Everybody loves a winner until they don’t. This is essentially how sportsbooks view customers who win too much, although it’s not the winning they mind, but rather the logic behind it.
Advantage players or "sharps" in sports betting jargon are a group of savvy players who shop around for the best odds, identify value betting opportunities, i.e., overpriced or underpriced selections, and generally make strategic bets.
This is where the question "can sportsbooks ban you for winning?" starts to make sense.
The issue isn’t that these players are lucky, but that their approach consistently puts them on the profitable side of the book. As a result, many of them end up restricted or limited, a practice sportsbooks often defend as a necessary part of risk management.
Sportsbooks are well aware that some sports bettors are not registering an account to "have fun," but treat their betting as a calculated exercise, where they make data-driven decisions, in the hopes of staying profitable. Many do, and so bookies ban them.
While the general audience would expect that most players grumble against sportsbooks banning them for winning, the opposite is actually true. Sharps acknowledge that this is part of the game and that it allows sportsbooks to offer competitive odds and a chance for advantage players to turn a profit.
Sportsbooks are also relatively transparent about this approach. Prohibitions against advantage play are usually outlined in their terms and conditions, openly accessible to the public.
Yet, being upfront about restricting sharps has done little to curb advantage players from registering and exploiting value across different markets. This raises another important question.
Betting sites will definitely ban you for winning too much if you are a sharp player, i.e., someone who utilizes mathematical betting strategies to ensure that they are securing the best possible outcome.
But how do sportsbooks know if you are a sharp or a regular sports bettor, playing "for fun"? As it turns out, it takes them a fraction of a second to figure it out, and there are strong tell-tale signs.
As it turns out, gender bias exists among sportsbooks and is a guiding principle of risk management, but it is not what you think. Your gender, paired with your betting behavior could be telling. For starters, women are still a much smaller demographic in sports betting, and many sharps actually turn to women to use them as a front for their bets. But making a clever bet is not enough to get restricted.
Sitting on a desktop computer is not considered a cardinal sin, but sportsbooks prefer that you play from a smartphone. The breadth for comparing odds and shopping for lines is a little less pronounced with handheld devices, whereas an advantage player would prefer to run things from a computer.
Another way sportsbooks find out who the advantage players are (and restrict them) is to see what people bet on. The crowd usually bets on whatever is going on - an NFL or NBA game, the weekend motorsports race, and so on. So what is this relatively new account doing betting on obscure second-tier table tennis selections?
Another strategy that a sportsbook uses to determine if you are a sharp or a "square," the term used to describe casual sports bettors, is to see how soon you bet. An advantage player would not only look for less popular markets, but also bet early because this is when the highest chance exists that the odds have been mispriced.
Perhaps the most reliable tell-tale sign for a sportsbook to determine if you are a sharp is whether you can snipe a mispriced market, which will result in account restrictions in 80-90% of the cases. This is hardly ever an outright ban, but you may face restrictions such as maximum bets, leagues, and so on.
Despite their huge potential for turning a profit, parlay bets are not something that sharps are particularly fond of. In fact, they tend to avoid them.
With all of the information above, it’s important to note that a sportsbook will never ban you for "winning" too much - either by winning too frequently or too much all at once.
Rather, sportsbooks are on the lookout for sharp bettors, i.e., those bettors who are there to win by placing obscure bets that seem to be mispriced and expose the bookies to risk.
In other words, winning one too many wagers will not immediately put you on the restricted list of accounts in any sportsbook. Uncannily, though, try to really bet like a sharp, and you will find yourself restricted almost too soon!
But not all is lost. Sharps are not particularly miffed at sportsbooks restricting their accounts, and to them, this is part of the nature of the game. As mentioned before, roiling against restrictions would force sportsbooks into applying a more cautious approach, and thus offer poorer odds.
Perhaps one of the most cherished opportunities for fooling the bookies and passing under their radar is the so-called flipping of a whale. This refers to big spenders who tend to lose large amounts and are generally given access to higher betting limits, on the presumption that they would lose more money. Sharps are looking for such players and helping them place smart if somewhat obscure bets to start making money and split the wins.
Mules and beards, or otherwise a person who bets on your behalf, is a popular strategy, and one used by all sharp bettors, including Mikki Mase, who claims to be running a betting syndicate that uses such proxies to place a wager. Proxies usually cut a small fee as they continue betting on the sharp’s behalf, or a syndicate’s. While banned under the terms and conditions, sharps continue to use people willing to help this way.
Some sharps are resorting to an even more daring strategy, often registering accounts and showing an erratic betting behavior to simulate a player who is willing to take risks. Sportsbooks tend to pamper these types of players more, even lifting some of the betting limits for them, which could result in a sudden swoop by a sharp who bets on the right market, and makes up for all the money he spent on the sportsbooks building his persona.
There is different data for different jurisdictions. In the United Kingdom, for example, an estimated 4.3% sports betting accounts are restricted for some reason and have limited betting limits.
In Massachusetts, USA, only 0.64% of accounts are restricted, although the state is notably trying to pass a law, obligating sportsbooks to fully disclose why they decided to restrict a certain player.
Image credit: Unsplash.com
