General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 152 comments are related to the topic:
Bloody Fantastic!
Bloody Fantastic!
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 152
|
By:
They arranged a walk out, they did stop betting here
You know that do you? Do you seriously believe that someone earning large 6 figure sums / year trading would give that as a protest? Because as someone who has tried trading elsewhere, I'm telling you that in-play trading in any reasonable size is absolutely impossible at the other place. |
|
By:
in-play there is fecking joke, even when betfair is down
 |
|
By:
When will you get it into your head that there is only a difference of degree, and not in kind, between a position-taker and a trader. Anyone striking a bet or putting up an offer of a bet is contributing, in some way or another to liquidity. That I may bet £5k at 1.42, and then, 1 minute later, bet £5k at 1.44, whereas a position-taker does just one bet and then lets it ride till expiry doesn't mean that somehow I'm failing to contribute to the overall liquidity does it?
|
|
By:
does have a whiff of foul play about it, doesn't it.
|
|
By:
I'm telling you that in-play trading in any reasonable size is absolutely impossible at the other place.
I daresay that would soon change if betfair increased the charges of liquidity providers by 300%. Know what I mean. When will you get it into your head that there is only a difference of degree, and not in kind, between a position-taker and a trader. Anyone striking a bet or putting up an offer of a bet is contributing, in some way or another to liquidity. That I may bet £5k at 1.42, and then, 1 minute later, bet £5k at 1.44, whereas a position-taker does just one bet and then lets it ride till expiry doesn't mean that somehow I'm failing to contribute to the overall liquidity does it? You're a middleman and in your absence the layers and backers at either end of your trade would've matched each other. You no more add liquidity than a ticket tout generates extra seats at a sold out venue. |
|
By:
I'm with contrarian on this one, traders I think contribute a lot to liqudity. Apart from common sense..
I've watched late night south american games where there is a decent amount of money, then approaching kick off it all sudden disappears dramatically. The people taking a position with no intend to trade wouldn't care as long as their bets were matched at odds they like and they'd likely keep their money in. Traders certainly do care about such things, and got out as soon as kick off, and the danger it carries, got close. That was my reading of it, and a logical one. And once it kicks off .. you can see the tumbleweed. Why aren't all the local 'position takers' betting in play given they'll have TVs? Where did all the liqudity 30 minutes before kick off come from? To have what appears to be a negative feeling towards trading on a betting exchange seems bizarre to say the least.. |
|
By:
we have a saying in my country
"grain by grain, the hen fills her belly" Feck obviously doesn't believe this |
|
By:
You're a middleman and in your absence the layers and backers at either end of your trade would've matched each other. You no more add liquidity than a ticket tout generates extra seats at a sold out
I know that this is a comparison that you're fond of, but it's rather off kilter. Ticket touts may not generate extra seats, but they do make it more likely that the venue will be full. He gets hold of tickets that might otherwise have not been used, and sells them on to someone who will definitely attend. Similarly, it is undeniable that the traders willing to back and lay at any price, provided it is value, will make it more likely that two position-takers will meet in the middle. |
|
By:
Let me get this straight JC. All the money just before the off belongs to traders. Are they all trying to close out bets or is it their opening salvo? It must be the former as no one seems to be trying to close out during play and by the sound of it most of them must end up with a one sided bet. Why does the "traders supply liquidity" argument always have to rely on someone market making in a tumbleweed event or parasites relying on the market maker advantage in flies-round-sh1te markets?
Are there traders on the tote? That seems to function fine without them just as betfair could with a simple change of interface. |
|
By:
Down AGAIN?
Don't want to get overly political and my memory is dodgey, and please forgive me and correct me if I'm wrong Feck, but I believe Feck has come across with fairly red flag waving type things before, perhaps trading sounds a bit too much like 'capitalism' and a knee jerk dislike follows..? Is position taking fighting against bourgeois oppression?  |
|
By:
ffs give it a rest the site is falling apart around us and feck is banging the same imaginary drum. Start one thread and stick to it, its very very boring
|
|
By:
feck lives in a world where if it wasn't for traders, position takers would put an end to these outrageous 100.2% overrounds and 1 tick spreads that plague the site for proper gamblers.
|
|
By:
JC,
No, Feck's problem is that he's a position-taker who mugs to take his bets at silly odds. The presence of traders like me means that lots of markets on here have tiny overrounds, and Feck's bets are miles away from the action. |
|
By:
**relies on mugs
|
|
By:
^contrarian has it spot on.
|
|
By:
Middlemen = Leeches. HTHJC.
|
|
By:
The more money in a market the more liquid it will be and the traders will add to that?
