In a post published yesterday, I wrote about a few of Kambi's WrestleMania 36 specials and pointed out that I thought 40/1 for the Mania main event to be Daniel Bryan .vs. Roman Reigns was a generous price and 'worthy of a speculative punt'.
The thing is, maybe it was too generous.
After publishing the post, I logged into one of my betting accounts to place a small wager on the selection, but the website stated that my wager would have to be approved by the traders. I didn't bother. Instead, I chose to bet with another website using Kambi's markets and it too stated that my wager would have to get accepted.
I'm talking about a £1 bet on a selection the oddsmakers had evidently given close to a long-shot considering it was the penultimate selection on the board as it was before 50s for a Charlotte Flair .vs. Ronda Rousey match.
I sent the small wager in to the trader and I kind of knew what was going to happen.
It was declined.
Just like with wins and losses in betting, I took it on the chin. It wasn't the first time. They didn't want to take the bet, which kind of begs the question - why bother laying it out at those odds in the first place?
What I didn't like, however, was seeing the odds for the selection cut to 33/1 immediately after my wager was declined.
I find that sort of action unscrupulous as it eliminates any sort of level playing field between the customer and bookmaker.
Furthermore, it makes me question how I'll proceed with covering any price changes that Kambi makes to its markets as I won't know whether any future reductions are made due to bets or whether they have been cut because a customer - or rather a potential customer in these cases - has tried to place a bet only for their request to be denied by a trader who then proceeds to lower the odds.
Kambi has an abundance of professional wrestling betting markets to choose from and - partially because of those markets - they've given content to keep WWELeaks.org going ever since they began to produce pro wrestling specials. Seeing traders refuse bets and then cutting the odds for the selections they refused bets on negates it to an extent
If you're using the time to create all these markets, but then limit customers, refuse bets and slash odds without accepting wagers then what is the point?