When Sportsbooks Are Unfair…Pros React to Modern Betting Limits | Presented by Kalshi

Circles Off

2025-12-10

Do Sports Books Offer the Same Limits? (The Honest Answer) (With Examples)

Are you intensely frustrated every time you try to place a reasonable wager only to find your limit slashed to next to nothing while others seem to bet millions? You're not alone. The world of professional sports betting often feels rigged because the rules are certainly not standardized. Today, we're looking straight at what the pros think about whether sports books offer the same limits to every customer, and surprisingly, their answers challenge what you might expect.

We gathered insights from professional bettors at an industry event to get their candid take on account limits, fairness, and how these policies shape the entire betting ecosystem. If you’ve ever felt penalized for being too good or suspected a hidden structure favoring one group over another, this discussion about sports books offer the same limits is for you. You'll leave understanding the underlying business mechanics better than most.

Here's What We'll Cover

Why universal limits might actually hurt the average bettor
The role of recreational gamblers in the betting business model
Arguments for VIP treatment versus proportional scaling
The surprising upside of being capped as a professional player

The Business Reality of Uneven Betting Limits

Let's get one thing straight immediately. Sports books are businesses. They exist to make money for their shareholders, not to serve as a public utility offering perfectly equal opportunities to everyone. This fundamental reality dictates why you see such vast disparities in betting allowances across the board. When people complain that sports books offer the same limits, they usually mean they want the ability to bet as much as the biggest whale.

However, the experts interviewed suggest that the current system, while frustrating for winners, actually supports the overall market stability. Think about it this way. If every single bettor, from the casual fan betting twenty dollars to the high roller betting ten million, had the exact same maximum limit, the market would shatter from a modeling perspective.

Here’s a breakdown of the main arguments for why limits vary:

Risk Management: Larger liabilities require sophisticated trading teams and infrastructure that smaller operations simply cannot support or justify paying for.
Customer Segmentation: The industry relies heavily on recreational gamblers. Treating VIPs well ensures they keep funding the system. If you cap Warren Buffet at one hundred dollars, he might stop betting altogether, which hurts the book.
Modeling Precision: Professional bettors, or sharps, force books to be extremely precise with their lines. Lower limits help manage exposure to these proven winning models.

One interesting proposal that came up was proportional scaling. Instead of fixed limits, maybe the maximum bet allowed is always 100 times the minimum bet allowed on that specific line. If your small bet is capped at five dollars, the maximum allowed bet is five hundred dollars. This maintains flexibility for the book while ensuring someone betting responsibly isn't suddenly capped at a single dollar.

Why Limiting Sharps Can Be Good for the Average Bettor

This is perhaps the hottest take, but several professionals agreed that the existence of limits—the very thing that frustrates high-volume winners—is actually the best thing for most casual viewers watching at home. Why? Because unequal limits create what's called 'soft lines.'

When a book limits a sharp player, they are often unable to fully capitalize on the best available odds. This means the line they display publicly stays a little softer, or less efficient, for a longer time than it would if the sharp could bet unlimited amounts immediately.

Consider the alternative. If every major sportsbook had unlimited liquidity—if they could handle bets mirroring the biggest finance firms—the level of competition would skyrocket. The guys who would dominate are the math geniuses straight out of quantitative finance. Are those the people you, as an average recreational bettor, want accessing every single opening line perfectly?

As one expert put it, he doesn't want the industry filled with people commanding six-figure salaries from firms like Goldman Sachs or Google, who utilize superior quantitative analysis instantly. The fact that books cap people and create inefficiencies allows others to compete and survive in the space. If everyone had access to 'sharp' liquidity, the edges would disappear everywhere, or only the absolute top tier guys would profit significantly.

Fairness: Obligation in a Regulated Market

While the market dictates business decisions, the involvement of government licensing bodies complicates the idea of a true free market. If the state is granting licenses, this implies a social contract that the product must be accessible to the public in a responsible manner. This is where the argument for some form of universal minimum accessibility comes into play.

Should a billionaire get to place a massive wager while a responsible, intermediate player is limited to two dollars? Most agree that two dollars is an absurdly low constraint. There needs to be a reasonable floor, even if the ceiling is highly variable based on your betting history and perceived advantage.

