GAMBL In-depth: Examining the issues of individual bet limits and bet liquidity

Using the network to guarantee liquidity for bets is one of the most cost-efficient aspects of GAMBL. Providing liquidity through other means would add large unnecessary costs in the form of lower rewards to nodes, less coins burned, and/or higher fee margins for bettors. Using these other means could also introduce scaling issues if the network grows too quickly or becomes too large in size. Not to mention that it could introduce a whole host of other third-party issues, and seriously hamper efforts at legitimate decentralization.

Having adequate liquidity has been perhaps the single largest stumbling block for crypto-based betting. Even though many projects have made bold promises of reducing fee margins, the grim reality has been that there generally hasn’t been enough liquidity for all except the smallest of bettors. We can see similar issues with many of the smaller crypto exchanges, lower fees mean very little when the spread is quite large.

It is also important to note that GAMBL has no individual bet limits or restrictions. This is where a sportsbook attempts to boost profits artificially by reducing bet limits for profitable bettors and increasing limits for losing bettors. Sportsbooks are working diligently on identifying whether a bettor is profitable or not in a faster and faster manner, and it is unclear what kinds of negative effects this will result in over the long-term. Though it’s clear that some sharps will employ others to place bets, which ultimately costs sportsbooks extra in signup bonuses and skews their marketing numbers.

Still the traditional sportsbooks have made the practice of individual bet limits so commonplace that it has almost become standard procedure. The vast majority of bettors view this practice as unethical however, and GAMBL takes pride in its commitment to treat all users fairly and equally. There is a popular saying around bettors that they want a real bookmaker, not a dressmaker.