General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Seems to be blocking my reply;
I guess the big difference here between hr and others sports where the x matching has been in operation for a few years in as you say the massive spikes and up to 40 runners!!
But if the bot is not skimming and offers best execution, surely the skilled players trying to lay @ 2.0 and is able to get 2.02 from the x matcher backing the others, he/ she will benefit?
I would have thought those affected most will be user skimming bots?
I guess the big difference here between hr and others sports where the x matching has been in operation for a few years in as you say the massive spikes and up to 40 runners!!
But if the bot is not skimming and offers best execution, surely the skilled players trying to lay @ 2.0 and is able to get 2.02 from the x matcher backing the others, he/ she will benefit?
I would have thought those affected most will be user skimming bots?
Show More
jt45 : Not really Trevh
Yes you're right of course jt.
I spotted another today on the Mainz match, where under 2.5 had been matched pre-off at 32.0 for £553. I would imagine that was a horrendous mistake for the layer, showing a liability of £8571.
Yes you're right of course jt.
I spotted another today on the Mainz match, where under 2.5 had been matched pre-off at 32.0 for £553. I would imagine that was a horrendous mistake for the layer, showing a liability of £8571.
Trevh,
It certainly would be if it was a genuine error rather than a transfer (possibly made for the reason given above or as an attempt to avoid the pc).
It's almost impossible for anyone, other than those that have matched the bets and possibly bf, to know what is a genuine error and what is likely to be a transfer. My guess would be that on the majority of occasions when a highly incorrect price is matched for a significant amount pre-off it's likely to be the latter.
It certainly would be if it was a genuine error rather than a transfer (possibly made for the reason given above or as an attempt to avoid the pc).
It's almost impossible for anyone, other than those that have matched the bets and possibly bf, to know what is a genuine error and what is likely to be a transfer. My guess would be that on the majority of occasions when a highly incorrect price is matched for a significant amount pre-off it's likely to be the latter.
The first example that you posted would in many ways be the optimal way of making a transfer between accounts because there is no risk of funds being transferred in the opposite direction to that desired. Despite this, it is likely that some people may attempt to transfer funds between accounts using a variation of the second example that you posted.
One reason for this is that the second method is much more plausible as an error than the first method. I suspect that the first method would be more difficult to explain as an 'error' where it to be detected.
In the second case, if the transfer of funds did go in the opposite direction to that intended then I would imagine that the parties involved would simply try again on another market. The overall cost (commission) may be significantly greater than using the first method if this occurred but those involved may consider that to be a risk to be worth taking.
It is also possible that some of the people that wish to transfer funds between accounts may simply not have considered the 'optimal' method.
** I have used the bets that you posted above to explain how funds could be transferred between accounts using similar methods. I have no reason to assume that the actual bets that you posted were anything other than genuine errors. I believe that any transfers, of the type that I detailed above, are prohibited.
One reason for this is that the second method is much more plausible as an error than the first method. I suspect that the first method would be more difficult to explain as an 'error' where it to be detected.
In the second case, if the transfer of funds did go in the opposite direction to that intended then I would imagine that the parties involved would simply try again on another market. The overall cost (commission) may be significantly greater than using the first method if this occurred but those involved may consider that to be a risk to be worth taking.
It is also possible that some of the people that wish to transfer funds between accounts may simply not have considered the 'optimal' method.
** I have used the bets that you posted above to explain how funds could be transferred between accounts using similar methods. I have no reason to assume that the actual bets that you posted were anything other than genuine errors. I believe that any transfers, of the type that I detailed above, are prohibited.
Another note on prices being matched. Errors appear on a regular basis on betfair all the time. All human, some where a bot has been told by a user to place a bet and a typo leads to mistakes.
Example: Last week on the tennis, the odds on a match were (roughly)
1.35 to back
3.90 to back
as the match went to "in-play"
spikes appeared on both sides with bets on the 3.90 player being matched all the way down to 1.30.
A simple error of telling their bot what to do had them backing starting a match with a heavy back on the underdog.
Several times I have left "keep bets" up that I expected to be touched on to close a position well into a match only to find it matched before the first game was over.
Example: Last week on the tennis, the odds on a match were (roughly)
1.35 to back
3.90 to back
as the match went to "in-play"
spikes appeared on both sides with bets on the 3.90 player being matched all the way down to 1.30.
A simple error of telling their bot what to do had them backing starting a match with a heavy back on the underdog.
Several times I have left "keep bets" up that I expected to be touched on to close a position well into a match only to find it matched before the first game was over.
By the way, stop loss if not properly programmed will cause errors.
example. LAY a player in tennis at 1.50 for 100.
For a stop loss, the proper way is to say if "LAST PRICE" is less than 1.40, take best offer.
I was aware of someone who told me he puts if "BEST OFFER" is below 1.40 to obtain amounts quick. The problem here is when it goes from MARKET to "IN PLAY", if there are no keep bets or the keep bets are below 1.40, the bot jumps into action and closes out the stop loss when it wasn't necessary.
example. LAY a player in tennis at 1.50 for 100.
For a stop loss, the proper way is to say if "LAST PRICE" is less than 1.40, take best offer.
I was aware of someone who told me he puts if "BEST OFFER" is below 1.40 to obtain amounts quick. The problem here is when it goes from MARKET to "IN PLAY", if there are no keep bets or the keep bets are below 1.40, the bot jumps into action and closes out the stop loss when it wasn't necessary.
I'm curious to know how people are getting on post-change. It's pretty obvious that the cross-matcher is having a dramatic affect on the markets with far fewer value bets on offer, most notably much less money being matched at short prices. Anyone looking to lay short - which previously was far and away the best game in town must be suffering. I certainly am.
We still need to see how this beds in but for me it looks like meaning a major shift in strategy, taking much smaller margins and using more brute force- which is a shame.
We still need to see how this beds in but for me it looks like meaning a major shift in strategy, taking much smaller margins and using more brute force- which is a shame.
Shapeshifter
If you're referring to the first point on Berdych Roddick last week, it was another one of my blunders. I have my software set up now so that I only bet on the favourite. The only possible weakness is if I idiotically set it up wrong initially and then I will bet the wrong side once, as in this case. I requested 10k at 1.35 I think but on Berdych rather than Roddick. The most annoying thing about this kind of mistake is it needs nearly 30k in the market backing Roddick to stop it crashing through the other side. In this case it did and someone got filled at 1.36 Berdych (for the last 1297). It really is pretty pathetic though that an interface lets you do this when in a two runner market only one ladder is sufficient.
The one consolation I guess is that at least it is the market that benefits on a misclick on a two runner market, rather than Betfair.
If you're referring to the first point on Berdych Roddick last week, it was another one of my blunders. I have my software set up now so that I only bet on the favourite. The only possible weakness is if I idiotically set it up wrong initially and then I will bet the wrong side once, as in this case. I requested 10k at 1.35 I think but on Berdych rather than Roddick. The most annoying thing about this kind of mistake is it needs nearly 30k in the market backing Roddick to stop it crashing through the other side. In this case it did and someone got filled at 1.36 Berdych (for the last 1297). It really is pretty pathetic though that an interface lets you do this when in a two runner market only one ladder is sufficient.
The one consolation I guess is that at least it is the market that benefits on a misclick on a two runner market, rather than Betfair.
For some reason the cross-matching was turned off in a lot of the tennis matches last week. Not sure about the Berdych Roddick match.
Bayes, nice to put a face to that 
I looked back and had a lay on Roddick, thus why I was monitoring the match.
As one that has done similar, I felt for you and I remember thinking that someone would be busy on the trading to minimize the impact!
