Jeg mener, det er overdrevet at forbyde en bruger, der gentager væddemål, men jeg sagde, at det er forståeligt, hvis en bruger bliver forbudt for systematisk at dække væddemål på webstedet, fordi der i bund og grund ikke ville være nogen risiko overhovedet, men selv at gøre dette er matematisk umuligt, fordi hvis du beregner husets fordel på et givet marked inden for en bookie, vil du højst sandsynligt komme op med en husfordel på 15-20 % (som er gennemsnittet for enhver bookie), hvilket ville betyde, at for hver 100 bukke, der satses, vil brugeren have en garanteret 15 -20 dollars tab i hver begivenhed, så at gøre sådan noget giver ingen mening, at backe side 1 med odds 1,85 og side 2 med også odds 1,85 er dybest set gratis penge for bookeren. Hvis tilfældet er, at brugeren placerede en ryg til side 1 og derefter ventede på, at odds swing til bagside 2 konstant og systematisk for at låse et overskud (hvilket normalt er flere penge end at bruge en almindelig udbetaling), så ville jeg forstå forbuddet, fordi i de fleste bookmakers forårsager selv brug af udbetalingsfunktionen gentagne gange forbud.
Anyways, enhver operatør kan bestemme, hvem de accepterer væddemål fra, og hvem de vil have som bruger, ingen bookmaker vil have en pro, det er forståeligt. Brugeren hævder, at han var begrænset til indsatsen, og du siger, at han ikke var det, og der er ingen måde at bevise nogen af de to, jeg vil sige, at begge skulle kommunikere gennem klagesektionen, hvor operatøren er i stand til at dele beviser med klagespecialisten og finde ud af hvem tager fejl.
I believe it's excessive to ban a user that repeats bets but I said it's understandable if an user is banned for systematically covering bets within the site, because essentially there would be no risk at all, but even doing this is mathematically impossible because if you calculate the house edge on any given market within a bookie, you will most likely come up with a 15-20% house edge (which is the average on any bookie), which would mean for every 100 bucks wagered the user will have a guaranteed 15-20 bucks loss in each event, so doing such a thing doesn't make any sense, backing side 1 with odds of 1.85 and side 2 with also odds of 1.85 is basically free money for the bookie. If the case is the user placed a back for side 1 and then waited for odds swing to back side 2 constantly and systematically to lock in a profit (which normally is more money than using a regular cashout) then I would understand the ban, because in most bookies even using the cashout function repeatedly causes bans.
Anyways, any operator can decide who they accept bets from and who they want as an user, no bookie wants a pro, it's understandable. User claims he was stake restricted and you say he wasn't and there is no way to prove any of the two, I would say both should communicate through the complaint section where the operator is able to share evidence with the complaint specialist and find out who is wrong.
Automatisk oversættelse:
