Bloody Fantastic!

monopoly breeds arrogance breeds mediocrity breeds failure.

I was sort of expecting them to void the 14:05 but seemingly not - works out fine for me but others must be fuming.

They were not betting a Pricewise race this week ... leaving me in doubt whether I can changed my bets to 'take SP' in time.

Perhaps they won't be betting the Superbowl tomoz ... or the National or Royal Ascot.

I get the feeling that the site is so tech- and numbers-oriented they've lost track of what their recreational and even professional clients care about.

*had changed

I get the feeling that the site is so tech- and numbers-oriented they've lost track of what their recreational and even professional clients care about.

Spot on askari. 99% of their server requests are probably made by the middlemen that betfair claim to have cut out. If they ran Tesco you wouldn't be able to get into the store for kids taking up their offer of half price sweets.

Gone again?

Yep

yes it seems so. I think it is the database not the site. Notice how the aussie wallet balance still shows then it starts to go down.

Website always goes first, API probably to follow, that's the pattern.

So API users now need to keep web interface open and test every few minutes to make sure it's not about to all crash..

(and that would indicate it's not the DB, it's the internet facing parts of their site are as stable as the millenium bridge when first opened)

not db other platforms still working

bright colours attract losing punters   ,but as one said before why overload the site with roulette , poker and scrabble ?

Its disgusting, surely the owners will be sacking some people...the same thing happened on the Betfair Poker site, people didnt get there winnings and entrys for days, truely appaling service. Is anyone listening?

back?

Get the bl**dy API back up too.

bets matched while the site's down - fecking thieving cnts

Yip API went a couple minutes later. Website fails, then if you're lucky and see it, you've a short time to try and use API to try and safe your neck. Three times in one day.

we should have a association of some type so that we together could make betfair pay for this b.s., that should make them ensure that things like this never happen again

but we are a bunch of sad lonely people

here BETFAIR go to link or search keyword:

redundancy

http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/6874

Isn't it better to say "we have problems and we will be closed for a week". It's not easy to trade when you can not bet live...
I hope your cooperation with Goldman Sachs wont make you thieves as they are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What you need is another exchange to charge you up to 90% less than betfair so that you can all take your famous liquidity there. Oh I forgot, there is such an exchange and you all already tried that before discovering that you don't supply liquidity at all.

you all already tried that before discovering that you don't supply liquidity at all


What are you talking about?

A couple of high-profile forum posters threatened to go there after the introduction of the PC, but, of course, they didn't ever really stop betting here - there was never any drop in liquidity at that time.

Liquidity begets liquidity, and unfortunately it will take something pretty major for one of BF's competitors to reach the critical mass required to draw the big players (ie TRADERS) away.

Not again. Jesus!!!

Down again.

https://lite.betfair.com/

still up atm

thanks brendan

am I right in thinking at least two of these outages have hit a couple of minutes before TV football matches went in play?

Correct.

I'm sure there's something suspicious going on.

Back up now.

A couple of high-profile forum posters threatened to go there after the introduction of the PC, but, of course, they didn't ever really stop betting here - there was never any drop in liquidity at that time.

They arranged a walk out, they did stop betting here but you're right inasmuch as there was never any drop in liquidity on betfair. Nor was there any increase in the purple's.

Liquidity begets liquidity, and unfortunately it will take something pretty major for one of BF's competitors to reach the critical mass required to draw the big players (ie TRADERS) away.

The big players . How you people love yourselves. Do you mean it will take something big like charging a fifth of the commission betfair do? Is that not big enough? Would zero commission for traders be big enough? In truth it wouldn't be because what purple needs is the leech's host not the leech.

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.

in-play there is fecking joke, even when betfair is down

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?

does have a whiff of foul play about it, doesn't it.

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.

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..

we have a saying in my country

"grain by grain, the hen fills her belly"

Feck obviously doesn't believe this

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

**relies on mugs

^contrarian has it spot on.

Middlemen = Leeches. HTHJC.

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?

Here we go - A Feck political party broadcast

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).

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.

JC, In what way does matching an existing offer then putting it back up at worse odds contribute to liquidity?

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.

However liquidity is the lifeblood of an exchange and traders contribute to it.