The example I gave was based simply on me observing things and trying to come up with a reason for why it happened that way. Do you have a better one? Why would anyone dislike traders or trading? If you're a position taker and they give you they odds you like, what's the problem, there isn't one. So if they are who you're defending, that doesn't stand as an argument against them. So why would anyone, apart from based on some quite strange idealogical grounds, dislike traders or trading, as you seem to do? |
|
By:
Here we go - A Feck political party broadcast
|
|
By:
JC,
Viva el presidente and I have explained Feck's problem. Notice the way he fails to engage with any proper argument. He just trots out the same hackneyed derogatory terms ('flies-round-sh1t markets', 'leeches') and parallels (with ticket touts). |
|
By:
I know that this is a comparison that you're fond of, but it's rather off kilter. Ticket touts may not generate extra seats, but they do make it more likely that the venue will be full. He gets hold of tickets that might otherwise have not been used, and sells them on to someone who will definitely attend.
Similarly, it is undeniable that the traders willing to back and lay at any price, provided it is value, will make it more likely that two position-takers will meet in the middle. Why would the person buying from the tout not buy directly from the organisers? The part about traders is only true if the traders opening and closing bets are a fair time interval apart. They rarely are as that would generally require an opinion of odds. |
|
By:
JC, In what way does matching an existing offer then putting it back up at worse odds contribute to liquidity?
|
|
By:
The tout example isn't good as that's more a .. zero sum game. An open market like BF could have 0 pounds in it or 1000000000000 pounds in it. However liquidity is the lifeblood of an exchange and traders contribute to it.
|
|
By:
However liquidity is the lifeblood of an exchange and traders contribute to it.
Oh well, that's me fkd then. |
|
By:
Why would the person buying from the tout not buy directly from the organisers? The part about traders is only true if the traders opening and closing bets are a fair time interval apart. They rarely are as that would generally require an opinion of odds.
Well, forgive me for stating the obvious, but the person buys from the tout because he can no longer buy from the organisers (presumably because the event is sold out). The tout took a gamble that the cover price of the ticket was 'value' and that he could trade it later for a higher price. The trader's opening and closing bets DON'T need to be a fair time interval apart, because - and this is the crucial point that you seem unable to digest - his buying and selling actions are one small part of a whole accumulation of similar actions on the part of other traderswhich, together, allow two position-takers, quite far apart in time and price, to be matched. |
|
By:
Well, forgive me for stating the obvious, but the person buys from the tout because he can no longer buy from the organisers (presumably because the event is sold out). The tout took a gamble that the cover price of the ticket was 'value' and that he could trade it later for a higher price.
In the touts absence those tickets would've been available from the organisor. If you think the tout's gambling it's no wonder you're a trader. The trader's opening and closing bets DON'T need to be a fair time interval apart, because - and this is the crucial point that you seem unable to digest - his buying and selling actions are one small part of a whole accumulation of similar actions on the part of other traderswhich, together, allow two position-takers, quite far apart in time and price, to be matched. Most traders will be going in the same direction. As I asked JC (no reply), in what way does matching an existing offer then putting it back up at worse odds contribute to liquidity? |
|
By:
I'm beginning to sense this is an unwinnable (due to the opponent not the case) argument but I'll try again, I'm a trooper and playing 'traders advocate' :)
Lets imagine there are two exchanges, BetFour, and BetDuck, names I've just made up, no relation to living or dead etc. Both have a bit of money in them, but not THAT much in BetDuck, but there is enough in BetDuck to get a position taker a match if they want, that's their job done. However for a TRADER, there isn't enough, so they avoid BetDuck and stick to BetFour. So, given that Betduck has a LOWER commission, why is there so much more money floating around BetFour, where the money-that-benefits-traders is, versus BetDuck, where the commission is lower and position takers who care less about liqudity can roughly speaking get same odds and matched and pay less commission? Why is the money where it is? Please explain for us! |
|
By:
Betduck does not offer a better deal for betfair's main liquidity providers who are mainly on or near 2%. Traders on the other hand might pay as little as 10% of what betfair charges them. These traders claim to supply the bulk of betfair's liquidity. Why isn't it all over at betduck? Explain for us.
