Betting Limits Ratings
Bettor ratings for maximum stakes and how a bookmaker treats winning accounts.
| № | Bookmaker | Betting limits | Compared to average | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 41 | 13 ratings | below average (3.6) | Review | |
| 42 | 20 ratings | below average (3.6) | Review | |
| 43 | 33 ratings | below average (3.6) | Review | |
| 44 | 25 ratings | below average (3.6) | Review | |
| 45 | 27 ratings | below average (3.6) | Review | |
| 46 | 27 ratings | below average (3.6) | Review | |
| 47 | 18 ratings | below average (3.6) | Review | |
| 48 | 40 ratings | below average (3.6) | Review | |
| 49 | 28 ratings | below average (3.6) | Review | |
| 50 | 17 ratings | below average (3.6) | Review | |
| 51 | 14 ratings | below average (3.6) | Review |
Betting Limits Ratings
A limit that is published is a product decision; a limit applied quietly after a winning run is a different thing entirely. This table collects bettor feedback on both the headline maximum stake and the way limits are applied in practice.
Expect the strongest scores from bookmakers that state their limits up front and keep them stable, and the weakest from those where accounts are restricted without notice after a few profitable weeks.
How to read this table
- Stated maximum stakes differ by market and by sport, so the score describes the practical experience rather than a single published number.
- A lower score does not mean a bookmaker cannot be used for casual betting; it usually means sharp or high-volume bettors were restricted.
Table legend
- Betting limits
- Average score for this criterion, on a scale from 1.0 to 5.0, with the number of ratings behind it.
- Compared to average
- The gap between this bookmaker and the mean score of 3.6 across every bookmaker rated for this criterion.
- Action
- Review opens the full written review, including licensing, payments and markets.