account, with his "I heard" and then follow-up with "APs crushing it." LOL. Keep crushing it, baby. It must be great to play pretend. The Crusher.

I had access to a program that turbo-charged line moves so I got them close to real time as opposed to delayed, which is what everyone sees. I appreciated the access; the program was written by the vice-president of an American company, and he gave it to me. While it was useful and helpful, it wasn't the yellow brick road. It clobbered the auction sites until they figured out what was going on.

Account, you keep crushing it, baby. Anonymous crushing. Great hobby.

You know, I have been more than gracious responding to playpen dwellers pretending they gamble. I'm done.

I'll post when I'm in Las Vegas and invite folks for dinner and a podcast. Or I'll post so Todd has a heads up on location/times and so on. But that's it. At some point, a forum has to decide whether it wants actual experts posting or posters like account who "hear things."

The Crusher. Hey, account, email me at Integritysports@aol.com with your address and I'll get a nice The Crusher sweatshirt sent to you. Here you go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorbing_Man

[accountinquestion]

I had a 5k lick earlier this week while gambling for real FUN. I just don't brag about it. (Yes, was likely a +EV spot but hard to say)

Here is another thing about you Redietz - at least you enjoy your AP stuff. Even if a loser in $$ you enjoy that shit. Most of us APs would rather not fuck with things. Thats why no one gave a shit about that $200 dog bone you dangled off your crusty keyboard. (At least you moved on past that)

Don't be such a forum flake dude. Geez. I actually gave you credit for something you said the other day. Far more than you've ever done to anyone who doesn't have a nostril anywhere near your nutsack.

Mr I hung out with gangsters .. lol gimme a break. This is embarassing.

[accountinquestion]

If I change my signature to not reference you, will you come back to posting?

[Half Smoke]

.
sports books should not be allowed to ban or limit any player for winning (not referring to past posting - that's a different issue)
...

but for sports betting it's very clear cut - casinos shouldn't be allowed to ban or limit winning players - it sucks and it isn't right


.

I find this take crazy. So books have to make the juice so bad that NO ONE can ever win. If you can't ban winning players then you can't ban their beards. So basically anyone would be able to scale up infinitely and cherry pick all spots.

You have to remember books actually run a business. What you're asking for will not be a good thing. The counter-measure to such a thing would be even worse.

the vig could be regulated too - State Governments could designate exactly what the vig is allowed to be on each type of wager
the maximum allowed bets could be lowered which would mean winning sports bettors who have only a small edge would become less interested
yes, their profits might be less - and maybe some would fold - that's just too, too bad - they don't care if they put pro sports bettors out of business

right now as it is it's a dirty game

it could be run very well with some changes


all you can eat buffets don't tell obese people that they can't eat at their restaurants


.

[accountinquestion]

.
sports books should not be allowed to ban or limit any player for winning (not referring to past posting - that's a different issue)
...

but for sports betting it's very clear cut - casinos shouldn't be allowed to ban or limit winning players - it sucks and it isn't right


.

I find this take crazy. So books have to make the juice so bad that NO ONE can ever win. If you can't ban winning players then you can't ban their beards. So basically anyone would be able to scale up infinitely and cherry pick all spots.

You have to remember books actually run a business. What you're asking for will not be a good thing. The counter-measure to such a thing would be even worse.

the vig could be regulated too - State Governments could designate exactly what the vig is allowed to be on each type of wager
the maximum allowed bets could be lowered which would mean winning sports bettors who have only a small edge would become less interested
yes, their profits might be less - and maybe some would fold - that's just too, too bad - they don't care if they put pro sports bettors out of business

right now as it is it's a dirty game

it could be run very well with some changes


all you can eat buffets don't tell obese people that they can't eat at their restaurants


.

I missed why there is any reason there should be a guaranteed place for "pro sports bettors". I get it though. I used to be the same way as a poker player. It is a very player-centric view.

But you didn't address how they prevent people from using beards? There is no reason for the vig to be regulated. There is little in a capitalist system would give a better solution than bookies.

Lowering max bets low enough it doesn't make sense for beards? How is that any better than limiting accounts? At least Mr funtime has his freedom the way it is now. You know, the guy they want as a customer..

Interesting you bring up buffets. Red Lobster just declared bankruptcy because they fucked themselves putting the all you can eat shrimp on the menu longterm. lol not kidding. Just happened to read that today

[Half Smoke]

I find this take crazy. So books have to make the juice so bad that NO ONE can ever win. If you can't ban winning players then you can't ban their beards. So basically anyone would be able to scale up infinitely and cherry pick all spots.

You have to remember books actually run a business. What you're asking for will not be a good thing. The counter-measure to such a thing would be even worse.

the vig could be regulated too - State Governments could designate exactly what the vig is allowed to be on each type of wager
the maximum allowed bets could be lowered which would mean winning sports bettors who have only a small edge would become less interested
yes, their profits might be less - and maybe some would fold - that's just too, too bad - they don't care if they put pro sports bettors out of business

right now as it is it's a dirty game

it could be run very well with some changes


all you can eat buffets don't tell obese people that they can't eat at their restaurants


.

I missed why there is any reason there should be a guaranteed place for "pro sports bettors". I get it though. I used to be the same way as a poker player. It is a very player-centric view.

But you didn't address how they prevent people from using beards? There is no reason for the vig to be regulated. There is little in a capitalist system would give a better solution than bookies.

Lowering max bets low enough it doesn't make sense for beards? How is that any better than limiting accounts? At least Mr funtime has his freedom the way it is now. You know, the guy they want as a customer..

Interesting you bring up buffets. Red Lobster just declared bankruptcy because they fucked themselves putting the all you can eat shrimp on the menu longterm. lol not kidding. Just happened to read that today

there is definitely a problem - your solution is do nothing - pro sports bettors don't have a guaranteed place - they just need to have the same right anybody else has - to make a bet within the limits set by the casino

this is a problem that could be relatively easily solved in a variety of ways - doing nothing which is probably what will happen is a horrible way to address the issue



there are believable reports out there of these legal online books even hassling small fish bettors in various ways if they think the little fish is too sharp

totally ridiculous




that's one of the main purposes of Government regulation - as unpopular as it may be - to prevent and take action against predatory practices such as these




.