|
By:
can i just say that everyone on this thread who has voiced anger or annoyance with this must complain directly to Betfair. They always claim not to read the forum so you must lodge your complaint with betfair either by email or phone.
|
|
By:
already done, but I agree everyone must.....I am still waiting for an explanation....an announcement would be nice
|
|
By:
I note there are several well known book arbers on this thread demanding a return to the status quo. While there is no doubt we all need some answers I think it's a little misleading to think we are all in the same company.
|
|
By:
there are many people with an agenda, thats for sure
|
|
By:
Well said , HP.
There is an agenda here by players who make money by certain strategies to lump us all in as being vehemently against betfairs move, and it must be said that this isnt the case, and its unfair of those 30 or 40 posters to pretend that the whole of betfairs customer base are up in arms about this. I will, however, grant those 30 or 40 this: They are certainly making a big noise. Here's a quote from**of BetAngel. Peter is the owner of Bet Angel, which is a powerful piece of betting exchange trading software... "How will this affect your trading? The fact that I didnt notice it immediately may tell you something about how it affected my trading. But I guess it may affect some people depending on what your strategy is. For people who have relied on in-efficient markets this is obviously a bit of a blow and I expect quite a bit of fall out from people who have relied on this strategy. The more general implications are difficult to assess, but if you are doing conventional trading then you will be general asking or taking prices and I cant see how things change immediately but Ill obviously keep an eye on things" |
|
By:
the man marcus 09 Mar 16:42
what happens if the program collapses in a market and ends up costing betfair 100s of thousands? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I really like this point. I imagine the Betfair Arbing Bot hasn't got a restriction of funds in the account like the rest of us so if it went wrong it's losses would be unlimited. If for whatever reason it went wrong (and they can) and offered 10,000 @ 1000's on Federer in his first round match at Wimbledon when he was 6-3 6-2 5-1 30-0 up for 10,000. Obviously it would be snapped up within six seconds but would Betfair pay out the 10,000,000 or void the market? I know if it was a customers 10,000,000 what the answer would be. |
|
By:
LOL your agenda is there for all to see.....they take no position, so cannot build up a liability
|
|
By:
Commission increases are a pain and BF has to make a reasonable profit............
BUT............. This skimming is just an unbelievable development IMO!!!! BF are the guardians of the system and should not be able to take advantage of their users. If BF want to do this then they should at the very least have to form a different business arm and manage it with no assistance from the core BF business site and thus they should have to compete with all other users on an equal footing. They should have no advantage period.............this skimming is just reprehensible! |
|
By:
If for whatever reason it went wrong (and they can)
What part of this did you not understand? |
|
By:
The process cannot go wrong as no one would then be matched....betfair are not a player in the market (during this bet matching process...they maybe in other ways)
|
|
By:
The process cannot go wrong
:D LOL, can't it? Are you 100% sure? Would you put your kids lives on it? |
|
By:
Agree with LuckyLucas on this point..........nothing can go wrong from BF's end on this one. It is 100% safe for BF.
|
|
By:
Get On MASSIVE 10 Mar 12:46
The process cannot go wrong LOL, can't it? Are you 100% sure? Would you put your kids lives on it? :^0 If it is as I believe, however until confirmation we will not know...but if it is a simple matching code, then nothing can go wrong from a betfair exposure standpoint....can I just gamble my eldest, he is being a bit naughty at the moment ;) |
|
By:
To be fair, if the bet matching process corrupted itself and BetFair saw liabilities rather than gains by matching prices and keeping the small difference (should it appear) for themselves, then they would simply void the market.
And that would be fair enough. |
|
By:
For those that are concerned, and have reacted by saying it only affects a small percentage of users, it's a valid point.
I think the screaming from the rooftops is because we were not told of the change. That indicates (i) that BetFair are happy to keep their users in the dark over fundamental changes in software, (ii) that BetFair are happy to use the markets for corporate gain, other than commission, Neither are crippling issues, but both are completely new, and would not have been considered 5 years ago. |
|
By:
grafec, surely it "affects" all users, in that we are all poorer because of it ?
|
|
By:
grafec, I think betfair have always been happy to keep users in the dark...except for the select few they deem to be key to their business model
|
|
By:
steady - All users are affected in that money disappears from the in-running pool at an alarming rate, yes, but in principle, if you bet in non-overround non-in-running markets, or horse racing.. it is true - you are largely unaffected. I wanted to say that because people have hijacked this thread to stress this point, (and conveniently ignored the fundamental issue of course).