Oh well, that's me fkd then.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

"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.

"should never have drunk from the bottle marked "DRINK ME" imo."
Is that English for Smirnoff? "Hick"! :)

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.

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.

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?

"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 ..

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.

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.

Feck is a lunatic

everything in our world has a middleman and he just can't get around that,so, he is a lunatic

He's a feckin lunatic

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.

everything in our world has a middleman and he just can't get around that,so, he is a lunatic

The middleman should be the government so the profit goes back to the people. Only the middlemen and lunatics think othewrwise.

Night, night children.

thats called Communism, it has been tried and it really didn't work, so get over it

Ahh yes. So my vague recollection about Feck being "Red Feck" with the complete absence of common sense that goes with the hardened socialist was correct...

Oh right. So a government run exchange couldn't possibly work just like nationalised banks couldn't possibly work. Come to think of it, we are so lucky to have these masters of the universe looking after our banks in return for a slice of the action. Where would we be without them? Solvent maybe?

'government run exchange'



That's a positively scary thought

The middleman should be the government so the profit goes back to
On the the people. Only the middlemen and lunatics think othewrwise.

Feck,

One of the persistent flaws in your thinking is that being a 'middleman' as you call it, is risk-free. It is not. Trading is hard, and involves taking a position. It might be a very short-term position, but it is still a position.

Yes, if you get the information very quickly, and are clever enough to know exactly where the market will be in the next few moments, given what the scoreline has moved to, you might have what you call 'market-maker advantage'. But this is difficult to achieve - if it isn't, then why aren't you doing it? - and involves considerable costs - sending people to games, development of suitable software for submitting bets quickly, etc.

It is extremely misleading to suggest that there is some simple, risk-free role to be played by middlemen - a role that you seem to think a disinterested party (!) like a government could occupy. There isn't!

i didn't say our current system is perfect, far from it, but much better in every ways than Communism

you speak like the governments are any different than the board of directors of a bank, LOL. In what planet do you live?

In fact, they are the ones that allowed the banks to do what they did in the first place

Yes, if you get the information very quickly, and are clever enough to know exactly where the market will be in the next few moments, given what the scoreline has moved to, you might have what you call 'market-maker advantage'.

That's not what I call the market maker advantage.


It is extremely misleading to suggest that there is some simple, risk-free role to be played by middlemen - a role that you seem to think a disinterested party (!) like a government could occupy. There isn't!

Why would the government want to take up trading on betfair (unless I'm reading your post wrong and you're suggesting that a government run exchange monopoly would be a risky proposition)?


you speak like the governments are any different than the board of directors of a bank, LOL. In what planet do you live?

They certainly work for less and can be voted out rather than bailed out.

The general effect of traders is to move the site towards fair value in moves of smaller denomination than winning position-takers will want to take. They tend to help price-finding, putting the market in a state where 1) recreational players will lose to commission, 2) good position-takers will have less of an edge and will be discouraged from playing, and 3) the site's technical features can be exploited by 'dip-in, dip-out' botted players and traders.

In this way anyone who can price up more accurately than initial oddslines e.g. the RP forecast odds in racing will dislike traders and understand them as (generally tho' not always) a drain on their profits.

They can ride on the back of informed opinion, moving illiquid markets away states in which bettors want to have their hefty bets.

And when markets settle at levels that price in winning position-takers, there is a more than average chance of some fact unknown to the position-taker that has screwed up his pricing.

Yes, if you get the information very quickly, and are clever enough to know exactly where the market will be in the next few moments, given what the scoreline has moved to, you might have what you call 'market-maker advantage'.

That's not what I call the market maker advantage.

Well, could you tell me what you do mean by it?

You can only be referring to a time advantage. So, if I see that it is now 40-30 before others, and I know that the correct odds at 40-30 are 1.065, say, then I can put in a back of 1.06 and a lay of 1.07 and so can 'market make' at value whichever bets get struck. I presumed this is what you were referring to.

** sorry, I mean a lay of 1.06 and a back of 1.07 !!!

I'm referring to putting your offer up during a neutral period and then having 7 or 8 secs to cancel your offer while the offer taker is stuck behind the clock. e.g. the offer taker submits his bet, if play goes against him during the countdown his bet is matched, if it goes his way during the countdown the offer's no longer there.

