|
By:
Hey noodles.
When two horses are neck and neck with 1 furlong to go I agree that a person placing a new bet into the active IR market is partially protected by the order priority. Granted the backer still lose their intended stake ( at a bigger) maybe fairer but still not entirely price than they intended Layers are protected more but not totally as their liability reduces considerably. But what If I had laid at horse at evens intending to cancel once I thought it probability of winning had reached 2. 1 ( leaving me a profit margin) Where is my protection? Where is the fairness of my matched bet? It has not been consumed by a tracksider until its true price is 1.9, 1.7, 1.6. 1.3 who knows and it varies... and I cant tell that that they are beating my by the returned price as you try to assert.... my only clue is a vague warning about delays... and the fact that when I cancel my bet it is already matched.... But how do you keep track of that? Especially if you are hedging pre-off backs... You cant because Betfair do not allow you to segregate your PnL.... I remain the only person to my knowledge that allows that.... http://betfairdata.googlepages.com/home ( at not an insignificant cost to myself) I asked the GC to enforce that, and they did not even have the decency to discuss what I think is a fair and admirable request. Simple to implement, and helps them with their requirement of transparent betting But they remained 100& silent on the issue only to say I requested it |
|
By:
artie 01 Apr 13:13
If fast pics. are available to everyone prepared to go to the trouble of getting them, where's the unfairness ? artie it is unfair when your bet is matched only after your horse is lying dead on the gorund.... but you dont know it yet.... and will see it happen in 2-3-4-5 seconds please in yuor warped world tell me that bet is FAIR? |
|
By:
gerard 01 Apr 13:27
The Magician, just out of interest, when you predict the result of a football match incorrectly do you often find that it's the referee's fault? you might have me confused with 'themagiciansmask' who I belive is a soccer punter I have the occasional social bet on soccer - but I have partially completes a bot at the moment for all soccer IR markets. |
|
By:
birch2
I have bought a recnt thread up prior to the GC publication that showed I was begingin to fear the worste that was partially brought about becasue I have been discussing the GC with many people and sadly they all reiterate the same thing... that is the more they deal with the GC the more they realise its staff are NOT qualified for the positions and roles they have been given I dont say that to criticise them... but the most compitant people, probably dont want to regulate betting they want to work in it or profit from it |
|
By:
farraflash 01 Apr 14:15
Nothing wrong with market manipulation. LOL - yes the BHA even allow owners to do it ( for a small fine) providing the are net backers as the race Jumps... |
|
By:
Sandown 01 Apr 14:10
Ultimately, you don't have to play games of "Find the Lady"and you can walk away. And that is just what will prove to be the future.People will walk away. common sense form one of Betfairs longest members.... unsustainable I would add Betfairs current stance is slightly amazing, and would highlight severla 'facts' that expose thier inconsitant presentation of data as evidence 1) some people are winning too fast so we need to tax then 20%. they are hurting our good customers - and good customer are costyl to recruit - so we are gong to charge your more ( no need for citation it has been stated endlessly) 2) the % of IR customers than win on one exchange ( nassume betfair) is only slightly higher than the % of winners pre-off, hence IR betting is equally fair to pre-off betting and does not need to be changed ( GC review of IR - I can give the paragraph ref for those that cant foind it) 3) 55% of a fast picture shop where winner for a undefined perios of time (GC review - paragraph can agains be supplied) . I have previously highlighted why this figure is almost certainly much higer (above). BUT mmm what % of tracksider win? 4) . 17% or some other incredibly small number (300 individuals) of active users have paid the PC to date....(exact data and citation to follow) 5) 20% plus of what fast picture ship was pay the PC in a given week (I will get the exact quote and it remains hersay form a customer of that shop) but these points cannot all be alinged.... and FAIRNESS, or lack of it explaines the misalingment |
|
By:
Rollo Tomasi 01 Apr 15:37
Feck, I felt sure you would say the evidence is that Betfair have brought in PCs. Aren't PCs their recognition that the sports betting client base is never going get much bigger/more viable and you could argue that is due to what you have said about hooverers etc. Therefore 'anything goes' as long as they get their share of it? If Betfair were bothered about the morals of someone winning £300k and only paying £2k commission they wouldn't think PCs was the answer would they? Rollo - that would be an appauling inditment on Betfair if true, and luckily there are small rays of evidence that that is not the case... they do after all cancel ante-post bets of dead horses ( they dont do this for IR horses yet) they do cancel phtot bets when people at the track hoover but they dont cancel hoovered bet in the normal market when the horse misses the break by 6L, (and they did not suspend the market on time. they claim buyer bewar and refuse to cancel them. so there some rays of hope - mostly self regulated rays, and some still appauling omissions where they allow thier good custoimer to be robbed by there bad as long as they get 20% but I think and hope the moral compass of the company is moving ( slowly but moving) if not due to moral duty - but to do with LONG TERM business success and at least my years of argument shave starting to mimpact that elemnts of betfair thinking. Bert has been know to say he regrests not keeping a bigger share of betfair, I do also. He would be able to enforce FAIRNESS, and morals.... and from everything I have read he has both. sadly he has a small share of the company ( from controlling perspectives) and less Moral monre money motivated peopl have the control now... so Betfair is sadly less idealistic these days |
