Are players allowed to win?

[<omni>]

Like I said before, It's not supposed to be a fair game! Books are here to make money. Smaller books may have to cut sharp player's limits so they can stay in business.

[ShiftySheik]

Most books follow Royal's wiseguy policy. Royal is the only one I've seen that actually puts it in writing.

[<Squares-R-US>]

Ignorant that I am, if the book ( big or small ) took equal action on both sides, why would they care who won and who lost? Aren't they just into their vig? If they take one sided action aren't they betting themselves? Can't they lay off if they do get too much one way?

If all they want is one sided action on the juiced square sided fav ( like some of those listed ) then that isn't fair and playing there is a losing proposition. Now, that being said, I can kind of understand why they would boot steam players who do nothing but buy up lines that they were slow moving. To me, that is a different circumstance and I don't blame them for cutting limits or botting that type of player. They don't owe scalpers a living, IMHO! But a sharp originator who dares to win, w/o steam, should never be cut or banned just for winning. If they want to inflate their fav lines and I want to bang the dog then that should be allowed, IMO! :p