I had a small error this weekend. On Saturday, I had a 7 match / 5 folds O/U multiple set up to hedge. The sixth had just come in and the last match was Marseilles who I had pegged for unders. With (empty) glass of wine in hand and being up 2-0 at half time, I decided to hedge a bit since the afternoon had produced a small red on the day. The bet would bring in 9/1 with 15% already in the bank with the 6. I hedged 50% to overs, called it a day, then off to the neighbors for an evening of wine and chat.
Around ten minutes later, the light bulb went on and I realized I had laid the overs instead of unders. Out their door and back to ours and onto the lap top to trade and re-lay, I did the math and entered the bets....8 seconds....7....6...5...4..3..2....market suspended....you guessed it.....3-0.
hmmm, so dented my returns making the bottle of wine shared earlier just that much more expensive
Only saving was that lays on Madrid, Juventus and Sevilla all came in during the evening.
I looked back and had a lay on Roddick, thus why I was monitoring the match.
As one that has done similar, I felt for you and I remember thinking that someone would be busy on the trading to minimize the impact!
I had a small error this weekend. On Saturday, I had a 7 match / 5 folds O/U multiple set up to hedge. The sixth had just come in and the last match was Marseilles who I had pegged for unders. With (empty) glass of wine in hand and being up 2-0 at half time, I decided to hedge a bit since the afternoon had produced a small red on the day. The bet would bring in 9/1 with 15% already in the bank with the 6. I hedged 50% to overs, called it a day, then off to the neighbors for an evening of wine and chat.
Around ten minutes later, the light bulb went on and I realized I had laid the overs instead of unders. Out their door and back to ours and onto the lap top to trade and re-lay, I did the math and entered the bets....8 seconds....7....6...5...4..3..2....market suspended....you guessed it.....3-0.
hmmm, so dented my returns making the bottle of wine shared earlier just that much more expensive
Only saving was that lays on Madrid, Juventus and Sevilla all came in during the evening.
Yes, I'm afraid mistakes are just an occupational hazard. I have taken steps to avoid them but sometimes I just can't legislate for my own stupidity. An option along the lines described earlier in the thread would have saved me 2.5k, however.
aye robot
Date Joined: 17 Jan 08
Add contact | Send message
When: 26 Nov 10 13:46
this will really drain the pool and will have an adverse effect on any winning IR player.
This is the bottom line, the cross matcher helps losers but it never helps winners.
I agree, but with some caveats: The loser can lose out due to cross matching. This happens due to his bet getting matched at silly odds, that he might otherwise have time to cancel.
The winner can be better off due to seeing more of his bets getting matched.
Date Joined: 17 Jan 08
Add contact | Send message
When: 26 Nov 10 13:46
this will really drain the pool and will have an adverse effect on any winning IR player.
This is the bottom line, the cross matcher helps losers but it never helps winners.
I agree, but with some caveats: The loser can lose out due to cross matching. This happens due to his bet getting matched at silly odds, that he might otherwise have time to cancel.
The winner can be better off due to seeing more of his bets getting matched.
It might help you out on some individual bets but overall it means there are fewer value prices to be had as the market is regulated closer to "true" value. This is bad for all winners.
This is bad for all winners
Can't agree with that one. (I'm not a fan of x-matching either)
If I put up a bet at 7.0 when going rate is 6.8 and I want it matched and wouldn't have been matched previously, it's a good thing if I now do get matched.
In thin markets you'd sometimes put in a bet at 7.0 and accidentally get matched at 7.4 or something as the price moved, this now doesn't happen, but markets that thin are pretty rare.
Of course, most of us have been dealing with this for about a year anyway now so the plusses and minuses are second nature.
Can't agree with that one. (I'm not a fan of x-matching either)
If I put up a bet at 7.0 when going rate is 6.8 and I want it matched and wouldn't have been matched previously, it's a good thing if I now do get matched.
In thin markets you'd sometimes put in a bet at 7.0 and accidentally get matched at 7.4 or something as the price moved, this now doesn't happen, but markets that thin are pretty rare.
Of course, most of us have been dealing with this for about a year anyway now so the plusses and minuses are second nature.
I've also found it pretty good when market making in various events.
*Against that, and it's a big against, is the money being sucked out of the system straight to betfair. For me this overshadows everything else.
I think for the most part though it just helps losers lose faster
I think for the most part though it just helps losers lose faster
aye robot
Date Joined: 17 Jan 08
Add contact | Send message
When: 29 Nov 10 17:16
It might help you out on some individual bets but overall it means there are fewer value prices to be had as the market is regulated closer to "true" value. This is bad for all winners.
Not if the market being regulated closer to true value leads to a significantly higher proportion of bets being matched for low margin operators. They will be better off. To use an example, my profits increased when cross matching was introduced on over/under markets in football. As my bank has grown, I tend to put prices up on both sides now though, to avoid betfair shaving off my profit. I'll put 34 up before I put up 1.03 on the other side and tend to get matched on both sides.
Someone with a smaller bank, who chooses only to put a back at 1.03 up will get matched when someone tries to back the inverse at 34 too, so they will be better off. At some stage, it no longer makes sense for winners to give betfair a voluntary handout where this can be avoided though.
Date Joined: 17 Jan 08
Add contact | Send message
When: 29 Nov 10 17:16
It might help you out on some individual bets but overall it means there are fewer value prices to be had as the market is regulated closer to "true" value. This is bad for all winners.
Not if the market being regulated closer to true value leads to a significantly higher proportion of bets being matched for low margin operators. They will be better off. To use an example, my profits increased when cross matching was introduced on over/under markets in football. As my bank has grown, I tend to put prices up on both sides now though, to avoid betfair shaving off my profit. I'll put 34 up before I put up 1.03 on the other side and tend to get matched on both sides.
Someone with a smaller bank, who chooses only to put a back at 1.03 up will get matched when someone tries to back the inverse at 34 too, so they will be better off. At some stage, it no longer makes sense for winners to give betfair a voluntary handout where this can be avoided though.
Another example of where the arbitrary two ladder for two runners system is a pain in the backside. Surely Betangel or the like should offer to do this job for us - ie. have a checkbox which will offer both the bet submitted and the other side at the nearest reciprocal price for x% of the stake.
Btw Investor, the two runner cross matching generates buttons for Betfair compared to the multi-runner version.
Btw Investor, the two runner cross matching generates buttons for Betfair compared to the multi-runner version.
Bayes,
The site will be of no use at all to you due to the sports concerned and lack of liquidity, but you may find MB (The american exchange) interesting to look at for how they present their single line.
(I like it because it takes away the argument of "punters don't understand" , as it's still exactly the same thing as far as they're concerned)
The site will be of no use at all to you due to the sports concerned and lack of liquidity, but you may find MB (The american exchange) interesting to look at for how they present their single line.
(I like it because it takes away the argument of "punters don't understand" , as it's still exactly the same thing as far as they're concerned)
Pre-play racing cross-matching trial
Betfair Customer Services
Following the successful launch of cross-matching on in-play racing markets, there will be a trial of cross-matching on pre-play racing markets.
On Tuesday 30th November, cross-matching will be turned on in all of the win markets at Lingfield Park. It will be switched on at around 8am and should remain on until the end of the race.
We don’t expect customers to notice any material difference in the way the markets operate at Lingfield Park.
Must be coining it in from the IR that they're happy to take a chance on the non runners
Betfair Customer Services
Following the successful launch of cross-matching on in-play racing markets, there will be a trial of cross-matching on pre-play racing markets.
