General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
14 Dec 10
15:49
Joined:
Date Joined:
23 Nov 10
Betfair's share price ended thier first day of trading at £15.50. Following their half-year results they now seem to have plunged following today's results update to just over £9.50. Some analyst are predicting they will end up at a fiver.
My question is this; should punters care? Does it make any difference to us? Some will predict charges will rise to keep rapacious shareholders happy, but Betfair still has some smart cookies on the payroll. They won't want to destroy the positive network effect of what they have created I would assume. So can we all crack on as usual? Let's face it, it's going to carry on making lots of cash, even if rather less than some IPO investors had hoped. And if interest rates rise, they can start earning a fortune from all our deposits again. What's the view?
My question is this; should punters care? Does it make any difference to us? Some will predict charges will rise to keep rapacious shareholders happy, but Betfair still has some smart cookies on the payroll. They won't want to destroy the positive network effect of what they have created I would assume. So can we all crack on as usual? Let's face it, it's going to carry on making lots of cash, even if rather less than some IPO investors had hoped. And if interest rates rise, they can start earning a fortune from all our deposits again. What's the view?
Show More
Feck N. Eejit
Date Joined: 10 Jan 02
Add contact | Send message
When: 19 Dec 10 14:59
All you're saying is no bets are matched in an empty market. I'm saying if only opinionless traders are present the market will always be empty.
And if only consistently profitable gamblers are operating in a market, very few bets would get matched, due to the massive spreads that would necessarily exist due to the commission structure. A liquid market needs losers, and I can't see why it would matter whether a specific loser is a trader or gambler. Their value can be measured by the amount of commission they pay.
I would even go so far as to say that a customer breaking even (before commission) is slightly more valuable to betfair than a customer placing bets at silly odds losing very quickly. The customer losing quickly won't churn their funds, and thus a large proportion of the profit ends up in the hands of winning customers rather than Betfair.
Traders/market makers decrease spreads (if necessary to the point where it becomes impossible for a profitable gambler to compete), this in turns helps the clueless customers to lose their money at a slower rate (churning funds, increasing Betfair's share of the profits) than would be the case if no-one jumped in front of the profitable gambler's terrible value offer.
That's why I think the current commission structure ( rewarding traders with a better commission deal than straight bettors) makes sense. I also think PC makes sense, though obviously I don't like paying it, and the irrelevant notion of 'fairness', well in the words of Peter Griffin, that really grinds my gears.
I place straight bets on a daily basis, but only because some of the markets I bet on aren't liquid enough to trade. Under the current commission structure there is just no reason why anyone betting purely for profit wouldn't trade out of a bet at fair value if the opportunity presented itself.
Date Joined: 10 Jan 02
Add contact | Send message
When: 19 Dec 10 14:59
All you're saying is no bets are matched in an empty market. I'm saying if only opinionless traders are present the market will always be empty.
And if only consistently profitable gamblers are operating in a market, very few bets would get matched, due to the massive spreads that would necessarily exist due to the commission structure. A liquid market needs losers, and I can't see why it would matter whether a specific loser is a trader or gambler. Their value can be measured by the amount of commission they pay.
I would even go so far as to say that a customer breaking even (before commission) is slightly more valuable to betfair than a customer placing bets at silly odds losing very quickly. The customer losing quickly won't churn their funds, and thus a large proportion of the profit ends up in the hands of winning customers rather than Betfair.
Traders/market makers decrease spreads (if necessary to the point where it becomes impossible for a profitable gambler to compete), this in turns helps the clueless customers to lose their money at a slower rate (churning funds, increasing Betfair's share of the profits) than would be the case if no-one jumped in front of the profitable gambler's terrible value offer.
That's why I think the current commission structure ( rewarding traders with a better commission deal than straight bettors) makes sense. I also think PC makes sense, though obviously I don't like paying it, and the irrelevant notion of 'fairness', well in the words of Peter Griffin, that really grinds my gears.
I place straight bets on a daily basis, but only because some of the markets I bet on aren't liquid enough to trade. Under the current commission structure there is just no reason why anyone betting purely for profit wouldn't trade out of a bet at fair value if the opportunity presented itself.
The Investor, please don't attempt to introduce facts into the debate, as feck will call you a city boy parasite no opinion worthless calimero non liquidity provider, thanks. 
There is only ever one market for a sporting event, irrespective of the number of exchanges, bookmakers, etc offering odds.
Differences in prices result from inneficiences in arbitraging between them.
You are completely wrong Mr Eejit about the Purple Place. Its problem is not lack of people setting prices, Its lack of people actually trading. Why that should be, is similar to why people buy books from Amazon and not Barnes and Noble. Brand name, larger established customer base, better online experience, and crucially Not enough of a price incentive for Amazon customers to go to B+N. The latter being the Purple Places real problem.
Otherwise you are correct about there being price setters and market following arbitragers. With a substantial overlap between the 2 activities. Although most people are price takers.
I am also that rare beast a pure price setter - someone who goes into a market with no prices and without external references sets prices. A very profitable activity if you get it right.
And as for the PC and commisions, we will get to the same situation as banks, where the bank makes its money from the interest on the money in my account and doesn't charge me anything for transactions. But that requires price competition between betting exchanges.
Differences in prices result from inneficiences in arbitraging between them.
You are completely wrong Mr Eejit about the Purple Place. Its problem is not lack of people setting prices, Its lack of people actually trading. Why that should be, is similar to why people buy books from Amazon and not Barnes and Noble. Brand name, larger established customer base, better online experience, and crucially Not enough of a price incentive for Amazon customers to go to B+N. The latter being the Purple Places real problem.
Otherwise you are correct about there being price setters and market following arbitragers. With a substantial overlap between the 2 activities. Although most people are price takers.
I am also that rare beast a pure price setter - someone who goes into a market with no prices and without external references sets prices. A very profitable activity if you get it right.
And as for the PC and commisions, we will get to the same situation as banks, where the bank makes its money from the interest on the money in my account and doesn't charge me anything for transactions. But that requires price competition between betting exchanges.
Please leave Feck alone. He is basically a good man, who has made a wrong choice in life: Staying at home to try to make money on Betfair, when he could have been working. All that stands between him and success are city boys, traders, parasites, queue jumpers, calimeros (whatever they are), ferengi (I've seen them in Star Trek), Tories, cheats and the fact that, when he puts up his bets, they are visible to everyone else.
Unfortunately for him, the fact that there are so many PC payers on here is evidence of how far down the food chain he actually is. So please have some sympathy and show some respect to our Good Friend Feck, who is an honourable man.
Unfortunately for him, the fact that there are so many PC payers on here is evidence of how far down the food chain he actually is. So please have some sympathy and show some respect to our Good Friend Feck, who is an honourable man.
And if only consistently profitable gamblers are operating in a market, very few bets would get matched, due to the massive spreads that would necessarily exist due to the commission structure. A liquid market needs losers, and I can't see why it would matter whether a specific loser is a trader or gambler. Their value can be measured by the amount of commission they pay.
Many losing gamblers bet for excitement. Why would losing traders stick to such a boring activity? Even if they do, their risks are likely to be small compared to profitable traders.
I would even go so far as to say that a customer breaking even (before commission) is slightly more valuable to betfair than a customer placing bets at silly odds losing very quickly. The customer losing quickly won't churn their funds, and thus a large proportion of the profit ends up in the hands of winning customers rather than Betfair.
I agree. It's strange therefore that the large majority of winners on betfair are dependent on betfair sanctioned rules and quirks of the interface.
Traders/market makers decrease spreads (if necessary to the point where it becomes impossible for a profitable gambler to compete), this in turns helps the clueless customers to lose their money at a slower rate (churning funds, increasing Betfair's share of the profits) than would be the case if no-one jumped in front of the profitable gambler's terrible value offer.
If the market spread is 4.8 - 5.4 what makes you think the next gambler up isn't going to decrease the spread? Do you think we're all into staring contests? If the clueless punter sticks a pin into a 100% market it's totally irrelevant whether the market's efficient or not, his expected pre-commission loss is zero regardless. So how do traders make him lose at a slower rate? Competition between profitable gamblers will make the market efficient in any case.
I place straight bets on a daily basis, but only because some of the markets I bet on aren't liquid enough to trade. Under the current commission structure there is just no reason why anyone betting purely for profit wouldn't trade out of a bet at fair value if the opportunity presented itself.
As you're not really talking about opinionless trading there it's not relevant to what I'm saying.
Many losing gamblers bet for excitement. Why would losing traders stick to such a boring activity? Even if they do, their risks are likely to be small compared to profitable traders.
I would even go so far as to say that a customer breaking even (before commission) is slightly more valuable to betfair than a customer placing bets at silly odds losing very quickly. The customer losing quickly won't churn their funds, and thus a large proportion of the profit ends up in the hands of winning customers rather than Betfair.
I agree. It's strange therefore that the large majority of winners on betfair are dependent on betfair sanctioned rules and quirks of the interface.