|
|
By:
a trader takes a £1000 bet at 2.02 because he thinks it's value and puts it straight back at 2.0.
a position taker takes a £1000 bet at 2.02 because he thinks it's value and lets it ride. in feck's universe, the one who leaves £1000 less on the exchange than the other is the liquidity provider. should never have drunk from the bottle marked "DRINK ME" imo. |
|
By:
a trader takes a £1000 bet at 2.02 because he thinks it's value and puts it straight back at 2.0.
Again I'll ask, in what way does matching an existing offer then putting it back up at worse odds contribute to liquidity? Certainly if the trader's left holding a one sided bet he's contributed to liquidity but we're no longer talking about a trade then are we. |
|
By:
"Betduck does not offer a better deal for betfair's main liquidity providers who are mainly on or near 2%"
Huh? BetDuck at the moment (hypothetically speaking of course) have a commision 1/2 of BetFours. For Joe Punter, the choice is obvious. Unless of course the main liqudity providers aren't Joe Punter. And you've not answered my question. Unless - well who ARE the main liquidity providers you reference Feck? That's a simple one. |
|
By:
"should never have drunk from the bottle marked "DRINK ME" imo."
Is that English for Smirnoff? "Hick"! :) |
|
By:
it's part of the mechanism by which the market finds its true level and overrounds close to one tick.
and that's what you really object to, isn't it? you dress it up as a moral crusade, but actually what you hate is the 100.2% overrounds and the competition for value. which is sheer hypocrisy. |
|
By:
There is the odd immoral act on BF, and trading isn't one of them.
What I do find immoral would be somehow contriving to beat the suspend (effectively stealing), and probably some forms of trap bets, but beyond that.. To take or give odds fairly and with full consent to the 'other' is what it's all about and to try and differentiate the person on the other end of your transaction and try to take a bizarre moral high ground because they're trying to go with a different strategy to you, is .. well.. bizarre. |
|
By:
BetDuck at the moment (hypothetically speaking of course) have a commision 1/2 of BetFours.
They don't and even if they did it doesn't compare to 1/10th. it's part of the mechanism by which the market finds its true level and overrounds close to one tick. Would happen anyway. and that's what you really object to, isn't it? you dress it up as a moral crusade, but actually what you hate is the 100.2% overrounds and the competition for value. Would happen anyway but why would I object to 100% books? What would most traders know of value if they were deprived of the info that allows them to leech of those who do? |
|
By:
"They don't and even if they did it doesn't compare to 1/10th."
They (if they exist, and I'm not sure they do!) are, I would guess, on 2.5% at the moment. Where does 1/10th come from? Who, using BetFour, would be on 0.5% commission? You, as others note, just avoid questions and .. |
|
By:
Ah, so now traders only pay 5% on betfair. PMSL.
Winning traders are currently paying around 22.5% of their winnings on betfair. On betduck an API market maker would be paying 1% on each market. If he had no losing markets he'd be paying less than 5% of what he pays on betfair. |
|
By:
the reason you'd object to 100% books is that they go hand in hand with efficient markets.
you want to be able to win against people who know less than you (fair enough, we all do), but you've somehow dressed up your irritation with what's getting in the way of that as a moral objection. |
|
By:
Feck is a lunatic
everything in our world has a middleman and he just can't get around that,so, he is a lunatic |
|
By:
He's a feckin lunatic
 |
|
By:
the reason you'd object to 100% books is that they go hand in hand with efficient markets
True enough Pres. There's nothing p1sses me off more than 1.5 Heads and 3.0 Tails. |