On Tuesday 30th November, cross-matching will be turned on in all of the win markets at Lingfield Park. It will be switched on at around 8am and should remain on until the end of the race.
We don’t expect customers to notice any material difference in the way the markets operate at Lingfield Park.
Must be coining it in from the IR that they're happy to take a chance on the non runners
To me, market clearance is not such a great benefit when you're not getting best execution.
It seems v. likely to be IT strategies that take advantage of people 'reaching down' precipitately like aye robot's are really going to suffer.
Which is more likely? Is it pricing anomalies cropping up in a single sub-market or anomalies across a spread of twenty or so correlated individual markets? It's obviously the first; and if you're trying to exploit split-second pricing anomalies on single runners, with cross-matching you want the market to be as little broad as possible.
But then yr depth on any individual runner is yr breadth on all runners bar that particular set of lays. In this way bf clean up by piggybacking on the successful strategies of the winning bot layers.
It seems v. likely to be IT strategies that take advantage of people 'reaching down' precipitately like aye robot's are really going to suffer.
Which is more likely? Is it pricing anomalies cropping up in a single sub-market or anomalies across a spread of twenty or so correlated individual markets? It's obviously the first; and if you're trying to exploit split-second pricing anomalies on single runners, with cross-matching you want the market to be as little broad as possible.
But then yr depth on any individual runner is yr breadth on all runners bar that particular set of lays. In this way bf clean up by piggybacking on the successful strategies of the winning bot layers.
*it seems likely to _me_ that botted IR lay bets will suffer
Just had three different pairs of 2 quid backs at even money on the same account in a football match and it matches each of my pairs of backs against each other and free rolls on the third selection. Cost me 4 quid all round red and I know this is a technicality but is this entirely legal? You could argue that its the same as phoning up a bookie and asking to back all three selections in a football match but surely this highlights what an earner this can be for Betfair.
IR horse players who dislike the apparent freerolling are in a difficult position. If they leave up 'keep bets' to restrict the size of bf's free bet / potential win, then they will be offering value and often suffering outright losses on non-starters.
The most likely cases of bf getting 'one against the field' on the horses wd seem to be immediately after market unsuspend and then in the closing stages.
I wonder what big liquidity providers like Betting Promotion have said to bf about the multi-runner cross-matching.
The most likely cases of bf getting 'one against the field' on the horses wd seem to be immediately after market unsuspend and then in the closing stages.
I wonder what big liquidity providers like Betting Promotion have said to bf about the multi-runner cross-matching.
It's not 'one against the field', it's the field against two. Betfair are essentially freerolling every time two backs cross match and are essentially going to gain massively from every back at short odds that wipes the other side.
It will hurt everyone where Betfair get 'free money' by cross-matching. e.g. they accommodate a back of horse A by cross-matching with other customers' backs of horses B and C. Horse D goes on to win => Betfair get all the winnings.
This takes more money out of the pool of players. Betfair profit, customers lose. Doesn't really matter what strategy or technique you are using for betting, the fact is that users will lose more money to Betfair and so they will have less money to lose to other customers!
This takes more money out of the pool of players. Betfair profit, customers lose. Doesn't really matter what strategy or technique you are using for betting, the fact is that users will lose more money to Betfair and so they will have less money to lose to other customers!
If Betfair really wanted to do true 'best execution' bet matching, then if they convert your back bet of horse A into a lay of horses B,C and D, they should pay you out at the true profits of your cross-matched bets, rather than pocketting the difference for themselves.
Meant to post some "in-running" comments today since only one track.
First, the spikes were pretty incredible, especially when the leader, win or lose, went sub 1.80.
Someone mentioned that because of the "speed" of the x-matching, the opportunity to cancel isn't there. The spikes between Taste Of Win in the 14:10 wavered between 250 and 300+ and sub 2.0 while it looked like Private Equity and Kings Revenge would battle it out.
I got caught in a x-match. I laid to trade Urban Kode 11 to 13 when there was a gap (around 4 furlongs left). Put the 11 up then watched as 11.5 and 12's on the lay went up so didn't place the 13 and went to cancel the lay and move on . Then a few pence got matched on my 11 while the odds looked like they were moving out so didn't realize why my figures jigged on the race. Over two seconds, I watched the odds move out yet my full 11 got matched then the odds rocketed in.
Overall, I think I can "adapt" but it means:
a) If you are laying, it means that if you put up 4.1 and the best ask is 5.0, you can get 'snipered' from all directions and matched which means staying on the ball.
b) If you are asking for a back at 5.0 and someone has put up 4.1, the person at 4.1 is less likely to make you a better offer and others will take his money.
It means:
a) both backers and layers will have less time to cancel if their play is on the wrong side.
b) you are more likely to be matched partially and need to react accordingly to trade or green out.
It will work more against traders that, for example, do as I was intending which was a quick "free bet" by doing 11 to 13 in-running on a horse that I felt had potential.
It will work better for those who are using knowledge to position. For example, an 8/1 chance that has moved into 4/1 early on are my targets for value lays that I rarely trade.
Casual traders with no knowledge on the horses running or the tracks will be hit more on the changes and will find it hard to adapt.
I played 7 races today. 5 made, 2 lost and ended up losing less than a tenner. Normally a 5 and 2 day would have given me a solid green.
I'll be tightening my plays a bit and avoiding 8f or less till I get used to this.
First, the spikes were pretty incredible, especially when the leader, win or lose, went sub 1.80.
Someone mentioned that because of the "speed" of the x-matching, the opportunity to cancel isn't there. The spikes between Taste Of Win in the 14:10 wavered between 250 and 300+ and sub 2.0 while it looked like Private Equity and Kings Revenge would battle it out.
I got caught in a x-match. I laid to trade Urban Kode 11 to 13 when there was a gap (around 4 furlongs left). Put the 11 up then watched as 11.5 and 12's on the lay went up so didn't place the 13 and went to cancel the lay and move on . Then a few pence got matched on my 11 while the odds looked like they were moving out so didn't realize why my figures jigged on the race. Over two seconds, I watched the odds move out yet my full 11 got matched then the odds rocketed in.
Overall, I think I can "adapt" but it means:
a) If you are laying, it means that if you put up 4.1 and the best ask is 5.0, you can get 'snipered' from all directions and matched which means staying on the ball.
b) If you are asking for a back at 5.0 and someone has put up 4.1, the person at 4.1 is less likely to make you a better offer and others will take his money.
It means:
a) both backers and layers will have less time to cancel if their play is on the wrong side.
b) you are more likely to be matched partially and need to react accordingly to trade or green out.
It will work more against traders that, for example, do as I was intending which was a quick "free bet" by doing 11 to 13 in-running on a horse that I felt had potential.
It will work better for those who are using knowledge to position. For example, an 8/1 chance that has moved into 4/1 early on are my targets for value lays that I rarely trade.
Casual traders with no knowledge on the horses running or the tracks will be hit more on the changes and will find it hard to adapt.
I played 7 races today. 5 made, 2 lost and ended up losing less than a tenner. Normally a 5 and 2 day would have given me a solid green.
I'll be tightening my plays a bit and avoiding 8f or less till I get used to this.
I'm not involved in ir horses ever, but this sounds like an absolute goldmine to me. Perhaps Betfair will fill us in on the details in the next Q&A.
As I've said many times before, the cross matching shows the pure hypocrisy of Betfair. The PC was bought in to slow the the flow of funds from the losers to the more sophisticated/winning users of this exchage and to attract new users. What do we have know? We have Betfair skimming no doubt large sums of money from the pool 24/7 that will NEVER be recycled. Before we know it the commission and/or the PC will be increased to strangle the winners even more. Betfair has become a greedy beast.....