Traders/market makers decrease spreads (if necessary to the point where it becomes impossible for a profitable gambler to compete), this in turns helps the clueless customers to lose their money at a slower rate (churning funds, increasing Betfair's share of the profits) than would be the case if no-one jumped in front of the profitable gambler's terrible value offer.
If the market spread is 4.8 - 5.4 what makes you think the next gambler up isn't going to decrease the spread? Do you think we're all into staring contests? If the clueless punter sticks a pin into a 100% market it's totally irrelevant whether the market's efficient or not, his expected pre-commission loss is zero regardless. So how do traders make him lose at a slower rate? Competition between profitable gamblers will make the market efficient in any case.
I place straight bets on a daily basis, but only because some of the markets I bet on aren't liquid enough to trade. Under the current commission structure there is just no reason why anyone betting purely for profit wouldn't trade out of a bet at fair value if the opportunity presented itself.
As you're not really talking about opinionless trading there it's not relevant to what I'm saying.
If you removed all trader's trades from the market almost every gambler's bet would still be matched, in many cases at better odds. If you removed all gamblers bets from the market very few trader's trades would be matched. Get over yourselves, you no more supply liquidity than ticket touts generate extra seats at events. In all the time I've been on here not a single trader has ever been able to give me an example of a (market/queue based) two-way profitable trade where the true backers and layers, on either end of the trade, wouldn't have been matched in the traders absence. None of you jokers will be any different. Instead we'll get another tirade of smilies from the clueless TurtlesBrain and NoMark.
The suggestion that the purple site isn't short of gamblers and has no liquidity because it's short of traders is a classic. Traders would be paying up to 4 times less over there and have less competition but instead prefer to stick with a company they detest. Give me a break.
The suggestion that the purple site isn't short of gamblers and has no liquidity because it's short of traders is a classic. Traders would be paying up to 4 times less over there and have less competition but instead prefer to stick with a company they detest. Give me a break.
Incidentally, Investor & pxb, thanks for at least putting your case rather than joining in the smilie fest with the "sharp minds".
Feck, I'll address some of the points you make:
If the market spread is 4.8 - 5.4 what makes you think the next gambler up isn't going to decrease the spread? Do you think we're all into staring contests? If the clueless punter sticks a pin into a 100% market it's totally irrelevant whether the market's efficient or not, his expected pre-commission loss is zero regardless. So how do traders make him lose at a slower rate? Competition between profitable gamblers will make the market efficient in any case.
In theory a trader/market maker could price a market to 1.99-2.00, a gambler can't compete with that.
If you removed all trader's trades from the market almost every gambler's bet would still be matched, in many cases at better odds. If you removed all gamblers bets from the market very few trader's trades would be matched.
I agree with that. Gamblers as a group would be better off without traders. The fact that traders can operate to lower margins, means that they are effectively taking money out of the pockets of profitable gamblers, giving most of it back to the losers (by way of a smaller spread), and making a small profit (which explains why as a group gamblers would be worse off, but the losing gamblers taken in isolation will be better off). The commission received by Betfair stays the same for the market in question, but as the losers have lost less, his funds will churn more, leading to a higher level of total commission paid in the future.
I agree. It's strange therefore that the large majority of winners on betfair are dependent on betfair sanctioned rules and quirks of the interface.
I also wonder about that sometimes. I've made a signifcant amount of money due to this myself. One of these is quirks is the assymmetric nature of odds intervals. The problem seems to be that rather than address these issues and create a level playing field, betfair just step in and take the profits resulting from these discrepancies for themselves. This is marginally better than customers profiting from these quirks, but the best solution would be for Betfair to provide a platform that is as free from flaws as possible, rather than profiting form them, which creates a serious conflict of interest.
If the market spread is 4.8 - 5.4 what makes you think the next gambler up isn't going to decrease the spread? Do you think we're all into staring contests? If the clueless punter sticks a pin into a 100% market it's totally irrelevant whether the market's efficient or not, his expected pre-commission loss is zero regardless. So how do traders make him lose at a slower rate? Competition between profitable gamblers will make the market efficient in any case.
In theory a trader/market maker could price a market to 1.99-2.00, a gambler can't compete with that.
If you removed all trader's trades from the market almost every gambler's bet would still be matched, in many cases at better odds. If you removed all gamblers bets from the market very few trader's trades would be matched.
I agree with that. Gamblers as a group would be better off without traders. The fact that traders can operate to lower margins, means that they are effectively taking money out of the pockets of profitable gamblers, giving most of it back to the losers (by way of a smaller spread), and making a small profit (which explains why as a group gamblers would be worse off, but the losing gamblers taken in isolation will be better off). The commission received by Betfair stays the same for the market in question, but as the losers have lost less, his funds will churn more, leading to a higher level of total commission paid in the future.
I agree. It's strange therefore that the large majority of winners on betfair are dependent on betfair sanctioned rules and quirks of the interface.
I also wonder about that sometimes. I've made a signifcant amount of money due to this myself. One of these is quirks is the assymmetric nature of odds intervals. The problem seems to be that rather than address these issues and create a level playing field, betfair just step in and take the profits resulting from these discrepancies for themselves. This is marginally better than customers profiting from these quirks, but the best solution would be for Betfair to provide a platform that is as free from flaws as possible, rather than profiting form them, which creates a serious conflict of interest.
Feck is still seething that those pesky traders jump in front of his awful prices, how dare they work off lower margins and offer better value than he does and make for a much more efficient exchange 
We should just allow true gamblers and their high percentage books, isn't that the case
We should just allow true gamblers and their high percentage books, isn't that the case
In theory a trader/market maker could price a market to 1.99-2.00, a gambler can't compete with that
The market maker here is still open to a hit by someone with a more indepth knowledge of the event & able to identify which side of this bet was wrong.
Mistakes happen with pricing all the time. Even in the events where people traditionally believe that there is perfect knowledge and that no advantage exists, i.e. pre-kick off football prices.
The market maker here is still open to a hit by someone with a more indepth knowledge of the event & able to identify which side of this bet was wrong.
Mistakes happen with pricing all the time. Even in the events where people traditionally believe that there is perfect knowledge and that no advantage exists, i.e. pre-kick off football prices.
I agree with Dave Edwards here. Traders put themselves up to be shot down at great cost , the other hazard of course is fast pictures/hoovering .
Why doesn't Feck spend more of his time campaigning against these parasites ? [;)]
Why doesn't Feck spend more of his time campaigning against these parasites ? [;)]
Dave / coach, that has to be factored in.
To give an example, I frequently (almost all of the time) bet on football matches, without following them live. This leaves me open to risks such as dangerous free kicks on the edge of the box, or even the pre kick-off estimates of relative strength of teams being severely altered by the actual play in the game.
Someone with good betting skills would be able to consistently pick off my value bets. Despite this I know that most of the bets matched will end up giving me a positive expectancy. If I was to follow all the games I bet on live, I would have to limit what I bet on, which I believe would result in lower profit, with more risk (more money tied to fewer outcomes).
In a highly liquid market (such as a world cup match or a CL final) it is possible to make money offering such tight spreads. Essentially you are betting against volatility.
To give an example, I frequently (almost all of the time) bet on football matches, without following them live. This leaves me open to risks such as dangerous free kicks on the edge of the box, or even the pre kick-off estimates of relative strength of teams being severely altered by the actual play in the game.
Someone with good betting skills would be able to consistently pick off my value bets. Despite this I know that most of the bets matched will end up giving me a positive expectancy. If I was to follow all the games I bet on live, I would have to limit what I bet on, which I believe would result in lower profit, with more risk (more money tied to fewer outcomes).
In a highly liquid market (such as a world cup match or a CL final) it is possible to make money offering such tight spreads. Essentially you are betting against volatility.
So, turtleshead, are you suggesting that a true gambler would better off waiting until close to the off time when, the markets are more efficient, to get the best odds?
Perhaps that is where Feck (who, as we all know, is a true gambler) could be going wrong (besides making the mistake of joining Betfair in the first place). Maybe invisibility was not the answer after all!
Perhaps that is where Feck (who, as we all know, is a true gambler) could be going wrong (besides making the mistake of joining Betfair in the first place). Maybe invisibility was not the answer after all!
Investor, luckily for you most of the people matching your bets are sports fans!
This situation will continue. The chances of the average punter changing their outlook is of course very slim.
This situation will continue. The chances of the average punter changing their outlook is of course very slim.
In theory a trader/market maker could price a market to 1.99-2.00, a gambler can't compete with that.
Two different gamblers can.
The fact that traders can operate to lower margins, means that they are effectively taking money out of the pockets of profitable gamblers, giving most of it back to the losers (by way of a smaller spread), and making a small profit (which explains why as a group gamblers would be worse off, but the losing gamblers taken in isolation will be better off).
I disagree Investor. The books would still be 100% on a gamblers only exchange. Your idea of this benevolent trader filling some chasm with his 1.99-2.00 on lastfiveminutes.com is wrong. The gamblers would fill in any void in their desperation to get on.