But even within this framework, VIP treatment remains a key feature. The idea is that these high-volume, high-spending customers are the lifeblood supporting the infrastructure that allows the entire industry to exist, including the ability for sharps to place modest bets that help move the lines efficiently. It’s a strange symbiosis where the recreational player funds the operation, the VIP player provides huge cash flow, and the sharp player tests the models.

Common Questions About Betting Limits

What Does It Really Mean When Books Limit Professionals?

Limiting professionals, often called 'sharps' or 'winners,' means reducing the maximum amount that specific account login can wager on future events. Books do this primarily to manage their exposure to models that consistently find an advantage. If you're winning consistently, the book views you as a liability that needs to be controlled or mitigated, often by restricting your action so you can only place small 'nuisance' bets.

Why Do VIP Customers Get Better Limits?

VIP customers are valued because they represent massive volume and liquidity, which generates significant overall revenue for the sportsbook regardless of their win/loss ratio on specific bets. They are essential to keeping the platform busy and profitable. In a business sense, they deserve better service and higher limits because they provide better service to the book's bottom line.

Is Getting Capped the Same as Being Banned?

No, not technically, and that’s an important legal distinction. Banning a successful bettor is often illegal in regulated jurisdictions because it prevents a customer from wagering based on their proven skill. Capping, however, means the book permits you to bet, but only up to a very low threshold. You are still a customer, just one whose ability to place large wagers has been severely curtailed.

The Easiest Way to Start Today with Fairer Limits

If you're finding yourself consistently capped, the skill you need to develop isn't just finding good bets, but mastering account management. This means spreading your action across multiple reputable platforms to avoid hitting the maximum limit too quickly on any single account. If sports books offer the same limits, you would be limited to one platform. By diversifying, you increase your overall ability to get down.

Should Anyone Be Limited to Just a Few Dollars?

Almost universally, the consensus among these professionals is that limiting a new or successful player to just a few dollars ($2 or $4) is unreasonable and feels punitive rather than precautionary. While some minimum threshold is needed for business reasons, it should allow for meaningful participation in the betting market.

Your Next Steps

It’s clear that the expectation of universal, fixed betting limits isn't realistic given the current structure of the sports betting industry. Key takeaways here are simple: Books must profit, sharps expose models, and recreational players need soft lines to exist. Understanding this asymmetry of power—the difference between billionaire wagers and your own typical bet—is crucial to becoming a smarter gambler.

Stop viewing the limits purely as unfair penalties. Start viewing them as signals about efficiency and competition. Your next step is to research how successful players manage their bankroll across multiple sites to maximize their total betting capacity. Go out there, work harder on your analysis, and get smart about account exposure.

About Circle Back

To support Circles Back: Sign up for new sportsbook accounts using our custom links and offers. Click HERE.

Stay Updated: Subscribe for more Circle Back content on your favourite platforms:

YouTube | Spotify | Apple Podcasts

Follow Us on Social Media:

🔨 Sign up to Kirk's Hammer

Scale Your Winnings With Betstamp PRO

Betstamp Pro saves you time and resources by identifying edges across 100+ sportsbooks in real-time. Leverage the most efficient true line in the industry and discover why Betstamp Pro is essential for top-down bettors.

Limited number of spots available! Apply for your free 1-on-1 product demo by clicking the banner below.

Episode Transcript

Transcript:

[00:00] Sports books are businesses. Like, they

[00:01] have to make money. They have an inline.

[00:03] They have criteria to meet. They should

[00:05] make the most money they can. And

[00:06] >> the industry survives off of

[00:08] recreational gamblers.

[00:09] >> The best thing for the viewers watching

[00:12] this right now is the fact that they

[00:14] cap.

[00:14] >> A very polarizing conversation on the

[00:16] way for today's video. We have a lineup

[00:19] of professional sports betterers here in

[00:21] Las Vegas at the Circuit Resort and

[00:22] Casino for Bet Bash coming on the

[00:24] channel today to answer if they feel

[00:27] sports books should offer the same

[00:28] limits for all of their customers. Let's

[00:31] see what they have to say.

