|
By:
luckylucas/lippy - go to the over 4.5 goals market Chelsea barnsley. Currently its:
n/o / 1.01 3 / n/o Ask to back over 4.5 at 95 for 2. you will be matched straight away even though no other customers are laying that price. Bear in mind you will lose 2 from this test so if that bothers you dont do it. |
|
By:
Proves nothing though does it as it comes from the 1.01
|
|
By:
Only true test is to find a completly empty market and use two seperate accounts , one to put up a lay and the other to match it
|
|
By:
then i urge you to follow robin's lead and go get your money sniped by betfair. why would we make it up ?! yes it is proposterous, but that's precisely why we are making a noise.
|
|
By:
use an odd amount of money.. something unpredictable by any user.. it will be matched precisely in that amount. do it more than once if you need to at varying prices.
|
|
By:
lippy 08 Mar 19:10
Only true test is to find a completly empty market and use two seperate accounts , one to put up a lay and the other to match it Exactly......although we are proving now, is my bet is being matched by other money in the market as betfair stated in the first place :0 |
|
By:
steady 08 Mar 19:12
use an odd amount of money.. something unpredictable by any user.. it will be matched precisely in that amount. do it more than once if you need to at varying prices. well it will because there is amassive chunck of money there....... |
|
By:
That test doesnt prove betfair are profiting from the transaction.
|
|
By:
I have been saying this all along but nobody was listening, seems they take more nottice of you luckylucus
|
|
By:
so you think the guy asking for 1.01 is getting 1/95 or whatever the inverse price is? He isnt. Not at the moment.
To take this to its extreme, if you asked for 400 at the current price of 3.0 it would be matched straight away and arbed against the 1.01. Betfair would make around 392 from an error such as this. Ok these errors dont happen often and it is a very extreme example. But i still find it worrying. |
|
By:
it doesn't look like it...they just want to believe something corrupt is going on :(
|
|
By:
luke
betfair took 102 off me when i layed at 18s for 6 the 1.07 backer, waiting in the overs queue, would only have to have staked 85.78 to get same 6 if betfair were merely matching bets then 85.78 should have come off my balance not 102 |
|
By:
shoiuld be easy for someone with two accounts to test this. All you need is empty market.
If it turned out the account holder lost money to betfair (more than a few pennies) Then betfair would be finished |
|
By:
no because you money went along the queue, you got what you requested and so did they
|
|
By:
Yes, he got what he requested, but not at the best available odds. If you want to back Man Utd to win prem league for 1.01, and you got that price, would you be happy? You got what you requested....
|
|
By:
no because you money went along the queue, you got what you requested and so did they
exactly, and betfair got green on one runner as a result, which is wrong...right? |
|
By:
If thats what I asked for and then got...how could I complain?
I would still get matched at the best odds available first!! |
|
By:
puma 08 Mar 19:24
no because you money went along the queue, you got what you requested and so did they exactly, and betfair got green on one runner as a result, which is wrong...right? but they didn't they just made sure more punters got matched!!!!! :0 |
|
By:
Well, as you probably should understand now. He did NOT get matched at the best available odds.
|
|
By:
luke how much did they take off the 1.07 backer for my 6 then?
|
|
By:
it's not a competition, but I've been making Luckylucas and Lippy's point for some time now. there is some pretty strong evidence from bayes though that the matched bet is not seeing any of the better odds.
|
|
By:
ffs :( because there was no money availble on his option...so it matched from like for like money in the market.....no foul play no green betfair screen!!.....sharp minds?
|
|
By:
Dstyle aren't my two examples indisputible evidence that matching is not at best price?
|
|
By:
we know it isn't Marcus. they have said that....your money is spread amongst those in the queue waiting to be matched.
|
|
By:
So you have two options:
1, Your bet is matched at best available odds 2, Your bet is matched at the requeste odds ( even if it is not the best odds available) Option number 2 is happening now with the new system. |
|
By:
but not to US. so where is the excess profit ?
earlier i lentered a lay of a player at 9.0 when i could back the other at 1.24. the market on that outcome was 4.5 / 12. my 9.0 would send it significantly overbroke. i was given 9.0 instantly, bet never saw the market... i could have backed 1.24... indeed, betfair did. where is that missing money Lippy ? |
|
By:
no it isn't, your bet is matched at the best odds available, if not available it will be matched at your rerquested odds
|
|
By:
i risked 102 trying to get with unders
had i used that 102 backing unders at 1.06 my p/l would show 6.11 my p/l only showed 6.00 where's that 11p gone? |
|
By:
LL, the best odds were a back of 1.24, not a lay of 9.0 !
|
|
By:
i could have backed 1.24... indeed, betfair did. where is that missing money Lippy ?
Fed into the queue at 1.24 |
|
By:
The irony is that the 5 sec delay was claimed to be there to protect ordinary punters from fast picture traders whereas you could have been forgiven it was there to encourage those very traders to provide liquidity to the markets as THEY were the ones who could place a position on both sides of the spread then cancel the side that lost the next point in tennis giving a no lose position.
It always was a handicap to winning. Not a handicap to providing liquidity which is what Betfair wanted of course. It seems the move towards bookmaking has now led to these very liquidity providers being cut off ruthlessly. Interesting. steady 08 Mar 12:20 well explained robin. when you place a bet with a delay you do so with the info as it is now. In 5 seconds this info is OLD, there is a blindness quality to our betting. In a market full of private users this 5 seconds is a safety net, in a market where your bet could be matched instantly by the invisible none delay betfair sniper, this 5 seconds becomes a HANDICAP. |
|
By:
9.0 wasnt available though lucas. No other customer wanted to back 9.0 at that specific time. They wanted to lay 1.23 on the other selection sure. Nobody wanted to take 9.0 on lopez at that time but Betfair made steady's decision for him and took the bet anyway creaming a few quid profit off in the process.
|
|
By:
right, i understand now what you are getting at.. phew. but why should i get 9.0 matched instantly ?
|
|
By:
why couldnt they have said "Oh look hes made an error here, he could have 1.24 rather than lay 9. lets be good to him and give him the 1.24 instead" No they punce on it straight away and arb it the other side.
|
|
By:
Under the OLD system the bet would be totally unmatched if there was nothing on your side.
The new system means you do get matched if there is some available on the other side. So far so good. you are matched more often and draw fewer blanks. So until it can be proved betfair are profiting from this (it hasnt yet) then i cant see much reason for critisism |
|
By:
He got what he requested, so should be happy....but wait a minute...he didn't get the best available odds. So something is clearly wrong here
|
|
By:
the point is does the 1.24 layer all of a sudden find that he's been matched at 1.11 instead
bayes tested this some time ago and his results indicated that 1.24 layer got matched at 1.24 tmm - still trying to work out the answer to your situation - you may well be right. |
|
By:
right I give up...no they didn't...there is nothing to say they did this.....I'm sure they will pretty soon put out an announcement to answer these ridiculous claims....as people are getting carried away and backing themselves up with evidenbce that just isn't there.
|
|
By:
i dont think thats possible dstyle. If best price execution were in place it would apply to the persons bet who created the overbroke book. e.g in steady's example when he laid 9.0 it would have come up that he laid the inverse of 1.24 which is roughly 5.05. Thats what should be happening but isnt.
|
|
By:
regardless of whether they make a profit LL, I should have been given the back of 1.24 ! there is no question of this... the decision was made for me - i asked for a bad price and was given it instantly with no chance ot cancel.
the platform should not be actively participating in these markets.. |