But I've been on the phone to both a colleague in the commons, and the FSA today, and this is my position: I certainly wouldn't bet in running now, as I am aware that there is bot working which doesn't give me the best price available, at all times. That was the gist of the advice I was given: If it's not working in your favour, then don't use it. |
|
By:
It effects EVERYBODY who bets in running!
It's subtle tho, you won't notice it at first but over time your pnl won't be as good as it should be and most people are just ignorant of that fact! |
|
By:
1. Have we heard an explanation from betfair so far?
They didnt deny to take money out of the market, did they? 2. Do we have to be afflicted with the new interface to make the betfair-bot possible? |
|
By:
How about this scenario?
Betfair buys a sports book and then recruits clients to trade the betfair markets to lay off the bets taken on the sportsbook. Any chance of a job? |
|
By:
Here's a quote from**of BetAngel. Peter is the owner of Bet Angel, which is a powerful piece of betting exchange trading software...
"How will this affect your trading? The fact that I didnt notice it immediately may tell you something about how it affected my trading. But I guess it may affect some people depending on what your strategy is. For people who have relied on in-efficient markets this is obviously a bit of a blow and I expect quite a bit of fall out from people who have relied on this strategy. The more general implications are difficult to assess, but if you are doing conventional trading then you will be general asking or taking prices and I cant see how things change immediately but Ill obviously keep an eye on things" That's all very well to say, but you can't accuse the 30 or 40 of having an Agenda and then post a quote from Scrip who clearly has at least as much of a vested interest if not more in all of this, due to BA and his involvement! FFS can't you see how totally ridiculous that is? I might also suggest that these "conventional traders" categorically WILL suffer, since when a fast pic trader puts in a big order at 1.9 to hit everything from (say) 2.10 down to 1.90, they will get more filled at 1.90 than before (assuming the other side of the market is filled with orders). This money will be matched by betfair at bad value, rather than giving these "conventional traders" a chance to fill them. The long term result will be that the fast pic people will survive, albeit having to make some alterations, and "conventional traders" and/or mugs will be doing more and more betting at correct prices, and therefore just becoming more likely to slowly do their banks in the long run thanks to commission, and less likely to win. |
|
By:
Double_Underscore, what do you think of this -
Every market the super bot is put on, will in effect have Betfair setting this as a trap bet. Betfair match it instantly, even when they could have matched much of it against more favourable prices to the victim available on the other selection. It is a shame that Betfair pocket the entire difference, it would have been great if this was a way to reduce the chances of people being hurt by trap bets, rather than the reality - they have found this as a way to increase the danger to their users. |
|
By:
17 10 Mar 15:54
Double_Underscore, what do you think of this - Every market the super bot is put on, will in effect have Betfair setting this as a trap bet. Betfair match it instantly, even when they could have matched much of it against more favourable prices to the victim available on the other selection. It is a shame that Betfair pocket the entire difference, it would have been great if this was a way to reduce the chances of people being hurt by trap bets, rather than the reality - they have found this as a way to increase the danger to their users. I agree with what's been said above - those who type in 1.01 and rely on "semi-best execution" (which is what we have always had) are taking big risks. One too many zeroes on the stake and there's big trouble ahead. It isn't dissimilar to a trap bet scenario in terms of the effect it will have on new users who get stung by it. Whether they get caught by a trap or a "skim bot", the net effect will be the same - they'll be back off to billy hills. Surely what has happened will lead to MORE trap bets than ever before being put up at prices like 90, since any "accidental 1.01" matching in volume will also match these bets on the other side. I don't think this is a bad thing they are doing, with 2 MAJOR riders: 1) It must not slow down site performance, especially time to cancel bets as some users have been experiencing. 2) It must guarantee FULL BEST EXECUTION where there is no skim. Whether that's a moral view, their duty of care, or rules and regulations, that's what MUST happen. At the moment we are experiencing the classic meltdown scenario. The 30 or 40 kicking up all the fuss will continue as long as they make money, and stop if this stops them making money. If they keep making money but less than before, thanks to the skim, they won't be going anywhere, let's face it. The next mistake of backing 50k at 1.01 on the wrong runner (or similar) will be very very ugly for the poor unfortunate. |
|
By:
It has always been strange that a two runner event has in effect two live markets (in particular the over/under 2.5 goals, which has always felt slightly odd). This new bet matching should have been introduced when it became possible, to condense the two markets into one, with unmatched bets showing up both as a back of under 2.5 goals, and a lay of over 2.5 goals, or vice versa. It has so much potential to help liquidity, particularly on short odds selections on the 1.01 to 1.05 mark, where the lack of granularity does decrease the amount matched (people don't want to back at 1.01 say, or lay at 1.02).