Two different gamblers can.
The fact that traders can operate to lower margins, means that they are effectively taking money out of the pockets of profitable gamblers, giving most of it back to the losers (by way of a smaller spread), and making a small profit (which explains why as a group gamblers would be worse off, but the losing gamblers taken in isolation will be better off).
I disagree Investor. The books would still be 100% on a gamblers only exchange. Your idea of this benevolent trader filling some chasm with his 1.99-2.00 on lastfiveminutes.com is wrong. The gamblers would fill in any void in their desperation to get on.
"The books would still be 100% on a gamblers only exchange"
HE ACTUALLY BELIEVES THAT
HE ACTUALLY BELIEVES THAT
And if the exchange interface was also invisible, how would we know whether the book (on the gamblers only exchange) really was 100%? Could we trust Betfair to tell the truth?
Splitting all players into "Gamblers" or "Traders" fails to take into account the full spectrum of Betfair players. There are many other ways to play, my own activities don't fit either description. A more meaningful separation may be between those who have an interest in the event who factor their opinion of the likely performance of the players/horses/whatever into their betting decisions and those who's interest is purely in market dynamics. Even this is too simple though as there are surely many people who consider both. All the same, when Feck et al refer to "Gamblers" I think they usually mean the former group, what you might call "opinion based gamblers". We are all Gamblers here, so I'm going to refer to this group as "opinion Gamblers".
The best and most illuminating separation though is simply between losers and winners. The only way to win is to place positive expected value bets, though there are many ways you may achieve this. All winners take their money from the losers (obviously), but how they do this does make a difference to those losers. Within the winners camp we can put all players on a spectrum of how much margin they need to be viable, in the case of traders this margin is minimal, whereas the opinion gambler needs a much more substantial margin to overcome the commission barrier. Ultimately low margin winners pass value from would be high margin winners to overall losers (keeping a small cut). The net effect is that high margin winners miss out, whereas losers loose more gradually. So the question of whether traders are good for opinion gamblers is simply dependent on whether the opinion gamblers in question are overall winners or losers. If they are winners then traders are bad news as they lessen the value available to them to the point where operating can become non-viable. However if the opinion gamblers are losers then trading (and other low margin activity) does keep them in the game longer, losing opinion gamblers would lose quicker if they were matched against high margin opinion gamblers because for the winning opinion gambler to match your bet it has to be a worse value bet (to you) than a trader would be prepared to take. Low margin players of all kinds are basically good for losers and bad for other winners, in this respect they are a bit like the X-matcher, except that that takes much more of your money (not that I'm bitter or anything).
Ultimately the overwhelming bulk of Betfair customers are losers, most opinion players, most traders- probably even most bot players. All of these people benefit from low margin winners, it's only other winners who miss out.
The best and most illuminating separation though is simply between losers and winners. The only way to win is to place positive expected value bets, though there are many ways you may achieve this. All winners take their money from the losers (obviously), but how they do this does make a difference to those losers. Within the winners camp we can put all players on a spectrum of how much margin they need to be viable, in the case of traders this margin is minimal, whereas the opinion gambler needs a much more substantial margin to overcome the commission barrier. Ultimately low margin winners pass value from would be high margin winners to overall losers (keeping a small cut). The net effect is that high margin winners miss out, whereas losers loose more gradually. So the question of whether traders are good for opinion gamblers is simply dependent on whether the opinion gamblers in question are overall winners or losers. If they are winners then traders are bad news as they lessen the value available to them to the point where operating can become non-viable. However if the opinion gamblers are losers then trading (and other low margin activity) does keep them in the game longer, losing opinion gamblers would lose quicker if they were matched against high margin opinion gamblers because for the winning opinion gambler to match your bet it has to be a worse value bet (to you) than a trader would be prepared to take. Low margin players of all kinds are basically good for losers and bad for other winners, in this respect they are a bit like the X-matcher, except that that takes much more of your money (not that I'm bitter or anything).
Ultimately the overwhelming bulk of Betfair customers are losers, most opinion players, most traders- probably even most bot players. All of these people benefit from low margin winners, it's only other winners who miss out.
^
exactly.
In theory a trader/market maker could price a market to 1.99-2.00, a gambler can't compete with that.
Two different gamblers can.
Yes that's true. But it's impossible for both of these gamblers to be profitable. Only traders can profit on both sides from spreads like this.
exactly.
In theory a trader/market maker could price a market to 1.99-2.00, a gambler can't compete with that.
Two different gamblers can.
Yes that's true. But it's impossible for both of these gamblers to be profitable. Only traders can profit on both sides from spreads like this.
Ultimately low margin winners pass value from would be high margin winners to overall losers (keeping a small cut).
What you (and Investor before you) are saying only holds up if, in the absence of traders, gamblers indulge in staring contests. They wouldn't. They'd fill in the gaps in the spread in order to get matched. Do you really think if all the shrewdies make something evens the market's going to be 1.9 - 2.1 and all the mugs are going to roll up to either lay at 2.1 or back at 1.9 while the shrewdies all pile up behind each other at the same price?
What you (and Investor before you) are saying only holds up if, in the absence of traders, gamblers indulge in staring contests. They wouldn't. They'd fill in the gaps in the spread in order to get matched. Do you really think if all the shrewdies make something evens the market's going to be 1.9 - 2.1 and all the mugs are going to roll up to either lay at 2.1 or back at 1.9 while the shrewdies all pile up behind each other at the same price?
There are two points to consider Feck;
1: Outright opinion gamblers can't afford to close the gap if they want to win- not as close as traders can at any rate because they need the additional margin to overcome commission.
2: That aside, if opinion gamblers did close the gap that would mean the market without traders offered exactly the same prices as it would if it did have traders, in which case- what's the difference? If the prices are the same either way why object?
1: Outright opinion gamblers can't afford to close the gap if they want to win- not as close as traders can at any rate because they need the additional margin to overcome commission.
2: That aside, if opinion gamblers did close the gap that would mean the market without traders offered exactly the same prices as it would if it did have traders, in which case- what's the difference? If the prices are the same either way why object?
Do you really think if all the shrewdies make something evens the market's going to be 1.9 - 2.1
If a selection's true price is 2 and you want to make money laying it outright then if you're on 5% you need to get matched at 1.9 just to break even- so for outright gambling to be profitable you would either need an even bigger spread than that or you'd need the price to be WAY out of line. Obviously if you're on a lower comm rate the spread can be narrower but the principal is the same.
If a selection's true price is 2 and you want to make money laying it outright then if you're on 5% you need to get matched at 1.9 just to break even- so for outright gambling to be profitable you would either need an even bigger spread than that or you'd need the price to be WAY out of line. Obviously if you're on a lower comm rate the spread can be narrower but the principal is the same.
Aye,
1) You assume all opinion gamblers arrive at the same opinion. Even if they did why wouldn't the losers leap frog them and each other and bring the spread together? Why do they require the ticket tout dating agency to bring them together?
2) Why not. They take money out of the pot by leeching off the work of others. Anyway, am I the one objecting? If you read back through the thread, it's the traders who are in denial about their worthlesness and whinging about not being given the respect they deserve.
1) You assume all opinion gamblers arrive at the same opinion. Even if they did why wouldn't the losers leap frog them and each other and bring the spread together? Why do they require the ticket tout dating agency to bring them together?
2) Why not. They take money out of the pot by leeching off the work of others. Anyway, am I the one objecting? If you read back through the thread, it's the traders who are in denial about their worthlesness and whinging about not being given the respect they deserve.
In all the time I've been on here not a single trader has ever been able to give me an example of a (market/queue based) two-way profitable trade where the true backers and layers, on either end of the trade, wouldn't have been matched in the traders absence. None of you jokers will be any different. Instead we'll get another tirade of smilies from the clueless TurtlesBrain and NoMark.
The Smilie Sisters replies say it all imo.
The Smilie Sisters replies say it all imo.
Spot on ^^^^
All Feck's nonsensical arguments are going down in flames, as per usual
He seriously thinks that an outright gambler would be happy to back an even money chance at evens, and then pay commission on top
Nurse! Time for Feck's daily medicine
All Feck's nonsensical arguments are going down in flames, as per usual
He seriously thinks that an outright gambler would be happy to back an even money chance at evens, and then pay commission on top
Nurse! Time for Feck's daily medicine
He seriously thinks that an outright gambler would be happy to back an even money chance at evens, and then pay commission on top
Where did I say that? If the trader matches his back with a layer at 2.0 and matches his lay with a backer at 1.99 then, in the traders absence, the layer and backer would match each other at an average of 1.995. I can understand how you fail to understand that though.
Where did I say that? If the trader matches his back with a layer at 2.0 and matches his lay with a backer at 1.99 then, in the traders absence, the layer and backer would match each other at an average of 1.995. I can understand how you fail to understand that though.
Where did I say he would be matching another (price sensitive) gambler?
