Quote:
we going off topic but I was just stating that you don't make money from the bookie
sportsbettors don't vs the bookie they vs the other side
being happy that you took money from the bookie is silly because it doesn't make any sense (ik why people do this because they want that feeling of moral superiority in not taking degen money)
bookies job is mainly to make the market and that's it
the money you make comes from the other side and if it didn't you wouldn't have a source of income
Nonsense, if we weren't making money "from the bookie" then why are they limiting/restricting/banning sharp accounts?
If a bookies job is to mainly make the market, then the practice of banning winning users is an indication of their inability to create efficient ones.
Rather than invest in technology and personnel to improve their product offering, they consciously invest in nefarious practices for the betterment of their bottom line and little else. We all know what these are, or maybe you don't but I've seen behind the curtain and it's a business model built on predatory practices and exclusion.
Honestly it's like saying Robin Hood was only able to steal from the rich because they (the rich) took from the poor in the first place, it's so cyclical and nonsensical.
If you want to be a bookmaker put in the work so that you're able to offer a product that can survive without the need for exploitation. If you can't then **** off you deserve to be hunted into oblivion by sharps and its noble (in the sense of creating market efficiency) to do so.
Fish will find ways to lose money no matter what way bookmakers structured their services, that money is lost whether sharps exist or not. By that acknowledgement there can then be morality in redistributing this wealth.
Ok so maybe we aren't Robin Hood, but rest assured every penny I make from the enemy is better spent, than in the coffers of some book.