It is a shame that they decided to run this super bot in this way, making risk free money from markets, where Betfair users are no longer betting against each other. Two users betting against each other (as claimed in the Betfair adverts) would be expected to lose a maximum of 5% of the total wagered to Betfair, but now the figure will be far higher. A real shame, as had they decided to match up equivalent bets for their customers benefit, it would have boosted liquidity across both selections, and not introduce the high rate of attrition that this might do. |
|
By:
If someone was laying over 2.5 goals at 2.5, that bet with this new software could have shown up as a back at 1.67 of the unders (the real odds of 1.6666666666 would not be possible to display, and you couldn't display 1.66 as being available, as that is shorter than the price which the original bet was willing to lay the overs/back the unders). There is no reason why all this new technology should not have been used to achieve this, rather than perform the function of a constant super trap bet instead.
|
|
By:
It has always been strange that a two runner event has in effect two live markets (in particular the over/under 2.5 goals, which has always felt slightly odd). This new bet matching should have been introduced when it became possible, to condense the two markets into one, with unmatched bets showing up both as a back of under 2.5 goals, and a lay of over 2.5 goals, or vice versa.
No, it hasn't been strange at all. By offering two live markets, the value is, more often than not, better for someone who wants to have a bet. |
|
By:
Can you believe that they still haven't made an announcement about the skimming.
It's absolutely staggering. |
|
By:
Double_Underscore 10 Mar 15:49
I might also suggest that these "conventional traders" categorically WILL suffer, since when a fast pic trader puts in a big order at 1.9 to hit everything from (say) 2.10 down to 1.90, they will get more filled at 1.90 than before (assuming the other side of the market is filled with orders). i'm guessing the courtsiders and fast pic boys are rubbing their hands with glee at the new development, as when they pile in to hoover they get to hoover the other side as well, whereas before they could only hoover the one side. if betfair implemented full value matching in addition then they would really clean up (as opposed to betfair cleaning up alongside them). (does that make sense? the whole thing is making my head spin now :^0 ) |
|
By:
that how i saw it, first person to hit the market could suck all the value out with one bet...
|
|
By:
apologies if people are already aware of this, but the compliance officers of the GC are meeting to discuss this very matter tomorrow.
|
|
By:
Good, I only hope that they fully understand the full implications of what Betfair are doing.
|
|
By:
You can still email them in time to help them understand...
info@gamblingcommission.gov.uk Address it for the attention of the Compliance Department. |
|
By:
basher 10 Mar 18:57
apologies if people are already aware of this, but the compliance officers of the GC are meeting to discuss this very matter tomorrow. interesting - they have already approved it coudl they retract thier approval..... |
|
By:
I'm sure they could if they were mislead
|
|
By:
the issues are complicated and it is quite easy to present what has happend in a favourable light to the end user while making no mention of other consequences. On finding out the GC had already been approached my first thought was had they fully understood the implications? I guess we will find out soon enough. And also would be surprised at kind of announcement from Betfair until they hear word from the meeting?
|
|
By:
The current Q&A doesn't state this has been approved by the GC although it may have been writte as to imply that
Q. Does this change raise any regulatory issues? A. As a matter of course Betfair highlights any changes to the code base or operations to the relevant regulator, in this case The Gambling Commission. Before any change was made Betfair approached the GC and explained the proposed changes in detail. More of just a courtesy call I'd have thought Betfair "Just ringing to say we're making minor changes to the site" GC "And what are they ?" Betair "I am unable to reply to the point(s) you have raised at this time. However, I have forwarded your request to colleagues responsible for the matters raised and a more detailed response will follow. In the meantime please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further enquiries. Kind regards" brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr |
|
By:
bftrader, I think that's an excellent call and explains bf's stonewalling.
The official line, tho, seems to get tied up in knots; it seems to be 'you are still getting best execution when that is construed as being within a single runner sub-market' and 'you were never getting best execution cross-markets anyway so there is no change'. A bit like 'I didn't borrow the kettle', 'it didn't have a mark on it when I gave it back' and 'it was like that when you lent it to me'. |
|
By:
I have sent an e-mail.
My gripe isn't just that they are both player and referee in their own markets but the fact that they don't play with the same rules as everyone else. It's like China deciding their 100m runners should have a 20m head start because it's their Olympics. |
|
By:
Interesting question...
when did Betangel find out about this.... and was it proactive or reactive? when did other third party provider find out? proactive or reactive? |