He could be matching another trader, or someone who isn't particularly price sensitive. Either way whoever he matches , both players benefit (not to mention betfair) by getting more efficient prices than two gamblers who can only make a profit by backing at 2.1 or laying at 1.9 (because in most cases those would not get matched) I can understand how you fail to understand that though.
He could be matching another trader, or someone who isn't particularly price sensitive. Either way whoever he matches , both players benefit (not to mention betfair) by getting more efficient prices than two gamblers who can only make a profit by backing at 2.1 or laying at 1.9 (because in most cases those would not get matched) I can understand how you fail to understand that though.
They take money out of the pot by leeching off the work of others.
They only take money out of the pot if they win, which most don't. The myth that trading is a p1ss easy way of printing money is just that; a myth. The overwhelming bulk of traders are doomed to failure as are almost all gamblers, if you buy into the idea that it's just a matter of watching the weight of money for a simple click and win then I'm afraid I must disabuse you. Would that it were that simple, if it was I'd bot it up and make a killing, it would take me all of 5 minutes to code and then I could just retire. No such luck I'm afraid, instead I have to spend days on end working on devious ploys, complex models and some things I don't even understand to make my money. Don't believe the Bet Angel hype, for the most part traders are no better at knowing which way the price is going to go than most punters are at knowing which horse is going to win- it's just not that easy
They only take money out of the pot if they win, which most don't. The myth that trading is a p1ss easy way of printing money is just that; a myth. The overwhelming bulk of traders are doomed to failure as are almost all gamblers, if you buy into the idea that it's just a matter of watching the weight of money for a simple click and win then I'm afraid I must disabuse you. Would that it were that simple, if it was I'd bot it up and make a killing, it would take me all of 5 minutes to code and then I could just retire. No such luck I'm afraid, instead I have to spend days on end working on devious ploys, complex models and some things I don't even understand to make my money. Don't believe the Bet Angel hype, for the most part traders are no better at knowing which way the price is going to go than most punters are at knowing which horse is going to win- it's just not that easy
They take money out of the pot by leeching off the work of others
Feck, my good friend, I assume that you think it is your own hard work that the leeches are feeding off. If so, what exactly is this "work" that you have been doing? Form study, watching the race videos. But we all do this. What makes you so special? How do you know that these "traders" don't study the form? Perhaps they know at least as much as you do about horses, or whatever sport you are betting on, but only commit themselves when they have seen the odds on offer, believing that they can still lay at bigger. I bet if you put up 10.0 to lay, about an even money shot, the "trader" would not go bigger than you.
Feck, my good friend, I assume that you think it is your own hard work that the leeches are feeding off. If so, what exactly is this "work" that you have been doing? Form study, watching the race videos. But we all do this. What makes you so special? How do you know that these "traders" don't study the form? Perhaps they know at least as much as you do about horses, or whatever sport you are betting on, but only commit themselves when they have seen the odds on offer, believing that they can still lay at bigger. I bet if you put up 10.0 to lay, about an even money shot, the "trader" would not go bigger than you.
Yes, one of Feck's little fantasies is that anyone, anyone at all, can just become a "trader" and as if by magic countless sums of money just flow into their account with no effort or skill whatsover
Which begs the question, why doesn't he do it
Which begs the question, why doesn't he do it
These are directed at Aye Robot, but I'll take a stab at them:
Feck N. Eejit
Aye,
1) You assume all opinion gamblers arrive at the same opinion. Even if they did why wouldn't the losers leap frog them and each other and bring the spread together? Why do they require the ticket tout dating agency to bring them together?
In a liquid market, this is exactly what would happen. The result for you would be the same, your bets don't get matched. Even with the current interface full of traders and market makers, spreads could still be improved in many cases. The people improving the spreads in a systematic way on a large number of events, don't do it for fun. They are getting paid (indirectly) to create tight spreads.
2) Why not. They take money out of the pot by leeching off the work of others. Anyway, am I the one objecting? If you read back through the thread, it's the traders who are in denial about their worthlesness and whinging about not being given the respect they deserve.
I know you're referring to a particular subset of traders, but their leeching leads to a better deal for the guy on the other side of your bet. Your bet doesn't get matched, because someone else is offering a better deal.
The only way of solving this (other than changing the way the site works) is for you to bring your own margins down so that they can no longer jump in front of you and expect to profit.
Feck N. Eejit
Aye,
1) You assume all opinion gamblers arrive at the same opinion. Even if they did why wouldn't the losers leap frog them and each other and bring the spread together? Why do they require the ticket tout dating agency to bring them together?
In a liquid market, this is exactly what would happen. The result for you would be the same, your bets don't get matched. Even with the current interface full of traders and market makers, spreads could still be improved in many cases. The people improving the spreads in a systematic way on a large number of events, don't do it for fun. They are getting paid (indirectly) to create tight spreads.
2) Why not. They take money out of the pot by leeching off the work of others. Anyway, am I the one objecting? If you read back through the thread, it's the traders who are in denial about their worthlesness and whinging about not being given the respect they deserve.
I know you're referring to a particular subset of traders, but their leeching leads to a better deal for the guy on the other side of your bet. Your bet doesn't get matched, because someone else is offering a better deal.
The only way of solving this (other than changing the way the site works) is for you to bring your own margins down so that they can no longer jump in front of you and expect to profit.
I know you will all know this already, but I will say it anyway. Essentially I feel I am agreeing with Feck on this issue of differing opinions of bettors, but here is my take.
The whole range of ability is in the market place and the market makers, especially the main crew take advantage of the fact that many price takers/opinion bettors don't quite know what they are doing.
Some will bet into a 1.99-2.0 market because they want a bet, others will see that this resembles what they expect to see (especially having been conditioned over time to the apparent good price), others will have a standard pricing model to which they work helping them to decide whether or not to bet. Others still will be off at a tangent and be working to their own take on pricing. The size of each group would decrease of course.
What the price/opinion taker is able to do is pass on an event where the odds on offer are not what they should be. Realistically, however, not many are able to reach these conclusions.
The inability of the punter to understand the dynamics at play in sports plays into the hands of the market makers. This doesn't concern me at all, in fact I welcome it. The playing field is transparent for those who can see.
The whole range of ability is in the market place and the market makers, especially the main crew take advantage of the fact that many price takers/opinion bettors don't quite know what they are doing.
Some will bet into a 1.99-2.0 market because they want a bet, others will see that this resembles what they expect to see (especially having been conditioned over time to the apparent good price), others will have a standard pricing model to which they work helping them to decide whether or not to bet. Others still will be off at a tangent and be working to their own take on pricing. The size of each group would decrease of course.
What the price/opinion taker is able to do is pass on an event where the odds on offer are not what they should be. Realistically, however, not many are able to reach these conclusions.
The inability of the punter to understand the dynamics at play in sports plays into the hands of the market makers. This doesn't concern me at all, in fact I welcome it. The playing field is transparent for those who can see.
Just to confirm that last point, it is not the hapless punters I am happy about, it is the catering for the punters that I am happy with.
& one final point. You sometimes see references by people claiming to be getting the odds on sports they know nothing about etc, effectively taking the p!ss out of the people who have matched their bet. Occasionally everyone needs a little reminder with a losing bet not to get too carried away.
This isn't directed at anyone here particularly, I know most on this thread know the time of day. But you do see some nonsense on the forums.
This isn't directed at anyone here particularly, I know most on this thread know the time of day. But you do see some nonsense on the forums.
& another final point. The lurkers. Over three thousand views of this thread. 5 viewing this thread as we speak some of whom certainly looking to nick a bit of information/guidance.
Do some work of your own. Yes that mean YOU.
Do some work of your own. Yes that mean YOU.
DaveEdwards, have you finished making all of your final points yet?
Getting back to the original post of the thread, I see in yesterdays sunday times that both the finance director, stephen morana and the chief legal officer, martin cruddance have been buying betfair shares since their fall in price. So perhaps all is not gloomy
Where did I say he would be matching another (price sensitive) gambler?
TurtlesBrain, where did I say it?
They only take money out of the pot if they win, which most don't. The myth that trading is a p1ss easy way of printing money is just that; a myth. The overwhelming bulk of traders are doomed to failure as are almost all gamblers, if you buy into the idea that it's just a matter of watching the weight of money for a simple click and win then I'm afraid I must disabuse you.
Aye, as said earlier, why do losing traders stick at it? Many gamblers do it for the excitement and the odd winner will give them that but it's hard to see how the odd price going the right way and securing the price of a toblerone would keep a losing trader trading. Additionally, a gambler's activities won't necessitate sitting at a computer all day. The winning traders will obviously be using much higher stakes so overall I'd say traders certainly take out of the pot. Regardless of how difficult it is, the ones I'm talking about are reliant on the queue info supplied by betfair.
know you're referring to a particular subset of traders, but their leeching leads to a better deal for the guy on the other side of your bet. Your bet doesn't get matched, because someone else is offering a better deal.
Who says this is about MY bet Investor. You've already accepted that the gamblers on either end of the traders trades would be matched with each other so one of them is getting a worse price because of the trader's presence.
TurtlesBrain, where did I say it?