I've played every market since the change and every market before it for the last couple of years. In that time I've made a very good living by understanding how the IR markets move, I am an in-running horses specialist - this is my thing so I feel well placed to comment. There is no doubt at all of the impact on the markets despite the fact than many don't seem to be grasping the extent of it or it's implications.
People who think this only affects bots are simply wrong, I will say again (because it's right) that as far as IR horses goes this acts against ALL good players by reducing the number of value bets to be had. The simplest example of how the X matcher takes away value from skilled players is to think about the classic race reading IR short layer:
Your IR layer depends on backers getting over the top when a horse is looking good, previously all the backers would pile in with a ridiculous price over-ride and push the price down by taking all the keep bets until the selection became value to lay, then the layer moved in and scooped the lot of them. The backers lost because they got over excited, the layer won because he was smart, everyone got what they deserved.
Now the situation is different though because now when the backers start clicking 1.01 for a horse that should be 2 the X matcher matches them against other backers,the keep bets are not taken, the price is not pushed in so far and the layer doesn't get his chance. So the dumb ass 1.01 clickers get true value (ish) for their bets and lose at the rate of their comm, whilst your smart race reading layer doesn't even get a look in. In this way the X matcher works against skill to even out the playing field for poor players. When you think through any example of how a good player operates you see that the X matcher works against him. Whenever you make a poor value offer the X matcher helps you out by getting you a better price, whenever you make a good value offer the X matcher works against you by matching your potential counter party against someone else. Good for losers, bad for winners - period.
Bayes is absolutely right when he says that BF make a killing every time they cross match 2 backs for a 100% book and then watch something else win. I'm quite certain that if I were able to do this with zero delay (as the X matcher does I'd make at least 50-100K a day, possibly much more. The extra comm generated by forcing people to bet closer to true value is likely be worth much more besides (although I'm not well placed to estimate this).
This is an excellent move from Betfair, it helps their good customers (the losers), works against their bad customers (winners) and will massively boost their profits. The only mystery id why they didn't do it ages ago.
Personally I'm taking a big hit from it right now but I'll survive, I'm quickly adapting and I expect to be winning at similar levels to before they brought it in within a couple of months. That doesn't mean it's good news though, this will simply spell the end for many good players.
People who think this only affects bots are simply wrong, I will say again (because it's right) that as far as IR horses goes this acts against ALL good players by reducing the number of value bets to be had. The simplest example of how the X matcher takes away value from skilled players is to think about the classic race reading IR short layer:
Your IR layer depends on backers getting over the top when a horse is looking good, previously all the backers would pile in with a ridiculous price over-ride and push the price down by taking all the keep bets until the selection became value to lay, then the layer moved in and scooped the lot of them. The backers lost because they got over excited, the layer won because he was smart, everyone got what they deserved.
Now the situation is different though because now when the backers start clicking 1.01 for a horse that should be 2 the X matcher matches them against other backers,the keep bets are not taken, the price is not pushed in so far and the layer doesn't get his chance. So the dumb ass 1.01 clickers get true value (ish) for their bets and lose at the rate of their comm, whilst your smart race reading layer doesn't even get a look in. In this way the X matcher works against skill to even out the playing field for poor players. When you think through any example of how a good player operates you see that the X matcher works against him. Whenever you make a poor value offer the X matcher helps you out by getting you a better price, whenever you make a good value offer the X matcher works against you by matching your potential counter party against someone else. Good for losers, bad for winners - period.
Bayes is absolutely right when he says that BF make a killing every time they cross match 2 backs for a 100% book and then watch something else win. I'm quite certain that if I were able to do this with zero delay (as the X matcher does I'd make at least 50-100K a day, possibly much more. The extra comm generated by forcing people to bet closer to true value is likely be worth much more besides (although I'm not well placed to estimate this).
This is an excellent move from Betfair, it helps their good customers (the losers), works against their bad customers (winners) and will massively boost their profits. The only mystery id why they didn't do it ages ago.
Personally I'm taking a big hit from it right now but I'll survive, I'm quickly adapting and I expect to be winning at similar levels to before they brought it in within a couple of months. That doesn't mean it's good news though, this will simply spell the end for many good players.
robot
good summation of how BF have taken your 'action'
cant see how you get it back without a total new strategy
good summation of how BF have taken your 'action'
cant see how you get it back without a total new strategy
That's why I've got a new strategy [;)]
It's not pretty though.
It's not pretty though.
Bayes, I know it might be buttons, but if they take £3 off me for every £10k I am staking, that works out to about £300 a month. That represents a non-neglible amount of money for me!
My estimate is that they are actually making about £100 a month off me due to cross matching, because I keep the rest in my pocket by seeding both sides (which isn't the best imaginable use of funds).
I wonder if Betfair would be better off by feeding the proceeds back into the market as purple does. It would certainly increase efficiency, but whether the net effect for Betfair is positive I don't know. It's fairly obvious the exchange would function better though.
My estimate is that they are actually making about £100 a month off me due to cross matching, because I keep the rest in my pocket by seeding both sides (which isn't the best imaginable use of funds).
I wonder if Betfair would be better off by feeding the proceeds back into the market as purple does. It would certainly increase efficiency, but whether the net effect for Betfair is positive I don't know. It's fairly obvious the exchange would function better though.
Now the situation is different though because now when the backers start clicking 1.01 for a horse that should be 2 the X matcher matches them against other backers,
Why aren't people laying the other selections? Are the horse racing markets really that unsophisticated compared to the rest of the site?
If someone's backing 1.05 in error, surely they're laying other selections to a total of about 21s in error too?
Even before the skimmer was turned on in other markets, the overrounds rarely went much below 99.5 or so and even then not for long. Surely horse racing isn't that much different?
Why aren't people laying the other selections? Are the horse racing markets really that unsophisticated compared to the rest of the site?
If someone's backing 1.05 in error, surely they're laying other selections to a total of about 21s in error too?
Even before the skimmer was turned on in other markets, the overrounds rarely went much below 99.5 or so and even then not for long. Surely horse racing isn't that much different?
Actually, I don't disbelieve you, so it clearly is/was that much different.
Lori Joined: 20 Apr 04
Replies: 25333 30 Nov 10 03:22
Now the situation is different though because now when the backers start clicking 1.01 for a horse that should be 2 the X matcher matches them against other backers,
Why aren't people laying the other selections? Are the horse racing markets really that unsophisticated compared to the rest of the site?
If someone's backing 1.05 in error, surely they're laying other selections to a total of about 21s in error too?
Even before the skimmer was turned on in other markets, the overrounds rarely went much below 99.5 or so and even then not for long. Surely horse racing isn't that much different?
it's not. If you could make a profit before, there's nor real reason to think you can't do so now.
Replies: 25333 30 Nov 10 03:22
Now the situation is different though because now when the backers start clicking 1.01 for a horse that should be 2 the X matcher matches them against other backers,
Why aren't people laying the other selections? Are the horse racing markets really that unsophisticated compared to the rest of the site?
If someone's backing 1.05 in error, surely they're laying other selections to a total of about 21s in error too?
Even before the skimmer was turned on in other markets, the overrounds rarely went much below 99.5 or so and even then not for long. Surely horse racing isn't that much different?
it's not. If you could make a profit before, there's nor real reason to think you can't do so now.
Even before the skimmer was turned on in other markets, the overrounds rarely went much below 99.5 or so and even then not for long. Surely horse racing isn't that much different?
