
Requiem for a Sports Bettor - edavis
https://www.theringer.com/2019/6/5/18644504/sports-betting-bettors-sharps-kicked-out-spanky-william-hill-new-jersey
======
PaulRobinson
I never thought I'd see the day Spanky makes Hacker News...

Anyway, this seems to be a bio/status piece about him, under the guise of a
news story about him getting stakes limited (known as being "gubbed" in the UK
at least), a story he has been at war with for a little while now.

In the "seven categories" of bettor, I'd describe myself as a would-be pro -
if I had more capital, I'd be able to throw more time at it and make some
serious dough. I was pro for about a year back in 2002 and found it a
seriously demoralising job, and would not recommend it. That said, I have some
insight...

The key to understanding why some bookmakers don't want to take his money is
not to think he's a winner and they don't like winners, but to realise there
are very, very few bookmakers who have any interest in being market makers.

Market makers will take almost any sized bet from anybody, and then move their
lines/odds so that they can match the other side of it. With such bookmakers,
you are not betting against the bookmaker, you are betting against other
customers of the bookmaker, and they are serving as a commission agent via a
fee variously called the vig, juice, hold or over-round.

William Hill is not a market maker. They are a retail bookmaker who sell you
bets same way any retailer sells you their stock. You try and buy too much,
and they can't cover the other side, so they have to gub you.

Spanky is renowned for complaining about this. I empathise. I hate being
gubbed too (although I don't bet anywhere close to his levels). But there are
two ways out:

1\. Bet with market makers not retail bookmakers. There are many would love
his action, not least because it would give them an early indication of where
their lines are wrong

2\. Bet on a betting exchange, where liquidity is the only limiting factor
(which, to some extent, it is with any other bookmaker), and even taking
commission into account you're probably at leaner odds.

If he doesn't want to, that's OK, but I'm not sure I'm down with him just
being outright annoyed that he does not have a right to bet with a particular
firm, especially as there are alternatives.

~~~
jdietrich
_> 2\. Bet on a betting exchange, where liquidity is the only limiting factor
(which, to some extent, it is with any other bookmaker), and even taking
commission into account you're probably at leaner odds._

The vast majority of liquidity is on Betfair, who impose a commission
surcharge on customers making substantial profits.

Bookies are obviously within their rights to gub customers, but it just smacks
of unfairness. Mug punters generally don't like to think of themselves as mugs
and I think a lot of them would be a bit miffed to learn that the only reason
a bookie will take their money is because they're obviously a mug.

[https://en-betfair.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/6156...](https://en-
betfair.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/6156/~/premium-charge---what-is-
it%3F-will-i-need-to-pay-it%3F)

~~~
ozychhi
For horse racing and football, Smarkets usually is better choice than Betfair.
Especially when it comes to reliability and commission rates.