They only take money out of the pot if they win, which most don't. The myth that trading is a p1ss easy way of printing money is just that; a myth. The overwhelming bulk of traders are doomed to failure as are almost all gamblers, if you buy into the idea that it's just a matter of watching the weight of money for a simple click and win then I'm afraid I must disabuse you.
Aye, as said earlier, why do losing traders stick at it? Many gamblers do it for the excitement and the odd winner will give them that but it's hard to see how the odd price going the right way and securing the price of a toblerone would keep a losing trader trading. Additionally, a gambler's activities won't necessitate sitting at a computer all day. The winning traders will obviously be using much higher stakes so overall I'd say traders certainly take out of the pot. Regardless of how difficult it is, the ones I'm talking about are reliant on the queue info supplied by betfair.
know you're referring to a particular subset of traders, but their leeching leads to a better deal for the guy on the other side of your bet. Your bet doesn't get matched, because someone else is offering a better deal.
Who says this is about MY bet Investor. You've already accepted that the gamblers on either end of the traders trades would be matched with each other so one of them is getting a worse price because of the trader's presence.
Who says this is about MY bet
So lets say (hypothetically) that it is NOT your bet that we are talking about:
Then why are you getting yourself so worked up about all this?
Don't tell me that it is because you care about the Betfair community!
So lets say (hypothetically) that it is NOT your bet that we are talking about:
Then why are you getting yourself so worked up about all this?
Don't tell me that it is because you care about the Betfair community!
Yes I accept that in many (but not all) cases bets would get matched without trader activity.
Feck I say it's your bet, because I'm assuming your a net winner (and probably quite a large one). The one gambler getting a worse price due to trading activity will be the winning gambler, the losing gambler will get a better price.
This won't be true every time of course, but this is how it works on average. That's why you rarely (or in my own case never) hear about losing gamblers complaining about traders.
Feck I say it's your bet, because I'm assuming your a net winner (and probably quite a large one). The one gambler getting a worse price due to trading activity will be the winning gambler, the losing gambler will get a better price.
This won't be true every time of course, but this is how it works on average. That's why you rarely (or in my own case never) hear about losing gamblers complaining about traders.
A bad workman blames his tools,
A bad gambler blames the traders.
A bad gambler blames the traders.
The one gambler getting a worse price due to trading activity will be the winning gambler, the losing gambler will get a better price.
You keep saying this Investor yet you acknowledge that the layer and backer on either side of any trade would generally get a better price in the trader's absence. You also acknowledge that the spreads will be filled in regardless of traders. That being the case, losing and winning gamblers generally get a better price in the absence of traders.
You keep saying this Investor yet you acknowledge that the layer and backer on either side of any trade would generally get a better price in the trader's absence. You also acknowledge that the spreads will be filled in regardless of traders. That being the case, losing and winning gamblers generally get a better price in the absence of traders.
why do losing traders stick at it?
You could ask this of any losing gamblers, traders don't get the excitement of betting on an event but trading itself is quite exciting and addictive- I had a little go myself once and I must admit that even I found it quite compelling and I'm far from your typical gambler. People get the same sort of excitement from playing fruit machines- I don't and you may not- but there are plenty of people who do. Allied to this is the widespread myth that trading is a sensible way of making money, I think that helps people keep going despite the evidence to the contrary. If you believe that you're doing something worthwhile that will ultimately pay you back then you can easily buy into the notion that p1ssing your money away is part of a learning process or some b0llocks like that. People do all kinds of ridiculous self destructive things that don't benefit them (smoking for example), trading is just another one.
Like all gamblers a few traders keep going because they're winners, the rest are there because they like it, because they're addicted, because they're dreamers or because they're thick.
You could ask this of any losing gamblers, traders don't get the excitement of betting on an event but trading itself is quite exciting and addictive- I had a little go myself once and I must admit that even I found it quite compelling and I'm far from your typical gambler. People get the same sort of excitement from playing fruit machines- I don't and you may not- but there are plenty of people who do. Allied to this is the widespread myth that trading is a sensible way of making money, I think that helps people keep going despite the evidence to the contrary. If you believe that you're doing something worthwhile that will ultimately pay you back then you can easily buy into the notion that p1ssing your money away is part of a learning process or some b0llocks like that. People do all kinds of ridiculous self destructive things that don't benefit them (smoking for example), trading is just another one.
Like all gamblers a few traders keep going because they're winners, the rest are there because they like it, because they're addicted, because they're dreamers or because they're thick.
Aye, I wouldn't dispute that many losing traders will beaver away hoping to turn things round but, it being seen as a "sensible way of making money", I see them going in with sensible stakes until such time as they think they've sussed it. Compulsive traders sounds about as likely as would be ticket touts who keep buying blocks of tickets for undersubscribed events but keep at it anyway.
Also " traders" like to be able to tell people that they're not gamblers, but " trade in sports results ".
Sounds much more intelligent and sensible, almost respectable and admirable.
Sounds much more intelligent and sensible, almost respectable and admirable.
PunterA: My team will beat your team
PunterB: No way. How much you willing to bet?
PunterA: I'm not telling. How much you willing to bet?
PunterB: It's a secret. Anyway, what price you want?
PunterA: I've got no idea. What about you?
PunterB: Not a clue.
Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.
PunterB: No way. How much you willing to bet?
PunterA: I'm not telling. How much you willing to bet?
PunterB: It's a secret. Anyway, what price you want?
PunterA: I've got no idea. What about you?
PunterB: Not a clue.
Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.
Feck, are you watching Panorama now?
All your enemies are there, right now!
Bankers, City boys, tories (Boris Johnson), I've even just heard the phrase "Masters of the UNIVERSE."
and "Massive reckless gambling".
All your enemies are there, right now!
Bankers, City boys, tories (Boris Johnson), I've even just heard the phrase "Masters of the UNIVERSE."
and "Massive reckless gambling".
I see little here that should surprise anyone.
Betting exchanges were a good idea - but no one knew how punters and governments would react to them.
In the UK, enough punters got nivolved to grow the product and the government let them in with a GPT, not a turnover-based tax regime.
Outside the UK, they are hitting problems.
Plus Betfair's owners always wanted to IPO - and the problem with low-margin businesses which have monpolies is that once they float shareholders tire of those low margins.
So prices go up (by stealth) and they diversify - to try to canniblalise the usebase and sell them other products.
But it seldom works very well and it's not working here.
Betfair's share price will be driven in my view by their success or otherwise of getting into markets like the USA, and whether or not the management comes up with astutue or hairbrained future diversificaiton plans.
I'd start thinking about the standard 12 times profits for a sensible share price from now on - soon there will be no reason why Betfair should be priced differently to other betting companies online.
Finally, new changes and competition?
It's not happened to ebay (full of wholesalers now) and it won't happen to Betfair.
Too many have tried and failed, too many are trying and failing as we speak.
Dream on there.
Betting exchanges were a good idea - but no one knew how punters and governments would react to them.
In the UK, enough punters got nivolved to grow the product and the government let them in with a GPT, not a turnover-based tax regime.
Outside the UK, they are hitting problems.
Plus Betfair's owners always wanted to IPO - and the problem with low-margin businesses which have monpolies is that once they float shareholders tire of those low margins.
So prices go up (by stealth) and they diversify - to try to canniblalise the usebase and sell them other products.
But it seldom works very well and it's not working here.
Betfair's share price will be driven in my view by their success or otherwise of getting into markets like the USA, and whether or not the management comes up with astutue or hairbrained future diversificaiton plans.
I'd start thinking about the standard 12 times profits for a sensible share price from now on - soon there will be no reason why Betfair should be priced differently to other betting companies online.
Finally, new changes and competition?
It's not happened to ebay (full of wholesalers now) and it won't happen to Betfair.
Too many have tried and failed, too many are trying and failing as we speak.
Dream on there.
By:
Feck N. Eejit
The one gambler getting a worse price due to trading activity will be the winning gambler, the losing gambler will get a better price.
You keep saying this Investor yet you acknowledge that the layer and backer on either side of any trade would generally get a better price in the trader's absence. You also acknowledge that the spreads will be filled in regardless of traders. That being the case, losing and winning gamblers generally get a better price in the absence of traders.
I'm not disagreeing with that. What I am saying is yes, gamblers would indeed get a better deal in the absence of traders. However this better deal would be swallowed up by winning gamblers entirely ... and then some. The losing gamblers would be worse off.
Even if losing gamblers were to leapfrog each other to create 1.99-2.00 spreads that only traders can do profitably, it would simply lead to them losing money. The only people who have a financial incentive to create these spreads are traders / market makers.
Feck N. Eejit
Date Joined: 10 Jan 02
Add contact | Send message
19 Dec 10 18:07
If you removed all trader's trades from the market almost every gambler's bet would still be matched, in many cases at better odds.
If this happened then in-play betting would not be able to survive on here.
Date Joined: 10 Jan 02
Add contact | Send message
19 Dec 10 18:07
If you removed all trader's trades from the market almost every gambler's bet would still be matched, in many cases at better odds.
If this happened then in-play betting would not be able to survive on here.
Feck how would you describe your own method of betting?
It consists of offerring high margin spreads, (ie crap prices) to people, hoping they get taken before those evil nasty traders offer a better deal to them, and then whinging hysterically if they do!
marky sparky
If this happened then in-play betting would not be able to survive on here.
^^^ this.
If this happened then in-play betting would not be able to survive on here.
^^^ this.
The only way to win is to place positive expected value bets, though there are many ways you may achieve this. All winners take their money from the losers
Both those statements are false, and illustrate a point of mine that you can make money on BF by understanding the (collective) psychology of markets.
Both those statements are false, and illustrate a point of mine that you can make money on BF by understanding the (collective) psychology of markets.
GetReal
but betfair is different to other bookmakers, because betfair take less risk, we see this in betfair cutting there highrollers business after making 25 million..Ladbrokes get 8% to 10% of revenues from (I guess) the same highrollers
You might be right on diversificaiton never works, is betfair better off to stop sending money and to give the 170m in cash back to it shareholders...But at the same time, buliding LMAX trading platfrom and changing the law in USA cost money
Really...I can not believe USA states havce started to change the law and let betting Exchange, if you said that to me 2 years ago, i would have said no way in hell...
but betfair is different to other bookmakers, because betfair take less risk, we see this in betfair cutting there highrollers business after making 25 million..Ladbrokes get 8% to 10% of revenues from (I guess) the same highrollers
You might be right on diversificaiton never works, is betfair better off to stop sending money and to give the 170m in cash back to it shareholders...But at the same time, buliding LMAX trading platfrom and changing the law in USA cost money
Really...I can not believe USA states havce started to change the law and let betting Exchange, if you said that to me 2 years ago, i would have said no way in hell...
GetReal,
Some astute observations.
I'll take issue with one point about competition.
A profitable business will always attract competition, as long as the barriers to entry aren't too high, and the barriers to entry to the sports betting market business aren't that high. Certainly much lower than BF say, and they have a vested interest in exaggerating this point.
What potential competitors fail to grasp is that sports betting is a very price sensitive market and the route to success is by cutting commisions well below that of BF.
Some astute observations.
I'll take issue with one point about competition.
A profitable business will always attract competition, as long as the barriers to entry aren't too high, and the barriers to entry to the sports betting market business aren't that high. Certainly much lower than BF say, and they have a vested interest in exaggerating this point.
What potential competitors fail to grasp is that sports betting is a very price sensitive market and the route to success is by cutting commisions well below that of BF.
Marksman, no I didn't see it but I have the Friday repeat on series link.
Betfairy, that isn't the way the private auction works and you know it.
Even if losing gamblers were to leapfrog each other to create 1.99-2.00 spreads that only traders can do profitably, it would simply lead to them losing money. The only people who have a financial incentive to create these spreads are traders / market makers.
I don't know what point you're trying to make here Investor. You agree the losers will close up the spreads anyway and you agree those losers would be better off without a trader acting as middlemen but you seem to be saying it will cost them money unless they are led there by traders who will then act as middlemen on their bets??????????????????????
If this happened then in-play betting would not be able to survive on here.
marky, I wasn't talking about ir but unless you think traders (and I'm not talking about someone who closes out their bet because their selection is doing well) are generally winning off each other ir then there must be real gamblers on either end of most trades. Anyway, if all feeds were truly live and there was zero bet placement delay most of the current cheat based liquidity would disappear. It would be replaced by odds based neutral period liquidity though.
Rocket, mainly straight betting on horse racing.
Get Real, so far all attempts have consisted of creating a clone of betfair. I agree that's almost guaranteed to fail though.
Betfairy, that isn't the way the private auction works and you know it.
Even if losing gamblers were to leapfrog each other to create 1.99-2.00 spreads that only traders can do profitably, it would simply lead to them losing money. The only people who have a financial incentive to create these spreads are traders / market makers.
I don't know what point you're trying to make here Investor. You agree the losers will close up the spreads anyway and you agree those losers would be better off without a trader acting as middlemen but you seem to be saying it will cost them money unless they are led there by traders who will then act as middlemen on their bets??????????????????????
If this happened then in-play betting would not be able to survive on here.
marky, I wasn't talking about ir but unless you think traders (and I'm not talking about someone who closes out their bet because their selection is doing well) are generally winning off each other ir then there must be real gamblers on either end of most trades. Anyway, if all feeds were truly live and there was zero bet placement delay most of the current cheat based liquidity would disappear. It would be replaced by odds based neutral period liquidity though.
Rocket, mainly straight betting on horse racing.
Get Real, so far all attempts have consisted of creating a clone of betfair. I agree that's almost guaranteed to fail though.
The only way to win is to place positive expected value bets, though there are many ways you may achieve this. All winners take their money from the losers
Both those statements are false, and illustrate a point of mine that you can make money on BF by understanding the (collective) psychology of markets.
Both of these statement are true, let me split it up for you:
The only way to win is to place positive expected value bets
This is true, even traders have to strike positive value bets, if the price consistently moves in your favour that means your opening position had value. By definition, a large series of bets that shows a profit must be composed of positive value bets (on average). That doesn't mean that you have to take a view on the outcome of the event- a good understanding of how markets work will allow you to strike value bets, but they still have to be value bets. You also don't have to think of it in this way, you might not consciously think about value- but that doesn't change anything, ALL winners strike value bets.
there are many ways you may achieve this
I assume you're not arguing with this.
All winners take their money from the losers
If you don't understand this then I'd like you to explain where you think the money DOES come from? Santa? Jesus?
Both those statements are false, and illustrate a point of mine that you can make money on BF by understanding the (collective) psychology of markets.
Both of these statement are true, let me split it up for you:
The only way to win is to place positive expected value bets
This is true, even traders have to strike positive value bets, if the price consistently moves in your favour that means your opening position had value. By definition, a large series of bets that shows a profit must be composed of positive value bets (on average). That doesn't mean that you have to take a view on the outcome of the event- a good understanding of how markets work will allow you to strike value bets, but they still have to be value bets. You also don't have to think of it in this way, you might not consciously think about value- but that doesn't change anything, ALL winners strike value bets.
there are many ways you may achieve this
I assume you're not arguing with this.
All winners take their money from the losers
If you don't understand this then I'd like you to explain where you think the money DOES come from? Santa? Jesus?
suppose santa never has a losing bet, and that jesus beats most people but can't ever seem to beat santa
if santa bets only against jesus then they are both winners as long as jesus can milk the masses for enough to pay his gambling debts off to santa
here endeth the lesson
if santa bets only against jesus then they are both winners as long as jesus can milk the masses for enough to pay his gambling debts off to santa
here endeth the lesson
(the point being that santa would then be winning his money from a winner)
That's a fair-ish point Eldrick, but it doesn't exist in the real world, moreover- where did the money that Santa won from Jesus come from? This situation really just shows Jesus throwing away some of his winnings on poor value bets- which is what we all do. All the money that's won by both Jesus AND Santa ultimately comes from losers.
yes, all winnings must eventually come from losers. that's trivial and not worthy of discussion
what is (mildly) interesting is considering how winners fare against each other head to head - there must be punters on here who win, but do their conkers to some other winners on here. if only they could figure out how to avoid doing business with those people...
what is (mildly) interesting is considering how winners fare against each other head to head - there must be punters on here who win, but do their conkers to some other winners on here. if only they could figure out how to avoid doing business with those people...
I think it's pretty likely that some winners systematically throw away a good part of their potential profit on poor value "green up" or "red out" bets.
In the past I was quite keen to make my returns as even as possible so I would green up pretty much everything, but when I analysed my results it became clear that I was throwing away a lot of money. These days I never green up just for the sake of it, although I do usually end up with green markets just by aiming to hit value in all sorts of different places.
In the past I was quite keen to make my returns as even as possible so I would green up pretty much everything, but when I analysed my results it became clear that I was throwing away a lot of money. These days I never green up just for the sake of it, although I do usually end up with green markets just by aiming to hit value in all sorts of different places.
Naida,
There have been competitors offering as low as 1% (or even 0%) commission but it did not work.
This is because the biggest price sensitive pull for punters is the saving by transferring from fixed odds bookie to exchange - the only benefit in a lower rate of commission is if liquidity is equal in both places.
0% commission is no use if the liquidity is not there and even simulating it by seeding by continuously scraping Betfair's market prices does not seem to work either.
ebay could not be broken by other auction sites and I doubt Betfair can be either.
It would cost too much and the prize for success is too low now - there are better investment options in other markets.
There have been competitors offering as low as 1% (or even 0%) commission but it did not work.
This is because the biggest price sensitive pull for punters is the saving by transferring from fixed odds bookie to exchange - the only benefit in a lower rate of commission is if liquidity is equal in both places.
0% commission is no use if the liquidity is not there and even simulating it by seeding by continuously scraping Betfair's market prices does not seem to work either.
ebay could not be broken by other auction sites and I doubt Betfair can be either.
It would cost too much and the prize for success is too low now - there are better investment options in other markets.
Feck N. Eejit
I don't know what point you're trying to make here Investor. You agree the losers will close up the spreads anyway and you agree those losers would be better off without a trader acting as middlemen but you seem to be saying it will cost them money unless they are led there by traders who will then act as middlemen on their bets??????????????????????
I don't agree losers would be better of without a trader, only winners would be better off. And yes, it will cost them money if traders don't operate to minimise spreads!
I said gamblers as a whole would be better off. The whole scenario is highly simplified as in reality there is no clear deliniation between traders/gamblers/market makers/ arbers etc. as many people use various techniques.
In a simplified model there are three types of bettors: winning gamblers, losing gamblers and traders (losing traders are grouped together with losing gamblers).
If the exchange is filled purely with gamblers. The winning gamblers collectively win x units (Before commission), and the losing gamblers lose x (before commission).
The winning gamblers need to stay out of the game in situations where the spreads are small and they believe the market price is accurate, as they can't make any money.
Enter the trader: In theory he can step in to ensure the margins are small all the time. This completely cuts of the winning gambler from their profits. As the spreads are smaller, the losing gamblers expected loss per bet diminishes, so he will be better off.
I don't know what point you're trying to make here Investor. You agree the losers will close up the spreads anyway and you agree those losers would be better off without a trader acting as middlemen but you seem to be saying it will cost them money unless they are led there by traders who will then act as middlemen on their bets??????????????????????
I don't agree losers would be better of without a trader, only winners would be better off. And yes, it will cost them money if traders don't operate to minimise spreads!
I said gamblers as a whole would be better off. The whole scenario is highly simplified as in reality there is no clear deliniation between traders/gamblers/market makers/ arbers etc. as many people use various techniques.
In a simplified model there are three types of bettors: winning gamblers, losing gamblers and traders (losing traders are grouped together with losing gamblers).
If the exchange is filled purely with gamblers. The winning gamblers collectively win x units (Before commission), and the losing gamblers lose x (before commission).
The winning gamblers need to stay out of the game in situations where the spreads are small and they believe the market price is accurate, as they can't make any money.
Enter the trader: In theory he can step in to ensure the margins are small all the time. This completely cuts of the winning gambler from their profits. As the spreads are smaller, the losing gamblers expected loss per bet diminishes, so he will be better off.
^ Exactly right.
Close market spreads and efficient markets remove opportunities for winning opinion gamblers but look after losers. In the simplest sense this benefits most players because they never had any chance of winning anyway and close and efficient markets mean they will lose more slowly, however it does dramatically reduce the already remote chance of them ever becoming winners- which is the down side.
Close market spreads and efficient markets remove opportunities for winning opinion gamblers but look after losers. In the simplest sense this benefits most players because they never had any chance of winning anyway and close and efficient markets mean they will lose more slowly, however it does dramatically reduce the already remote chance of them ever becoming winners- which is the down side.
The definition of the winning opinion gambler being used here is a somewhat low grade one. It is only one step separated from the price takers who have been defined as losers.
There are other things afoot.
There are other things afoot.
Investor, you agreed earlier that in the absence of traders the losing gamblers would close up the spreads anyway. If the winning layers and backers are sitting on 1.8 and 2.2 the price incensitive gamblers will meet around 2.0. The winning gamblers are out of the argument at that stage. Please tell me how traders entering the fray will benefit the others.
If the losing gamblers close the spread, they won't benefit from trader activity. They won't always close the spreads though (even now, with plenty of traders operating, you can still find wide spreads).
Many losers will simply take a price without doing any real analysis to come to a conclusion on whether the price is good. Losers are more likely to take a price than offer one.
If I had a higher level of capital and/or better automation (currently I place my almost all my bets manually with the help of a few custom tools), I would get more bets matched and presumably make more money. The people I would be winning this money off would on average lose less than they would without my activity, as they would get worse odds than I offer.
As a side note, if you are a straight bettor paying PC, you can bet to whatever tiny margin you want (traders don't have an advantage over you).
You could say that the better liquidity is, the less the markets benefit from trader activity (the spreads would be small without them anyway). This is where I can see the perverse effect of data request charges (if your profit expectancy per market drops to an exceptionally low level, it no longer makes sense to be active). This is what happened to me when Betfair put loads of games in play that had really poor liquidity in between the WC and the start of the season.
Many losers will simply take a price without doing any real analysis to come to a conclusion on whether the price is good. Losers are more likely to take a price than offer one.
If I had a higher level of capital and/or better automation (currently I place my almost all my bets manually with the help of a few custom tools), I would get more bets matched and presumably make more money. The people I would be winning this money off would on average lose less than they would without my activity, as they would get worse odds than I offer.
As a side note, if you are a straight bettor paying PC, you can bet to whatever tiny margin you want (traders don't have an advantage over you).
You could say that the better liquidity is, the less the markets benefit from trader activity (the spreads would be small without them anyway). This is where I can see the perverse effect of data request charges (if your profit expectancy per market drops to an exceptionally low level, it no longer makes sense to be active). This is what happened to me when Betfair put loads of games in play that had really poor liquidity in between the WC and the start of the season.
aye robot,
The 2nd point 1st.
It's commonly the case that winning bettors want to 'green out' their positions, and they aren't too fussy about the price because they winning. Taking these greening out bets, ie some of the profits from winners, is a profitable activity.
You have defined value to be any future price movement, which is nonsense. If a price goes from 1.5 to 1.6 and then back to 1.5, how can both moves represent value?
Most people define value as better than the real odds of the events outcome. Some people, myself included, trade on market factors that have nothing to do with the events outcome.
The 2nd point 1st.
It's commonly the case that winning bettors want to 'green out' their positions, and they aren't too fussy about the price because they winning. Taking these greening out bets, ie some of the profits from winners, is a profitable activity.
You have defined value to be any future price movement, which is nonsense. If a price goes from 1.5 to 1.6 and then back to 1.5, how can both moves represent value?
Most people define value as better than the real odds of the events outcome. Some people, myself included, trade on market factors that have nothing to do with the events outcome.
Get Real,
Ebay has taken the BF route of maximizing profits and its market share is falling substantially as a result.
Amazon's sales were up 40% in the last Q while Ebay's were up 3%. Ebay's market share fell by at least a quarter as online sales grew rapidly.
Ebay has taken the BF route of maximizing profits and its market share is falling substantially as a result.
Amazon's sales were up 40% in the last Q while Ebay's were up 3%. Ebay's market share fell by at least a quarter as online sales grew rapidly.
You have defined value to be any future price movement, which is nonsense. If a price goes from 1.5 to 1.6 and then back to 1.5, how can both moves represent value?
This is not how I've defined value- that would be nonsense, value is the relationship between the true odds (probability) of an event occurring and the odds of the bet you strike. Probabilities change over time both before and during an event so different prices represent positive value at different times.
Overall prices trend towards true value so if you are able to consistently open positions and then watch the price move in your favour then you are opening with value bets on average. It's important to understand the "on average" caveat. Not every price movement allows a good value bet just as not every good value bet wins. A trader may get lucky on a price movement in the same way that an old fashioned gambler may get lucky on a negative value horse, but to win in the long term the price must go in his favour consistently, so he has to be good at spotting the direction of price movements- in other words opening at value.
The bottom line is that a large series of bets that shows a profit must be positive value by definition. We all strike bets and they have to win or lose, if they do that in line with the odds you've taken then you lose- full stop. To win your bets have to be out of line with the odds you've matched regardless of whether you're a trader or not or of how you operate your trades. It doesn't matter how you came about that value, it IS there. As I have said several times already, there are many ways of anticipating market movements, but what you are doing is still looking for value, you are just using market dynamics/psychology/whatever to show you where it is.
If you still don't get this then look at your results, take all your bets, look at the odds and calculate how many of them should have won if these odds were true, then ask how many DID win, if you have made a profit these numbers MUST be out of line (otherwise you would have lost), you are therefore almost certainly looking at a series of bets that shows value overall (provided you have a sufficiently large sample etc).
This is not how I've defined value- that would be nonsense, value is the relationship between the true odds (probability) of an event occurring and the odds of the bet you strike. Probabilities change over time both before and during an event so different prices represent positive value at different times.
Overall prices trend towards true value so if you are able to consistently open positions and then watch the price move in your favour then you are opening with value bets on average. It's important to understand the "on average" caveat. Not every price movement allows a good value bet just as not every good value bet wins. A trader may get lucky on a price movement in the same way that an old fashioned gambler may get lucky on a negative value horse, but to win in the long term the price must go in his favour consistently, so he has to be good at spotting the direction of price movements- in other words opening at value.
The bottom line is that a large series of bets that shows a profit must be positive value by definition. We all strike bets and they have to win or lose, if they do that in line with the odds you've taken then you lose- full stop. To win your bets have to be out of line with the odds you've matched regardless of whether you're a trader or not or of how you operate your trades. It doesn't matter how you came about that value, it IS there. As I have said several times already, there are many ways of anticipating market movements, but what you are doing is still looking for value, you are just using market dynamics/psychology/whatever to show you where it is.