It is - massively different. Things happen so fast in IR horses that the market just can't keep up. Market over-rounds of 140% were common (if brief). Almost every race would go 130% at some point.
Why aren't people laying the other selections? Are the horse racing markets really that unsophisticated compared to the rest of the site?
Put simply - yes. It's always been a strong phenomena in horse racing that selections get backed in absurdly quickly without the rest of the market keeping up. Until the x matcher this was the best game in town for any sort of player, whether he uses pictures, bots or whatever. I think it's just easier for "click and hopers" to look for one winner rather than several losers. Also I think people are uncomfortable using price over-rides for laying as they fear laying something at 1000 if they put too much money in- which could well happen.
It is - massively different. Things happen so fast in IR horses that the market just can't keep up. Market over-rounds of 140% were common (if brief). Almost every race would go 130% at some point.
Why aren't people laying the other selections? Are the horse racing markets really that unsophisticated compared to the rest of the site?
Put simply - yes. It's always been a strong phenomena in horse racing that selections get backed in absurdly quickly without the rest of the market keeping up. Until the x matcher this was the best game in town for any sort of player, whether he uses pictures, bots or whatever. I think it's just easier for "click and hopers" to look for one winner rather than several losers. Also I think people are uncomfortable using price over-rides for laying as they fear laying something at 1000 if they put too much money in- which could well happen.
Investor:
I did say it was buttons compared to the multi-runner version. Any skim is a bad skim.
At least the two runner cross matching can be partially avoided (not always because you can't always know which side to submit first).
I did say it was buttons compared to the multi-runner version. Any skim is a bad skim.
At least the two runner cross matching can be partially avoided (not always because you can't always know which side to submit first).
aye robot, I am not doubting your obvious knowledge of ir horse racing markets but.... History has shown us the fast pic players are the first to complain when something starts to affect their bottom line. There has been no squealing on the forums after one week which we would have normally expected?
Muqbil,
I agree that this is what you would expect and I do find it strange that there isn't more complaining. To me it's entirely transparent that there is less value now on offer but I wonder whether this is less evident to many "normal" players, whether using fast pictures or not because they perhaps have less of a sense of what might have been and because they focus on individual races they may have a poorer sense of the broader picture. If you're watching races and clicking prices everything probably looks fine - in some ways it may look better because more of what you click is available. If you take empirical measures over the long term though the picture will look very different. For example after a month or two ask what the average over-round was on the back side, or what was the average maximum price matched on the winner in running and you'll see a different story. There haven't been many races since the change because of the weather, but in those that there have been there has been very much less money matched and lost at short prices than you would expect. This may just be coincidence, but to me it does look like it's the effect of the X matcher. It's also exactly the effect that you would expect it to have.
Ultimately most people won't complain because it will benefit them - if you are a net loser then the x matcher is good news for you because it removes much of the skill from IR betting and makes it more of a game of chance. Of course it's not good news if you ever plan to become a winner but that won't effect most people. I do tend toward the view that many of the "fast picture players" are not all they're cracked up to be, frankly I think there are a lot of fast picture losers who won't ever be complaining about the x matcher.
Some people may think that the X matcher may benefit fast picture players because if they really are miles ahead of the market it could help them to get more money on. If you're trying to get a wedge on without pushing the market down the x matcher will help. This flawed logic though, because although the X matcher will help you get on at true value by the same token it will prevent you from getting out again because the price line isn't driven down to such good lay value. In a month or so many good IR players- particularly those who specialise in short or long prices will be looking at their P&L and wondering what's gone wrong. Whether or not they'll blame the x-matcher rather than (say) track-siders or some mythic "raw feed" that they haven't got remains to be seen.
I agree that this is what you would expect and I do find it strange that there isn't more complaining. To me it's entirely transparent that there is less value now on offer but I wonder whether this is less evident to many "normal" players, whether using fast pictures or not because they perhaps have less of a sense of what might have been and because they focus on individual races they may have a poorer sense of the broader picture. If you're watching races and clicking prices everything probably looks fine - in some ways it may look better because more of what you click is available. If you take empirical measures over the long term though the picture will look very different. For example after a month or two ask what the average over-round was on the back side, or what was the average maximum price matched on the winner in running and you'll see a different story. There haven't been many races since the change because of the weather, but in those that there have been there has been very much less money matched and lost at short prices than you would expect. This may just be coincidence, but to me it does look like it's the effect of the X matcher. It's also exactly the effect that you would expect it to have.
Ultimately most people won't complain because it will benefit them - if you are a net loser then the x matcher is good news for you because it removes much of the skill from IR betting and makes it more of a game of chance. Of course it's not good news if you ever plan to become a winner but that won't effect most people. I do tend toward the view that many of the "fast picture players" are not all they're cracked up to be, frankly I think there are a lot of fast picture losers who won't ever be complaining about the x matcher.
Some people may think that the X matcher may benefit fast picture players because if they really are miles ahead of the market it could help them to get more money on. If you're trying to get a wedge on without pushing the market down the x matcher will help. This flawed logic though, because although the X matcher will help you get on at true value by the same token it will prevent you from getting out again because the price line isn't driven down to such good lay value. In a month or so many good IR players- particularly those who specialise in short or long prices will be looking at their P&L and wondering what's gone wrong. Whether or not they'll blame the x-matcher rather than (say) track-siders or some mythic "raw feed" that they haven't got remains to be seen.
Although I agree any skim is bad skim. Also its against p2p betting idea, but
Isnt it just the case of a better player has entered the market which could have happened without announcement at any point anyway? Those affected at least can dip the toe in the water.
Isnt it just the case of a better player has entered the market which could have happened without announcement at any point anyway? Those affected at least can dip the toe in the water.
It's bound to take a while before the full impact is seen, especially with so little racing on at the moment. For Betfair now's the perfect time to sneak in the pre race version in the hope evryone looks for another excuse why their pnl is lower.
You also need to remember that because of the way the x matcher works all of the actual matches will be done 'off screen' so to speak so for most people things will appear to be business as usual.
You also need to remember that because of the way the x matcher works all of the actual matches will be done 'off screen' so to speak so for most people things will appear to be business as usual.
A lot of these points were raised originally, I think that other than pure horse racing players, we've all moved on now (hence the lack of complaining) -it does seem that if overrounds get that out of line that it'll hurt the HR players more though. Maybe if they'd complained with the rest of us... betfair have a huge history of listening.... oh wait.
As to brendan's point, the better player has no clock, that's the real bad part of it.
As to brendan's point, the better player has no clock, that's the real bad part of it.
You also need to remember that because of the way the x matcher works all of the actual matches will be done 'off screen' so to speak so for most people things will appear to be business as usual.
Yes for those affected I might be good idea to take a break, smell the roses, think about the future. Currently in Ireland atm, and things are going tits up here. Dont get sucked in by ego and think you can beat it, as all the data you have will be before this was implemented and that itself will carry extra risk
Yes for those affected I might be good idea to take a break, smell the roses, think about the future. Currently in Ireland atm, and things are going tits up here. Dont get sucked in by ego and think you can beat it, as all the data you have will be before this was implemented and that itself will carry extra risk
I'd like to re-state that although this is bad for me, I don't object. I'm stating the problems because people are raising questions and because I'd like to discuss it, but if this comes across as complaining then please forgive me, I'm not complaining.
Ultimately I agree with Brendan that what we're facing is a better player- or a player who has a colossal advantage at any rate. Ultimately it's Betfair's exchange and they can rig it any way they like as long as they're transparent about it - which they have been. I entirely understand why they've done this and I would definitely do the same (and much more besides) in their shoes. I've been dining out on Betfair for a couple of years now and it's been fantastic. I intend to do the same for some time to come but if it does end for any reason then that's life and I don't intend to b1tch about it.
Ultimately I agree with Brendan that what we're facing is a better player- or a player who has a colossal advantage at any rate. Ultimately it's Betfair's exchange and they can rig it any way they like as long as they're transparent about it - which they have been. I entirely understand why they've done this and I would definitely do the same (and much more besides) in their shoes. I've been dining out on Betfair for a couple of years now and it's been fantastic. I intend to do the same for some time to come but if it does end for any reason then that's life and I don't intend to b1tch about it.
Dont get sucked in by ego and think you can beat it, as all the data you have will be before this was implemented and that itself will carry extra risk
Again, I agree with Brendan. I'm currently doing about 10% of my usual volume whilst I work out what's happening. I am winning so I'll be gradually scaling up as I adapt but I'll be doing it with great caution and I'd recommend anyone else to do the same. It's important to avoid "gain" psychology, when you're winning scale up slowly, if you're losing keep scaling down steadily for as long as you keep losing until you can't scale down any more, at that point you admit defeat and stop. The other way round leads to ruin.
Again, I agree with Brendan. I'm currently doing about 10% of my usual volume whilst I work out what's happening. I am winning so I'll be gradually scaling up as I adapt but I'll be doing it with great caution and I'd recommend anyone else to do the same. It's important to avoid "gain" psychology, when you're winning scale up slowly, if you're losing keep scaling down steadily for as long as you keep losing until you can't scale down any more, at that point you admit defeat and stop. The other way round leads to ruin.
Maybe you should take that halo off once in a while aye robot. Sure it's betfairs exchange and sure we'd all do something similar if we owned it. Doesn't mean it's right though, basically we now have betfair seeding their own markets with our bets without passing on any of the real benefits x matching should bring the users betting on here.
as long as they're transparent about it - which they have been
Um, only after being caught!
Um, only after being caught!
GJ- I just don't want to be a winger. We all know the rules and choose whether to play or not.
I think that other than pure horse racing players, we've all moved on now
Where have you gone Lori? I am thinking of moving on and getting a job [:o]
Where have you gone Lori? I am thinking of moving on and getting a job [:o]
haha brendan.
I mean moved on from whining about it (much) and accepted that profits have taken a hit and learned to deal with it... unlike the PC which is still an ongoing concern.
I mean moved on from whining about it (much) and accepted that profits have taken a hit and learned to deal with it... unlike the PC which is still an ongoing concern.
ok cool i thought there was some secret exchange somewhere where all the shrewdies are hanging out 
Aye robot, complaining and whingeing aren't necessarily the same thing. People on here will make snap judgements about everyones motives so it's really not worth the effort trying to convince them otherwise.
Did the rapid increase in numbers of oncourse players improve your overall p/l, ay robot?
btw, thanks for the detailed earlier reply. Makes sense.
btw, thanks for the detailed earlier reply. Makes sense.
Muqbil
History has shown us the fast pic players are the first to complain when something starts to affect their bottom line.
although bf are the big rakers of this change - the fast pic gang will get better bet execution than before. No way will bf look to level the pic playing field - they have shareholders to look after !!
History has shown us the fast pic players are the first to complain when something starts to affect their bottom line.
although bf are the big rakers of this change - the fast pic gang will get better bet execution than before. No way will bf look to level the pic playing field - they have shareholders to look after !!
The fast pic gang will not be better off. Every mistake they make backing at odds too short gives Betfair a freeroll. When they get it right they may get a bit extra, but when they get it wrong they may well be giving the lot to Betfair.
the times they get it right to the times they get it wrong - will overall increase their profit
Betfair win, losers lose more slowly and now winners win more. Afraid that does not compute.
BF win major part - fast pic (low margin) players win slightly more than normal - the total of this is what the bot layer (that robot describes) loses as a result of this change - now that computes
Never done horse racing but in football the margins were slashed, then when everyone adjusts the margins get very very tight, so tight that apart from the very good players you might aswell be gambling having a punt as most even better than average players then move into mug territory in comparison (plus commision plus PC) All in my opinion of course.
Maybe thats the idea eventually betfair will be dealing with a handful of people/companies and the PC issue can be dealt face to face.
Maybe thats the idea eventually betfair will be dealing with a handful of people/companies and the PC issue can be dealt face to face.
When was cross matching in football introduced?
It was while ago dont know when. Problably at same time as wiljons thread would imagine. will have a look
wiljons actual example in his first post is Match Odds - Football
Again from wiljons thread
the percentage on the back side read 102.9
the percentage on the lay side read 95.7
[:)][smiley:crazy][:(]
You havent seen a spread like that anytime recently on any footy game of note, Man U tonight its 100.7 - 99.3
the percentage on the back side read 102.9
the percentage on the lay side read 95.7
[:)][smiley:crazy][:(]
You havent seen a spread like that anytime recently on any footy game of note, Man U tonight its 100.7 - 99.3
I see, thanks. So it was here before I started betting here.
I don't usually bet in Match Odds but find plenty of large spreads elsewhere.
I don't usually bet in Match Odds but find plenty of large spreads elsewhere.
So i take it that we have all finally agreed that this is a good thing
If you cant price the market within a few precent ie a regular punter have to admit its a good thing for them. Since money goes round longer betfair take more + the skim bit, so good for them
For the handful of very good players not 100% sure they arent hedging from elsewhere anyway. The "middle classes" get hit,
There is the swedish company in football and non racing markets, maybe racing will be bit better as they dont have to deal with a very big and very good player already.
all in my opinion, just guessing really, just speculating for fun
For the handful of very good players not 100% sure they arent hedging from elsewhere anyway. The "middle classes" get hit,
There is the swedish company in football and non racing markets, maybe racing will be bit better as they dont have to deal with a very big and very good player already.
all in my opinion, just guessing really, just speculating for fun
the swedish company work on 0.5% margain if anyone doesnt know, They are quite helpful in that they publish accounts
According the the GC's report they started out 18 Feb 2008 , dunno what date they admiited to it though, rocket
http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/gh-media/latest_news/2008/betfair_limited_betfair_and.aspx
Cross matching was introduced without informing customers in advance. BGB made revenues of approximately £300,000 from the inception of cross matching until the end of March 2008.
They made £300K from 18/2/08 to 31/03/08 and I doubt they were live over many markets during that initial period.
http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/gh-media/latest_news/2008/betfair_limited_betfair_and.aspx
Cross matching was introduced without informing customers in advance. BGB made revenues of approximately £300,000 from the inception of cross matching until the end of March 2008.
They made £300K from 18/2/08 to 31/03/08 and I doubt they were live over many markets during that initial period.
Although to be fair it's only entered as revenues not necessarily profit on the x matching
By: Ghetto Joe
Date Joined: 24 Jan 05 Add contact | Send message When: 29 Nov 10 19:53 Pre-play racing cross-matching trial Betfair Customer Services
Following the successful launch of cross-matching on in-play racing markets, there will be a trial of cross-matching on pre-play racing markets.
On Tuesday 30th November, cross-matching will be turned on in all of the win markets at Lingfield Park. It will be switched on at around 8am and should remain on until the end of the race.
We don’t expect customers to notice any material difference in the way the markets operate at Lingfield Park.
There has been no announcement yet whether this was successful or whether this will be going ahead in the future? I assume the non-runner issue isn't that great a problem if they are trialling (don't fully understand implications - I need to put some thought in) but I am not expecting we will get much notice of pending "going live" (for a change lol).