|
By:
Probst 01 Apr 15:52
oops posted this on mate's account, but nevermind who where you psting as - please dont say artie!!!!!!!!! |
|
By:
MugsGame 01 Apr 17:48
Why slate the report because they didn't see things your way? How could they take you seriously when you use your Betfair forum name to hide behind? If you feel so strongly about this (as you obviously do) why didn't you tell them your name? as stated... if there was a submission from 'john stott' or 'james smith' what credability or lack there of would it have. for better or worse I have a betting prifle in the UK and betfair..... and I wanted the submission to be associated with me the betting persona - than some unknow real name And the GC know my real name |
|
By:
"it is unfair when yor bet is matched when your horse is lying dead on the ground but you don't know it yet".....IT IS NOT UNFAIR BECAUSE IF I DON'T WANT THIS SITUATION TO HAPPEN THEN I SHOULD GET UP OFF MY FAT **** AND ACQUIRE SOME FAST PICS. AND PUT MYSELF ON AN EQUAL FOOTING WITH OTHER PEOPLE. IF I CAN'T BE BOTHERED DOING THIS, I ONLY HAVE MYSELF TO BLAME .
|
|
By:
Artie,,ffs calm down.
|
|
By:
Recently i have reported(twice) to Betfair,bets being placed when the result was known.For instance this morning Federer defeated Rodick.I checked the prices up to the winning point.No doubt some(one) are beating Betfair to the punch.I await Betfairs response,though i know nought will come of this.
|
|
By:
Should IR betting only be allowed when an event can be accurately timed and vision recorded with that time?
|
|
By:
:D ^^^^ The two eediots on here still wouldn't be happy.
|
|
By:
farraflash,Your post is what is required.We have all watched the Olympic Games when they can record times to thousands of a second.The technology is there...
|
|
By:
The GC was a good article, well written which adopted common sense and practicality in its conclusions. Personally I thought the conclusions were obvious.
If you take fairness to extremis you lose touch with sensibility. |
|
By:
I dont think they understood the maths of what they were talking about, no other reason for their figures and conclusions on fairness. or else they were sucking up to the big boys. the report was a joke and insult to anyone with half a brain. i have no vested interest in IR.
|
|
By:
Where is my protection? Where is the fairness of my matched bet? It has not been consumed by a tracksider until its true price is 1.9, 1.7, 1.6. 1.3 who knows and it varies...
I assume you know the average return if every horse in the field is layed at 2.0 IR and left? I did test this years back, and things might have changed, but the loss is not big, and the average odds are nowhere near 1.7, let alone anything lower. You are imagining a problem where there isn't one. Also, if you are 1st to lay at 1.01 you actually make a profit. In fact, many horses to far too short in-running, and the returns which you imagine are terrible, actually aren't so bad. |
|
By:
And I think this idea about no clock delay is**ers.
Having no clock delay only helps punters without fast pics who have yet to submit bets. They totally screw punters without fast pics who leave offers up. Fast pics players make most of their money hoovering what bets are left up not by taking money from people who's bets are waiting to hit the exchange in the next 5 secs. Hoovering after the result is known by its very nature means taking what bets are up there before Betfair can suspend the market. Further, as a general rule punters don't place bets ir if during the 5 second delay something significant is likely to happen, and for any that do regularly there is absolutely no hope. The important thing for Betfair to do is make people aware of possible transmission delays which they do and that they have all the fastest feeds themselves so they can suspend the market immediately. People will be wanting warnings up next that some customers have very sophisticated computer technology to place their bets especially in financial markets, or that some people are likely to have better knowledge or information on the sport than you, or warnings that you can't win long term on exchange games etc etc etc. Use a little bit of common sense. |
|
By:
THE STATMAN I must have missed all the figures that they couldn't understand.
The article was 99.9% prose. The GC might not have the mathematical nous of Magician but they can use common sense. |
|
By:
slayerofthe'kins 02 Apr 09:59
Also, if you are 1st to lay at 1.01 you actually make a profit. In fact, many horses to far too short in-running, and the returns which you imagine are terrible, actually aren't so bad. .................................. slayer I can never be first in the queue to lay at 1.01. That is just as unfair and I demand a GC enquiry, or at least odds of 1.005 and 1.015, better still 1.012 1.014 etc etc. |
|
By:
clydebank,
Fast pics players make most of their money hoovering what bets are left up not by taking money from people who's bets are waiting to hit the exchange in the next 5 secs i'd agree with this. having played the in running markets since their inception i would say that a few years ago they would still hoover money about to hit the market but that is greatly reduced these days. when a horse falls there is not much money matched between the current trading price and 1000 which backs this up. fundamentally i'd agree with the magician in that if you submitted a bet at this crucial period and it was matched after the horse fell then you in theory should be entitled to your money back. the problem would be people would simply take advantage of the situation and we'd be no better off. i keep harping on about getting picture speeds increased but i honestly see it as the best way forward to increasing liquidity, fairness etc on the markets. |
|
By:
clydbank, have a look at response 2.44 how did they conclude that the % of trading shop winners represented no significant advantage over sit at home slow pics players of whom 98% lose.lol maybe its just me and im missing something.
|
|
By:
statman - the 98% lose figure if you choose to believe is correct includes all pre in-running bets.