[00:33] >> That's a tough question.

[00:34] >> Oh man, this is another hot take.

[00:36] >> All right, so here's another horrible

[00:38] hot take.

[00:39] >> No, no, I don't. I think they should

[00:42] post their limits. I think they should

[00:44] be upfront about why they limit. I think

[00:48] there are too many different types of

[00:49] bets for there to be universal limits

[00:53] across the board. I do like the idea of

[00:57] having a sliding scale so that the

[01:00] highest they can allow someone bet and

[01:02] the lowest they can allow someone to bet

[01:04] is proportional. So in other words,

[01:06] let's use a a one to100 scale. So if you

[01:08] limit me to $5, the most you can take

[01:11] from anyone else is $500.

[01:14] um if you limit me to $100, the most you

[01:17] can take from anyone else is $10,000.

[01:20] I think that's that's fair. That allows

[01:23] them to have flexibility to limit people

[01:24] to stay factored to a 99 if they really

[01:27] wanted to or to uh you know increase,

[01:30] but that doesn't allow them to take

[01:32] advantage of people that they know are

[01:34] not good at sports betting that would be

[01:36] betting far beyond that, betting

[01:38] millions of dollars. Uh that they can't

[01:40] take advantage of that. So, you did ask

[01:42] me, do I believe everyone should have

[01:44] the same limit? I don't, but I do

[01:47] believe in fair state factoring.

[01:50] >> No, they should definitely treat VIP

[01:52] customers better. And the industry

[01:55] survives off of recreational gamblers.

[01:58] They need to be treated better and they

[01:59] need to get higher limits.

[02:01] >> No, I don't think sports books should

[02:03] offer everyone the same limits. I mean,

[02:04] I in an ideal world, yes.

[02:07] Like that's a tough question because I

[02:10] think that the ecosystem right now uh

[02:14] the fact right in the ecosystem right

[02:16] now the fact that books do offer

[02:18] different limits sort of enables

[02:22] sharps and professional batters to sort

[02:24] of exploit that and to make more money

[02:25] than if books all offered the same

[02:28] limit. Uh, look, if you have someone

[02:31] that's like, you know, a really, you

[02:34] know, let's say someone with a

[02:36] billionaire that wants to bet, like he's

[02:38] probably going to need a little more

[02:39] money to to have a sweat. And so, I

[02:41] think like he should obviously be able

[02:42] to bet more. Like, do I think people

[02:44] should be limited to like $2? No. My my

[02:47] answer would change if anybody if any

[02:50] company could get a gambling license.

[02:52] But I think because it's the government

[02:55] deciding which people can participate.

[02:57] It's not a true free market that that

[03:00] there is sort of an obligation to offer

[03:02] a product that that basically everybody

[03:06] responsibly can can use. And I think uh

[03:08] but but I so I I think it's a it's a

[03:11] question with a little nuance to it. Um,

[03:13] but no, I I don't think it I I I I don't

[03:16] think it should be the same limits for

[03:17] for everyone.

[03:19] >> No, but I'm definitely biased in that.

[03:21] I'm biased in that in the sense that I

[03:23] think that's what allows me to to be

[03:25] successful. Um, which is like you can

[03:28] get down uh more by, you know, priming

[03:32] your accounts and uh and having more

[03:35] more movers. Uh that I I don't think it

[03:39] would help me. Uh but in in some

[03:41] respects like there's always a limit to

[03:44] everything, right? Like uh it would be

[03:46] unreasonable for us all to to assume

[03:48] that books can allow you to bet $10

[03:50] million on on a game and and there's

[03:52] obviously some limit. But within that,

[03:55] no, I' I'd rather things be be flexible

[03:57] and and the that ecosystem, I think, has

[04:00] emerged for a reason. Uh and you know,

[04:03] let the maybe this is my my Darwinian

[04:06] sense coming out of like let the let the

[04:08] winners win. I agree with limiting

[04:12] sharps. I think they should not ban,

[04:15] that's illegal, I know, but limit

[04:16] winners to a dollar. Their

[04:19] responsibility is to shareholders. Now,

[04:22] they don't have the ability to

[04:23] capitalize on that information. They

[04:25] don't spend enough money on traders. So,

[04:27] if they're going to have that business

[04:29] model, they should cap us. And by the

[04:32] way, here's the next crazy line. The

[04:34] best thing for the viewers watching this

[04:36] right now is the fact that they [music]