Date Joined: 24 Jan 05 Add contact | Send message When: 29 Nov 10 19:53 Pre-play racing cross-matching trial Betfair Customer Services
Following the successful launch of cross-matching on in-play racing markets, there will be a trial of cross-matching on pre-play racing markets.
On Tuesday 30th November, cross-matching will be turned on in all of the win markets at Lingfield Park. It will be switched on at around 8am and should remain on until the end of the race.
We don’t expect customers to notice any material difference in the way the markets operate at Lingfield Park.
There has been no announcement yet whether this was successful or whether this will be going ahead in the future? I assume the non-runner issue isn't that great a problem if they are trialling (don't fully understand implications - I need to put some thought in) but I am not expecting we will get much notice of pending "going live" (for a change lol).
Having just given this a bit more thought, I can see this as being a small benefit to the majority of punters, including the pro's (for pre-race cross matching) mainly because the majority of the time the books are overround and as such the cross matching isn't initiated. When the books do go underround the service betfair could provide would benefit the positional player's as they are more likely to get a better price (instead of going to the overround/underround bot operators). Perhaps positional players who "ask" for prices could lose out slightly but I'd expect this to be more a case of "swings and roundabouts"? Am happy to be proved wrong, I don't bet as much on the nags as other sports but enough for this to be of concern.
has this cross-matching been done on the horse racing place markets as well? because that would be an even more extreme example of gaps in the prices it seems to me and where betfair would like to increase liquidity.
they will only fill the gaps in if they can match a bet for no loss or nick a fraction on it,then they get commision of the winner as well not bad work if you can get it imo.....
Pre-Play I doubt they make much, few pence here and their ,Markets
are too quiet early on
I think the risk outweighs the reward , Just takes an outsider
to refuse to go into the stalls 0% Reduction & Lay side would have
a big red
Non Runners not in line with the reduction factor could be costly
In-Play must be a massive earner though
are too quiet early on
I think the risk outweighs the reward , Just takes an outsider
to refuse to go into the stalls 0% Reduction & Lay side would have
a big red
Non Runners not in line with the reduction factor could be costly
In-Play must be a massive earner though
I don't bet as much on the nags as other sports but enough for this to be of concern.
All other sports have had the cross matching for months, so you should be used to it!
All other sports have had the cross matching for months, so you should be used to it!
Lori that is true, I am perhaps penny pinching as this is the only sport I bet on which has numerous runners/selections. I.e., The Investor explained earlier (on this thread I think or 100k one?) how he tries to ensure he gets best execution by placing one side of the bet before the other. I do something similar but in markets with more than about 3 possible outcomes it becomes extremely difficult to do that kind of execution if you wish to stake to a certain amount.
I've seen two people say that now, can you direct me to the post where it says it please as I appear to be being rather dumb 
Hi Lori
Its under Australian on the Sports Forum Menu
Its under Australian on the Sports Forum Menu
Thanks al.
Fairly obvious in hindsight, although I'm betting on the Ashes and there's no announcement in cricket OR in service.
Got it now.
Fairly obvious in hindsight, although I'm betting on the Ashes and there's no announcement in cricket OR in service.
Got it now.
Yeah it took me a while to find it. I was wondering why there was no overounds when the first 2 wickets went so I looked back through the ashes thread and someone had posted it up. I thought it would have been in the Service posts TBH.
I asked Betfair why they were not using XM on the Australian Markets last year and they said they did not have approval from the Australian Regulator.
I asked Betfair why they were not using XM on the Australian Markets last year and they said they did not have approval from the Australian Regulator.
Seems their not doing it on the Aus racing though
Q: Which markets will be affected by this change?
A: We plan to roll this functionality out to all markets on the site , except those which can have non-runners (like Horse Racing win and place markets) and those where runners can be added ("Accumulators" for example).
Q: What is Cross-Matching?
A: Cross-matching is a more efficient method of matching customer bets. Previously we would only attempt to match customer bet requests against unmatched bets of the opposing bet type (backs vs. lays) on the same runner in the same market.
On markets where cross-matching is offered, bet matching will now attempt to match the bet request against opposing bets on the same selection and unmatched bets on other runners e.g. in a soccer match odds market the bet matching algorithm will attempt to match a back bet placed on the home team against unmatched lay bets on the home team or unmatched back bets on the away team and the draw. Customers will receive the best price available on the exchange at the time of bet placement.
Q: Which markets will be affected by this change?
A: We plan to roll this functionality out to all markets on the site , except those which can have non-runners (like Horse Racing win and place markets) and those where runners can be added ("Accumulators" for example).
Q: How will I know if cross-matching is operating on a particular market?
A: The operation of cross-matching on any Australian market will be notated in the market information.
Q: Why are you making this change? What is the benefit for customers?
A: The effect of this change is that customer bet requests will stand a greater chance of being matched and the markets will be correspondingly more efficient.
Q: Is there any downside for existing customers?
A: For the majority of customers, no. Customers who have automated strategies will find fewer riskless arbitrage opportunities, and customers whose strategies rely on offering prices less competitive than would be achieved by placing opposing bets on other selections will also find it harder to match other customers at less competitive prices.
Q: Will I still get "best execution"?
A: Yes. We will cross-match whenever this represents better value than matching on the single selection which means that customers will receive the best value price available.
Q: Why the change / why hasn't Betfair done this before?
A: Betfair has been successfully operating cross-matching on UK exchange markets for some time.
Q: I access Betfair via the API. What changes will I need to make to my strategy?
A: You won't have to make any changes. The available unmatched bets in each market will be represented via the API in exactly the same way they are now. We're only changing the way bets are displayed on the Betfair website.
Q: Is Betfair now "active" in these markets/are Betfair running a bot?
A: What we've changed is a core part of bet matching. When we get a bet request we're now looking at all the customer bet requests it could be matched against, not just opposing bets on the same selection. It would be misleading to describe that as being a bot, or Betfair being "active" on our markets, as matching customer bets is what Betfair does.
As part of the cross-matching process, Betfair uses an internal account which acts as a counterparty to the bets being cross-matched. The cross-matching process may result in a small amount of residual funds remaining in the internal account in some instances. This residual may occur because Betfair only matches customer bets at discrete odds intervals.
Any residual funds that accumulate in this internal counterparty account as a result of the operation of cross-matching on Australian markets will be provided back to customers through future events involving cross-matching markets, in a manner that is approved by the Tasmanian Gaming Commission.
Q: Which markets will be affected by this change?
A: We plan to roll this functionality out to all markets on the site , except those which can have non-runners (like Horse Racing win and place markets) and those where runners can be added ("Accumulators" for example).
Q: What is Cross-Matching?
A: Cross-matching is a more efficient method of matching customer bets. Previously we would only attempt to match customer bet requests against unmatched bets of the opposing bet type (backs vs. lays) on the same runner in the same market.
On markets where cross-matching is offered, bet matching will now attempt to match the bet request against opposing bets on the same selection and unmatched bets on other runners e.g. in a soccer match odds market the bet matching algorithm will attempt to match a back bet placed on the home team against unmatched lay bets on the home team or unmatched back bets on the away team and the draw. Customers will receive the best price available on the exchange at the time of bet placement.
Q: Which markets will be affected by this change?
A: We plan to roll this functionality out to all markets on the site , except those which can have non-runners (like Horse Racing win and place markets) and those where runners can be added ("Accumulators" for example).
Q: How will I know if cross-matching is operating on a particular market?
A: The operation of cross-matching on any Australian market will be notated in the market information.
Q: Why are you making this change? What is the benefit for customers?
