Feck is quite rightly p1ssed off because it's difficult to get bets on for the mountain of parasites (including bookies) that feed off the price information on here.
I really like the idea of invisible bets but it's never going to happen.

Glad to have you on board Clydebank. It will happen but not here.

pay your charge n stop moaning orjust go bet elsewere

Feck, I have to disagree with you on this: If they can't see the prices available against the horse, people wouldn't bother typing in a bet. Also, they wouldn't be able to see market moves.  It would be like the old days on course, in which the rails bookmakers were not allowed to show prices. This meant that people left the members enclosure to place a bet on the boards. But once the rails could display their odds, their business boomed to such an extent that the original boards bookies were complaining about lost revenue.  Surely you rely on seeing the odds displayed in front of you, like everyone else.  And, if you are one of the few people who don't need to see the odds, why should things be changed just to suit you?

baconONtoast
Joined: 01 Jul 10

Premium charge is a tax on the more successful, subsidising the incompetent masses. I suppose that's why you're so happy with it, like a benefit scrounger.

Nonsense, most of the more successful users don't pay it.

Note also you can put up a bet of any size without spooking the market away from you (all or part unmatched bets just fall through to the next auction unless cancelled). This would result in an increase in liquidity.

Feck N. Eejit Joined: 10 Jan 02
Replies: 1777 19 Aug 10 09:45 
ijs, OK Mazza Sad

Why would winning gamblers want efficient markets Investor? All visibility does is feed copycats, middlemen and spoofers. Volatility and the first come first served rule hampers liquidity. As for leisure punters not understanding it Laugh, what's to understand? It would make the interface so much simpler. Obviously a lot of people wouldn't like it because it would be the end of their careers.

Of course winning gamblers (or traders for that matter) don't want efficient markets, as that would mean it would be impossible to make money with skill (only luck). I was talking from Betfair's point of view.

The profits generated on Betfair are effectively split between Betfair and its profitable customers. The more efficient the markets are, the larger the proportion of the profit that goes to Betfair relative to winning punters.

It would immediately stop a large proportion of the use base operating and then the punters would drift away because the prices would not be so good.

catfloppo, The only ones it would stop would be the ones that don't matter.

Investor, a tote would be even more efficient. Do you think that would maximise betfair's commission or liquidity? Betfair don't seem too bothered about the massive inefficiencies in the ir markets and some of them are even betfair given.

Presumably you don't know why though catfloppo.

Why do you think a tote would be more efficient? The fact that someone like Alan Woods was able to make £tens of millions despite an 18% rake, suggests that it is nowhere near as efficiently priced as on a betting exchange with decent liquidity.

It's patently obvious that if you remove a large number of users from the site liquidity will be dramatically reduced. The reason betfair encourage bots is because they flood the markets with cash, more bets are matched and they consequently make more money.  Just because you disapprove morally of the users you wish to see excluded from the site doesn't mean they don't contribute to its success.

Investor, I don't think betfair markets are that efficient (on horse racing at least). Racing in this country is so corrupt though that the same money going into a pool would have to be more efficient.

Ok, perhaps that's true, but it definitely would be less efficient for football and other sports where the effects of fixing and other forms of cheating are much less noticeable.

I disapprove of cheating catfloppo (although I've also said I don't blame them for doing it) but I'd hardly say calling traders parasitic middlemen equates to moral disapproval (at least they don't expect the government to bail them out if they hit a losing streak). On the other hand I do disapprove morally of betfair's accomodation of cheating in the name of liquidity. It will come back to haunt them one day.

Ignoring the cheating, there are too many people making money out of sports they don't have a clue about and I don't see how anyone who requires the queue to be visible to operate would be supplying liquidity that wouldn't be there anyway were the site to operate in auction fashion.

I suspect that the auctions would price-find w/out much money changing hands, just the same as the early market leapfrog.

I hold out more hope for a series of frozen tote pools w/ advertised prices and a decreasing takeout as the pools got nearer to the event.

How long before the people on the wrong side of feck's bets learn they shd wait until nearer the off?

Ignoring the cheating, there are too many people making money out of sports they don't have a clue about and I don't see how anyone who requires the queue to be visible to operate would be supplying liquidity that wouldn't be there anyway were the site to operate in auction fashion.

Are you saying that someone that makes money in this way doesn't supply liquidity?

Feck N. Eejit Joined: 10 Jan 02 
I'd hardly say calling traders parasitic middlemen equates to moral disapproval

LOL

Ignoring the cheating, there are too many people making money out of sports they don't have a clue about and I don't see how anyone who requires the queue to be visible to operate would be supplying liquidity that wouldn't be there anyway were the site to operate in auction fashion.

I have a bot.  It looks at the bet queue and places bets.  Make the queue invisible and it can't place any bets. Reduction in liquidity.

I have a bot.  It looks at the bet queue and places bets.  Make the queue invisible and it can't place any bets. Reduction in liquidity.

Ticket tout looks at ticket queue, reckons concert will be a sell out, bungs his man on the desk to get him a block of tickets. Sell the tickets online such that he can only guess ticket sales and he can't operate. Reduction in ticket sales? Nah.

Not saying that describes you catfloppo but "my bot places bets and if it didn't there'd be a reduction in liquidity" is deserving of a LOL and well you know it.

Feck....IMO it undoubtedly deters a lot of real liquidity as illustrated by the tumblewwed early markets.

Are you claiming that the reason the majority of punters don't bet at 7am in the morning for the 3:15pm at haydock is because they can see the Queue?

Are you claiming that the reason the majority of punters don't bet at 7am in the morning for the 3:15pm at haydock is because they can see the Queue?

I would've thought the majority of punters don't bet at 7am in the morning (is there another 7am?) because it's 7am.

i m not a lawyer but have met quite a few,the 20 % is a justifiable amount,if you are consistently winning ,then giving betfair 20% is correct,actors/footballers/etc all pay agents commission,betfair have to advertise and pay andy gray 500k a year ,they have to get this money from somewhere.

apparently when gee sun park has the ball at old trafford and the betfair advert is flashed up on the pitch side boards - there is instantly 200k bet within next 1 minute and thats just in korea.

all bots/traders/winners need punters,the winnings must come from somewhere.


the queue is a red herring,they are queuing for profit not for a back/lay,they are in the queue only at that price,which is a price that gives them a profit as they ve already traded,no punter/backer or one off layer queues for a better price - he bets or dosent - all queuers are traders/bots.