You need two things to be in place for the fast player to really make that work to his advantage:
1. mug punters sending in bets whose odds may become very bad value during the x second countdown.
2. a slightly loose market - without the 100.x% overround that you typically find in high ranking IR tennis for instance.

To the extent that the mug punters proliferate on a market, the fast players will move in and tighten up the market, thereby diminishing (2). As usual in these markets, there is no magical way of making money. Everything requires some sort of work, cleverness or luck.

You don't have to be a fast player to make that work although it would obviously increase your advantage. It's all about being at or near the head of the queue to make it work - 100% books or not. No shortage of mugs from what I've heard. Many won't even know they're betting during play.

Well, you obviously have to be faster than the mug.
And my point still stands, to the extent that these mugs are there for the taking, the market tightens up and you can't do it.

I suggest that you have a go yourself, and see how it's not quite as easy as you imagine.

You obviously have no idea what we're talking about Contrarian.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I can only say that I do trade some of your beloved flies-round-sh1t markets profitably, and the sort of opportunities you describe do not exist in reality (at least not in any worthwhile size).

By the way, I'm currently using market maker advantage on some of the subsidiary markets on the Chelsea-Liverpool game!

(or rather) my bots are.

Contrarian, whoever's at or near the head of the queue has this advantage. It doesn't matter how hard it is to get to the head of the queue. Even if you only get the odd shot at the front, it's an edge. The mugs are always at a disadvantage. Your posts on this matter are at odds with most flies-round-**** responders to MM threads.

Feck would it be fair to describe your bets as sh*te-around-flies ?

I understand that point. But in the case of most big IR markets - and I'm thinking mainly of tennis, because that's the bigger of the 2 that I trade - the jumps in the market from point to point are such that only the courtsiders will get to the head of the queue of these prices first. So, I don't understand how you think it can work without being the fastest.

. . . and more to the point.

If it doesn't have to do with having information before others, I certainly don't understand why you think there is something wrong or immoral in exercising the MM advantage. According to you, the playing field is level in the sense that the mugs are not prevented from getting to the front of these queues by their time disadvantage. Are you just distressed because some people are cleverer than others?

In tennis, those taking advantage of technical features of the site will submit and cancel offers as the point is about to be played on a quick, repeating basis.

More clued-in position takers will bet at neutral moments.

Mugs will bet as points are played.

I do not think you need to be a courtsider to get good queue position during neutral moments. You may need good pricing and genuine extra-trading skills but that's another issue. You can win (small, at least) just by playing the clock.

Thank you askari.

Contrarian, is it OK to steal your neighbour's hub caps because he too has the opportunity to steal from his.

Feck would it be fair to describe your bets as sh*te-around-flies ?

You can call my bets whatever you like Rocket. Just make sure you don't lay them without closing out.

Feck,

Matching a bet with someone else in an exchange can only be likened to stealing if there is something unfair about the way that it is carried out. You have failed to show how someone operating what you call a 'market maker advantage' is doing anything unfair, unless you just mean exercising their intelligence to do something that the other party could themselves have done (if they had had the wit).

Going by what you say Contrarian, you must think the original clock beaters were in no way cheating.

The bet placement delay is portrayed as protecting punters from those with fast pics. Just because someone is stupid enough to believe that does not make them deserving of their fate.

So you are talking about time advantage now?

And how about protecting from their fate those mugs who are unfortunate enough to match their bets against someone (like you perhaps?) who has thoroughly researched a selection and come up with an accurate estimate of their chances of winning?

Are you two children still at it or have you called a truce?

So you are talking about time advantage now?

No.


And how about protecting from their fate those mugs who are unfortunate enough to match their bets against someone (like you perhaps?) who has thoroughly researched a selection and come up with an accurate estimate of their chances of winning?

Ah, the old bot line. If betfair ran the NHS they'd be boasting they treat more hypochondriacs than the number of sick people treated in all of Europe's hospitals. I'd then start a thread saying the NHS should be for sick people and then bot, or one of his cheerleaders, would come on and tell me I'm only saying that because I'm ill myself.