A: The effect of this change is that customer bet requests will stand a greater chance of being matched and the markets will be correspondingly more efficient.
Q: Is there any downside for existing customers?
A: For the majority of customers, no. Customers who have automated strategies will find fewer riskless arbitrage opportunities, and customers whose strategies rely on offering prices less competitive than would be achieved by placing opposing bets on other selections will also find it harder to match other customers at less competitive prices.
Q: Will I still get "best execution"?
A: Yes. We will cross-match whenever this represents better value than matching on the single selection which means that customers will receive the best value price available.
Q: Why the change / why hasn't Betfair done this before?
A: Betfair has been successfully operating cross-matching on UK exchange markets for some time.
Q: I access Betfair via the API. What changes will I need to make to my strategy?
A: You won't have to make any changes. The available unmatched bets in each market will be represented via the API in exactly the same way they are now. We're only changing the way bets are displayed on the Betfair website.
Q: Is Betfair now "active" in these markets/are Betfair running a bot?
A: What we've changed is a core part of bet matching. When we get a bet request we're now looking at all the customer bet requests it could be matched against, not just opposing bets on the same selection. It would be misleading to describe that as being a bot, or Betfair being "active" on our markets, as matching customer bets is what Betfair does.
As part of the cross-matching process, Betfair uses an internal account which acts as a counterparty to the bets being cross-matched. The cross-matching process may result in a small amount of residual funds remaining in the internal account in some instances. This residual may occur because Betfair only matches customer bets at discrete odds intervals.
Any residual funds that accumulate in this internal counterparty account as a result of the operation of cross-matching on Australian markets will be provided back to customers through future events involving cross-matching markets, in a manner that is approved by the Tasmanian Gaming Commission.
Any residual funds that accumulate in this internal counterparty account as a result of the operation of cross-matching on Australian markets will be provided back to customers through future events involving cross-matching markets, in a manner that is approved by the Tasmanian Gaming Commission.
The above bit you highlighted is very interesting as I don't recall BF saying anything like this when introducing XM to markets in the normal wallet.
The above bit you highlighted is very interesting as I don't recall BF saying anything like this when introducing XM to markets in the normal wallet.
Seems to suggest there is some kind of Aussie regulation that is not allowing BF to profit from the process. This may also be one of the reasons they haven't done it on Aussie racing yet as it does seem like racing has big potential for BF getting a skinner in-running which would no doubt be frowned upon by the Tasmanian GC
exactly right Visionary - they wouldnt have got the licence withuot this concession
The match odds market on the 2nd Test went underround on the back side a few times last night so I'm pretty sure it wasn't on there.
The Aus regulators are alot more clued up than ours and even make them specify the fact x matching is running on a market
Q: How will I know if cross-matching is operating on a particular market?
A: The operation of cross-matching on any Australian market will be notated in the market information.
The UK side of things seem to be allowed to run as they wish
Q: How will I know if cross-matching is operating on a particular market?
A: The operation of cross-matching on any Australian market will be notated in the market information.
The UK side of things seem to be allowed to run as they wish
uk "regulation" obviously has more "relaxed" attitude to the skim
Anything short of mugging with violence is fine with our GC.
Bayes. 03 Dec 10 12:57
The match odds market on the 2nd Test went underround on the back side a few times last night so I'm pretty sure it wasn't on there.
Yeah I noticed that around 1am but didn't notice anything after that but went to bed around 1 40am. There certainly wasn't any when the first 3 wickets went down. I have emailed the Tasmanian Gaming Commission for there views on it.
The match odds market on the 2nd Test went underround on the back side a few times last night so I'm pretty sure it wasn't on there.
Yeah I noticed that around 1am but didn't notice anything after that but went to bed around 1 40am. There certainly wasn't any when the first 3 wickets went down. I have emailed the Tasmanian Gaming Commission for there views on it.
The beauty of the X-matching bot from BF's viewpoint, is the ability to hid their X-matching monies from API users.
For those interested & who have API rights' access, compare the monies available on the rag outsider of a two-outcome event [such as say, an NFL match] vs. those available in the corresponding box on the BF.com website.
They differ...
Level playing field me'hole!
For those interested & who have API rights' access, compare the monies available on the rag outsider of a two-outcome event [such as say, an NFL match] vs. those available in the corresponding box on the BF.com website.
They differ...
Level playing field me'hole!
This is most interesting regarding the Australian regulations.
Joke that UK markets and so on don't have a cross matching indicator in market info for us.
Seems BF really don't give a shyte unless the local regs dictate to them otherwise.
Seems BF really don't give a shyte unless the local regs dictate to them otherwise.
After spending the past couple of weeks reviewing how the 'in play' markets are reacting to the cross-matching, I decided to use a strict strategy and place some bets based simply on what my perception was on how the logarithms were working
On races where I had no interest on the outcome or any backs or lays, I played "in-running" with small stakes and placed without api/programs, etc simply using the betfair platform.
Horse Racing / Bang 15th Dec : 2m1f NHF 15-Dec-10 15:35 15-Dec-10 15:47 -1.13
Horse Racing / Newb 15th Dec : 2m3f Nov Hrd 15-Dec-10 14:40 15-Dec-10 14:51 3.38
Horse Racing / Bang 15th Dec : 3m Hcap Hrd 15-Dec-10 14:25 15-Dec-10 14:32 5.76
Horse Racing / Newb 15th Dec : 3m2f Hcap Chs 15-Dec-10 14:05 15-Dec-10 14:15 -0.20
Horse Racing / Bang 15th Dec : 2m4f Hcap Chs 15-Dec-10 12:45 15-Dec-10 12:53 1.48
Not sure if what I did would work with larger stakes but was interesting to watch the potential of green with next to no risk.
On races where I had no interest on the outcome or any backs or lays, I played "in-running" with small stakes and placed without api/programs, etc simply using the betfair platform.
Horse Racing / Bang 15th Dec : 2m1f NHF 15-Dec-10 15:35 15-Dec-10 15:47 -1.13
Horse Racing / Newb 15th Dec : 2m3f Nov Hrd 15-Dec-10 14:40 15-Dec-10 14:51 3.38
Horse Racing / Bang 15th Dec : 3m Hcap Hrd 15-Dec-10 14:25 15-Dec-10 14:32 5.76
Horse Racing / Newb 15th Dec : 3m2f Hcap Chs 15-Dec-10 14:05 15-Dec-10 14:15 -0.20
Horse Racing / Bang 15th Dec : 2m4f Hcap Chs 15-Dec-10 12:45 15-Dec-10 12:53 1.48
Not sure if what I did would work with larger stakes but was interesting to watch the potential of green with next to no risk.
Thursday....targeted Towcester.....only three races where I employed bet placement based on my perception of the cross-match effect on the market:
Horse Racing / Towc 16th Dec : 2m3f Hcap Hrd 16-Dec-10 13:40 16-Dec-10 13:55 8.05
Horse Racing / Towc 16th Dec : 3m Hcap Chs 16-Dec-10 13:10 16-Dec-10 13:27 1.61
Horse Racing / Towc 16th Dec : 2m5f Nov Hrd 16-Dec-10 12:40 16-Dec-10 12:56 -1.14
Horse Racing / Towc 16th Dec : 2m3f Hcap Hrd 16-Dec-10 13:40 16-Dec-10 13:55 8.05
Horse Racing / Towc 16th Dec : 3m Hcap Chs 16-Dec-10 13:10 16-Dec-10 13:27 1.61
Horse Racing / Towc 16th Dec : 2m5f Nov Hrd 16-Dec-10 12:40 16-Dec-10 12:56 -1.14
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539