[04:38] cap. Because they cap, you get the

[04:41] opportunity to get another account and

[04:43] bet soft lines. Because if every model

[04:46] was a sharp book, I don't want to say

[04:48] the names of the books. Maybe we're

[04:50] sitting in one of them. Maybe there's a

[04:52] few guys here, you know, paying for

[04:53] booths from other ones. If every book

[04:56] had high liquidity, I assure you most of

[04:59] us in this industry, and I know a lot of

[05:01] people have big egos, most of us won't

[05:03] be in this industry because what you're

[05:05] going to get is really top tier guys,

[05:07] guys that reject, you know, big mid6

[05:10] figure salaries from Goldman and Google

[05:13] all of a sudden seeing enough liquidity

[05:14] in this industry. And I just ask the

[05:16] audience to think, are those the people

[05:18] that you want to compete with? So in

[05:20] reality, this limiting that they're

[05:22] doing. I know this is some crazy

[05:23] backwards way of thinking about it is

[05:25] the best thing possible for most people.

[05:28] They just don't really understand why.

[05:31] >> Uh same limits. No. Uh I do think that

[05:34] there's kind of an inference with not

[05:36] letting anyone play. But I mean

[05:38] everywhere has they're going to let

[05:41] people bet different amounts um at some

[05:44] to some extent. Um so same amount. No.

[05:48] Uh, I do think that places should

[05:50] generally try to offer some kind of

[05:52] universal low limit um and allow rebats.

[05:55] >> I don't um I don't think that you know

[05:58] Jeff Bezos and I should have the same

[05:59] limits when it comes to banning sharps.

[06:02] It's really tough, but yeah, I don't

[06:04] think they should have to. I do think

[06:06] it's weird that if I want to sign up for

[06:08] a credit card, they have to do all these

[06:09] background checks, but anybody can just

[06:11] create a FanDuel account and deposit

[06:12] tens of thousands. So, I don't think

[06:14] everybody should have the same limits. I

[06:16] think it stinks that they're able to

[06:17] limit people if you know what you're

[06:18] doing, but it's hard. They're private

[06:21] companies, so don't really have a great

[06:22] answer there.

[06:22] >> Yes and no. I I I mean, I would hope

[06:25] that they could, but I totally

[06:27] understand why they don't and why they

[06:29] need the VIP players to to survive, but

[06:32] in a perfect world, sure. I would want

[06:34] the same limits as they give to

[06:36] everybody else.

[06:37] >> Um, I don't, and that's the hottest of

[06:40] takes. I'm I'm well aware. But the issue

[06:42] is like we look at it from a betting

[06:45] perspective. You are a customer. You're

[06:47] a consumer of the product. Sports books

[06:49] are businesses. Like they have to make

[06:51] money. They have an inline. They have

[06:53] criteria to meet. They should make the

[06:54] most money they can. Now, should they

[06:56] limit you to $4? Of course not. Um,

[06:59] should there be like a minimum

[07:01] threshold? Probably so. But every time I

[07:03] hear people complain about limits, I

[07:05] think it's like this skill gap of like

[07:08] you should just be better at hiding or

[07:10] better at finding accounts or better at

[07:12] doing whatever you want. Obviously, in

[07:14] like a perfect world of like eons of

[07:17] just like perfect symmetry. Yes, we

[07:20] should all get 5,000. Jacob should be

[07:22] able to put 5,000 on on something that

[07:25] he just knows is going to happen, but

[07:26] it's just not the game. Like the game is

[07:28] work harder, be able to get down more.

[07:30] Um, and if everyone could get down the

[07:32] same, I think the edges would probably

[07:35] be not as dramatic. Like I think where

[07:37] you find the skill gaps from the guys

[07:39] who've been talking on this before to

[07:41] the average Joe is the ability to take

[07:43] advantage of these. An edge is just

[07:45] having an advantage on the average

[07:47] player.