If you still don't get this then look at your results, take all your bets, look at the odds and calculate how many of them should have won if these odds were true, then ask how many DID win, if you have made a profit these numbers MUST be out of line (otherwise you would have lost), you are therefore almost certainly looking at a series of bets that shows value overall (provided you have a sufficiently large sample etc).
Investor, we are at cross purposes here. I'm talking about the markets on lastfiveminutes.com at the point where you can actually get a bet on. You're talking about the same markets at a point when practically no one's interested in them. In early markets (certainly early horse racing markets) I'd say most of the trading was done by odds based traders and very little was done by opinionless traders.
aye robot
Why do you say " Overall prices trend towards true value ---- " "
Isn't this the the same as believong in the efficient market theory on the stock markets, and we know how that has been discredited well and truly.
Why do you say " Overall prices trend towards true value ---- " "
Isn't this the the same as believong in the efficient market theory on the stock markets, and we know how that has been discredited well and truly.
Why do you say " Overall prices trend towards true value ---- "
This isn't a matter of belief, it is possible to measure. The odds available in (for example) horse racing markets are more accurate very close to the off, compared to the odds available several hours before.
This isn't a matter of belief, it is possible to measure. The odds available in (for example) horse racing markets are more accurate very close to the off, compared to the odds available several hours before.
Perhaps what I'm really meaning to say is that whilst prices may represent " good value" at the off, subsequent movements in the prices in running are the consequence of unfoldinfg events, which are essentially unforecastable.?
That is , a price trend before the off may be forecastable if you perceive an early price value differential, but never during a race/game ?
That is , a price trend before the off may be forecastable if you perceive an early price value differential, but never during a race/game ?
It's an unfortunate fact that when you get matched at good prices other people try and get in on the action closing the spread until it is close to true.
As you near kick off it's an assumption that any and all information has made its way into the market hence the true value.
Rocket
As I said that may well be true.
But after KO how do you assess value then, as matters unfold in a myriad of ways ?
As I said that may well be true.
But after KO how do you assess value then, as matters unfold in a myriad of ways ?
Strange, your post wasn't there when I replied.
I have no doubt the most popular is to benefit from miss matches across markets.
I could write all day about it and still not make much sense. There are a number of different methods, each with their own merits. I don't bet in play except the odd exception but I have no doubt I could.
Somebody with the time and inclination may give you a better explanation.
I have no doubt the most popular is to benefit from miss matches across markets.
I could write all day about it and still not make much sense. There are a number of different methods, each with their own merits. I don't bet in play except the odd exception but I have no doubt I could.
Somebody with the time and inclination may give you a better explanation.
If I understand you correctly Rocket, what you're saying is that during a game various mispricing arbitrage opportunities arise between various interrelated markets, for those quick enough to spot them.
You may well be right again.
But that is an entirely different matter to " value betting" and " trend spotting " isn't it ?.
You may well be right again.
But that is an entirely different matter to " value betting" and " trend spotting " isn't it ?.
Well for starters, arbitrage is a guaranteed profit, whilst the other "trading" activities are only maybe profits, only generated if you get it more right than wrong.
You don't think that's a material difference ?
You don't think that's a material difference ?
aye robot, thanks for the detailed reply.
Let me describe in general terms something that is a reliable earner for me, which has nothing to do with value as you define it. I won't describe its specifics as I don't want other people jumping on it.
There are markets where outcome A shortens and then outcome B shortens in a predictable pattern. Obviously profits can be made by backing and laying A and B at the right points in the pattern.
Let me describe in general terms something that is a reliable earner for me, which has nothing to do with value as you define it. I won't describe its specifics as I don't want other people jumping on it.
There are markets where outcome A shortens and then outcome B shortens in a predictable pattern. Obviously profits can be made by backing and laying A and B at the right points in the pattern.
Frog Hair, a little educational anecdote.
I was in the Bank yesterday and spent half an hour trying to explain to the manager something the bank claims is in fact false.
When I wrote out an example proving my point, you could clearly see the dissonance as my example clashed with what he and his colleuges believed. The result being he refused to believe my example and went off on some irrelevant tangent.
The point of the story is that there is money to be made on BF from finding things most people believe that are in fact false. Arbitrage, for example.
I was in the Bank yesterday and spent half an hour trying to explain to the manager something the bank claims is in fact false.
When I wrote out an example proving my point, you could clearly see the dissonance as my example clashed with what he and his colleuges believed. The result being he refused to believe my example and went off on some irrelevant tangent.
The point of the story is that there is money to be made on BF from finding things most people believe that are in fact false. Arbitrage, for example.
pxb, if outcome B shortens due to (or for the same reasons as) outcome A shortening, then backing outcome B after outcome A has already shortened and B hasn't will likely be a value bet.
You may not know or care where you are getting value, but you most likely are.
You may not know or care where you are getting value, but you most likely are.
FINE AS FROG HAIR
Date Joined: 12 Mar 07
Add contact | Send message
When: 22 Dec 10 22:10
aye robot
Why do you say " Overall prices trend towards true value ---- " "
Isn't this the the same as believong in the efficient market theory on the stock markets, and we know how that has been discredited well and truly.
It's fairly obvious that prices are more likely to move toward true value than away from it. EMH in it's strong form suggests that all new information is reflected in the price immediately (so there wouldn't be any non-random trends to exploit), this is clearly ridiculous, bearing no semblance to reality, and useful only as an artificial construct for academicians to squabble over. In any case hardly anyone supports that.
The weaker forms of EMH do have some merit.
From empirical analysis, the following conclusion can be drawn:
The more liquid a market is the more accurate prices will be.
It's possible to profit from that information alone
Date Joined: 12 Mar 07
Add contact | Send message
When: 22 Dec 10 22:10
aye robot
Why do you say " Overall prices trend towards true value ---- " "
Isn't this the the same as believong in the efficient market theory on the stock markets, and we know how that has been discredited well and truly.
It's fairly obvious that prices are more likely to move toward true value than away from it. EMH in it's strong form suggests that all new information is reflected in the price immediately (so there wouldn't be any non-random trends to exploit), this is clearly ridiculous, bearing no semblance to reality, and useful only as an artificial construct for academicians to squabble over. In any case hardly anyone supports that.
The weaker forms of EMH do have some merit.
From empirical analysis, the following conclusion can be drawn:
The more liquid a market is the more accurate prices will be.
It's possible to profit from that information alone
UNLESS YOU WORK IN THE FINANCIAL SECTOR AND ARE VERY CLUED UP ,STAY WELL AWAY FROM BUYING AND SELLING SHARES ,THOSE THAT RUN THEM, MAKE BOOKMAKERS LOOK LIKE SAINTS
Howsyourlucknow .. slow down you fired about 5 ?
heres my answer.. this cost you knowt
Q1 ..No
Q2...No
Q3...Yes
Q4...yes
Q5.. is so foggy lets say i have no idea ........zipper .
heres my answer.. this cost you knowt
Q1 ..No
Q2...No
Q3...Yes
Q4...yes
Q5.. is so foggy lets say i have no idea ........zipper .
Do wah Diddy ..Zip likes the name . but you are so right
See My Post 14 Dec 16.52 and 16.55 if you need any more advice
See My Post 14 Dec 16.52 and 16.55 if you need any more advice
MY BROKER WAS IN KING STREET MANCHESTER SET AMONGST ST ANNS SQUARES FINEST BUILDINGS ,I WAS ONCE ONE OF THE TOP 250 SHARE HOLDERS IN BRITISH STEEL BEFORE THEY WERE TAKEN OVER NY CORUS,I NOW LIVE ON A COUNCIL ESTATE WITH MY MAM ,AND IVE GOT A SHARE CERTIFEECATE WITH 200000 SHARES IN BRENT WALKER , WHO OWNED WALLIAM HULLS THE BOOKMAKERS ,THEY SOLD WALLIAM HILLS AND THEN WENT INTO LIQUIDATION THEIR NOT WORTH A CARROT
THEIR RIGHT WHAT THEY SAY,A FOOL AND HIS MONEY ARE SOON PARTED
I THOUGHT IF YOU CANT BEAT WALLIAM HULLS JOIN THEM ,SO I DID AND THE PARENT COMPANY WENT BUMP
I BOUGHT THOUSANDS OF RATNER SHARES THE SAME WEEK AS GENERALD RATNER THE MANAGEING DIRECTOR TOLD EVERY ONE HIS JEWERLLRY WAS CRAP,I DID GET A LOYALTY CARD WITH 10% OFF EACH PURCHASE I MADE
EVERYONE SAID PAY A SPECIALIST TO INVEST YOUR MONEY ,I SAID NO THANKS IM NOT PAYING ANYONE FEES WITH MY HARD EARNED MONEY ,ILL DO IT MY WAY
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539