Bally Sportsbook Removes Unders From Player Props Betting Options
Bally Sportsbook has seemingly removed many under options when it comes to making player props, and some in the industry see it as predatory line-making.
Bally Sportsbook recently updated its menu of player prop bets, dropping “under” wagering options on certain individual player performance prop markets, a move that has raised eyebrows among bettors, industry watchers, and critics of sportsbook pricing practices on both sides of the Atlantic.
The decision has led to social-media criticism about predatory pricing and asymmetric markets, particularly when bettors see only “overs” available or significantly juiced odds on overs versus unders.
One widely shared tweet summarizes the frustration among prop bettors today by pointing out how these changes affect wagering strategy and fairness.
Why Bally Pulled Unders and What It Means
Bally’s decision to remove unders on some player props is part of an emerging trend among sportsbooks trying to manage risk exposure on markets that historically draw heavy public money on one side, especially overs, while limiting exposure on lines perceived as harder to price or more easily manipulated.
This isn’t a wholly new phenomenon. In the UK, multiple sportsbooks have restricted certain player prop markets or removed unders on specific individual lines, particularly in niche markets or less liquid events, because the overhead risk of offering balanced props there can be high. Many bettors and analysts there view this as juicing the overs: artificially shifting pricing or removing options in ways that favour the house, especially against recreational bettors who traditionally prefer overs on player performance props.
Critics argue this approach shrinks consumer choice and pins the edge to the operator by skewing markets on the very bets that need balance to be fair.
Context: NBA Agreement and Prop Bet Integrity
The broader player-prop market has been under scrutiny for integrity risks after a high-profile incident involving former NBA player Jontay Porter. Porter was banned from the league and later pleaded guilty to criminal charges related to a scheme involving irregular betting patterns on his own statistical unders.
His underperformance was tied to a large wager placed by an associate on unders in his personal stat line, a setup that sparked alarm in both the sports and betting communities.
In response, the NBA entered an informal agreement with major sportsbooks to remove certain under prop bets, particularly on players in marginal roles like two-way or 10-day contracts, because those markets were seen as susceptible to manipulation or insider influence.
That league operator’s response shows this issue isn’t just a customer service glitch but ties directly into sports integrity policy. If wedges arise between what is safe to offer and what is potentially exploitable, regulators and leagues can step in, as seen with the NBA’s post-Porter adjustments.
Industry and Bettor Pushback
To many bettors, the removal of unders feels like a retreat from true two-sided markets at a time when transparency and fairness are key selling points of legal, regulated sportsbooks.
Overseas markets have faced similar pushback from professional bettors who prefer fully symmetrical markets, overs and unders priced without restriction, because they believe restriction tilts the line toward the house rather than evenly reflecting probabilities.
Some UK operators already dynamically adjust props or limit markets where liquidity or risk is poor, and U.S. bettors increasingly compare domestic offerings to those overseas.
That comparison fuels criticism when a sportsbook like Bally’s selectively removes underdog options or unders on props, the very bets that draw millions of wagers each year.
What It Means for the Future of Props Betting
Bally’s move shines a light on ongoing tensions in the sports betting market:
- Risk management vs. consumer choice: Operators want to minimize exposure and potential manipulation, but bettors want balanced markets with both sides available.
- Regulatory scrutiny: Leagues such as the NBA have already weighed in on certain prop offerings to protect integrity, suggesting regulators and governing bodies may increasingly want a say in which markets are offered.
- Pricing and edge: Betting markets work best when there’s adequate liquidity on both sides. Removing one side, especially unders, can create pricing inefficiencies that benefit the house and frustrate consumers.
Conclusion: A Balancing Act Between Integrity and Fairness
The removal of unders from certain player prop bets at Bally Sportsbook reflects a larger industry struggle: how to offer rich, engaging markets while managing risk and integrity concerns, both real and perceived.
With pressure from leagues, regulators, and bettors alike, how sportsbooks balance market fairness, risk management, and product appeal will be a key conversation in 2026 and beyond.
Whether Bally’s approach becomes more widespread or bettors push back effectively will likely shape future prop offerings, not just in the U.S., but around the world, where comparisons between legal, regulated markets and those offshore continue to grow.
Tags/Keywords
Players trust our reporting due to our commitment to unbiased and professional evaluations of the iGaming sector. We track hundreds of platforms and industry updates daily to ensure our news feed and leaderboards reflect the most recent market shifts. With nearly two decades of experience within iGaming, our team provides a wealth of expert knowledge. This long-standing expertise enables us to deliver thorough, reliable news and guidance to our readers.
Latest News