The % of winners will rise when people can see an event unfold. As a result the % of winners will also rise. |
|
By:
* should have said % of overall winners.
|
|
By:
You are right clyde, there is a bot that lays 1.01 as soon as a market opens and keeps the bets to go IR.
But this is an important point isn't it? One would expect the first money to be matched at 1.01 to be by hooverers. And yet there is someone laying £10K per horse per race and making a profit. So the people who get to the "free" money first make a loss. |
|
By:
I agree the bank man
The Statman Betfair said something along the lines of "less than 0.5% of active customers pay premium charges and less than 2% of winners pay PC". The conclusion is around 25% of customers win not 2%. Betfair may well be playing with figures but the figure you quote is the only time I can remember the GC quoting figures in the whole article. No real conclusion can be drawn from that one figure, although on the face of it it doesnt seem too bad and the conclusion in context to me. But there is reference to an independent report and I would assuime they've read it. In any case I don't see anything wrong in people utilising faster feeds. Other than make a new law making it illegal to bet live at events via internet I dont see anything practical or sensible the GC can do or recommend to level the playing field ir. |
|
By:
and even then someone can be relaying the information by mouthpiece to someone at home
|
|
By:
special cargo, yes the 98% is debatablle, but i think tou have settled it with your comment about the % of winners increase as an event unfolds. would it help if you could see this event unfold before anyone else?
|
|
By:
clydbank im obviously not up to speed the 98% losers is a figure i saw ages ago. if in fact 25% of users are winners that may change things.
|
|
By:
statman,
I agree as I have already said on one of these similar threads somewhere. I cant see how people on track or at venue can possibly lose overall as it is such a huge advantage against televised pictures which depending on the event are so far behind. As others & myself have said all betting from track/venue would have to be stopped b4 it could be made fair. Then and only then can you then concentrate on making the broadcasting technology fair. Then you would have to make bet submission fair and cancel all technology where bots can hit the system with 000's of bets for e.g. in and around the 'suspended' system which is an area where people are getting **ked up the r's. People will say well you can go to the track or get a bot built so where do we draw the line ? |
|
By:
If 46% of trading shop customers are paying several hundred a week for fast pics and losing money into the bargain then the biggest mugs are to be found in trading shops.Is that what the GC believe? i'd say the winning percentage for trading shop REGULARS would be much nearer 100%.
Clydebank, if the bet placement delay is shorter than the feed delay (in horse racing it's much shorter) then the delay only offers protection to those with fast pics. It's a hinderence to stay at home punters. Pumpkin, are you not assuming that these bets are being picked off by fast pic players. I'd have thought that the any profit the first up with 1.01's was making would be mainly due to slow pic players thinking it was all over. |
|
By:
But feck, if there is a point when the slow pic guys think it's over, there was a prior point when the fast pic guys thought it was over.
|
|
By:
if the bet placement delay is shorter than the feed delay (in horse racing it's much shorter) then the delay only offers protection to those with fast pics. It's a hinderence to stay at home punters.
I disagree. If it were increased to longer than the feed delay I think you would find IR betting would be killed off more or less instantly. Who wants to wait 5 seconds to get their bet on? |
|
By:
I wasn't advocating they make it longer pumpkin. I was saying it should be zero as the 1 sec delay only protects the fast pic players from each other. It does nothing for the atr/ruk players.
|
|
By:
But feck, if there is a point when the slow pic guys think it's over, there was a prior point when the fast pic guys thought it was over.
True but the fast pic boys would just sell it on to the slow pic players. Ultimately it's the slow pic players that will be paying the price. Same with your 1.7+. I'm assuming there are slow pic players that try for 1.01's, ridiculous though that may seem. Never overestimate the intelligence of human beings. |
|
By:
ok, in which case I agree with you feck. No often that happens ;-)
|
|
By:
Is this the thread where magician states that because the GC conclusion didn't agree with his virtual findings, then the GC must be incompetent.
|
|
By:
I hate to say i told you so Magician but ...
|
|
By:
freetea 02 Apr 15:05
Is this the thread where magician states that because the GC conclusion didn't agree with his virtual findings, then the GC must be incompetent Well said - the guy is a class 1 numpty (imo of course) :) |