|
By:
If punters really were adding liquidity you'd be able to get a bet on early. You can't.
No. The larger liquidity providers have a hand to show. They run the risk of their bets being front run and/or steering the odds away from their offers. Traders don't have a hand to show. They basically leach off the information in the queue. |
|
By:
But you are saying there are enough punters to maintain good liquidity and a tight spread. Why don't you just all put your money up there and have a great market to feast on ?
|
|
By:
For the reasons mentioned in my 10:25 post, those being the reasons why I want a private price auction system. Why don't the traders put up some decent amounts? At least they're chasing the price in the direction of their closing bet as opposed to destroying their own value.
|
|
By:
But if all the punters put up there money creating the good liquidity and tight spread there would be no way to chase the price for the traders , right ?
|
|
By:
No, if all the punters put up their money that's an indication of what way the market's likely to move which is what the traders are looking for and why they're absent until last5minutes.com is in full flow nearer the off. Based on those indicators they'll take down an offer and put it back up at slightly worse odds. No liquidity added there. Your argument is that in their absence nothing would happen so why does the trader reducing the odds on an existing offer make this any less likely.
As far as the mythical filling in of gaps goes, in the unlikely event of there being a chasm between best back and lay odds and neither backers or layers are willing to leap frog offers an increment or 2 in front of them why would traders filling in the gaps make those backers and layers suddenly want to leap frog 10 increments? |
|
By:
I'm waiting [:o]
|
|
By:
askari, that's true if the books are 100%. but take traders out and they just won't reach that most of the time because positional players will just stare at each other across a wide spread.
Viva, sorry I went to bed just the sec. that you posted last night. What is it theoretically that prevents the liquidity of early markets? It isn't the absence of opinion players, as in a sport like racing anyone w/ pretensions to winning will have done their tissue the night before or in the morning. Nor is it punters who want to get a bet on b/f going about their business for the day. It's much more traders who don't want to be caught w/ their pants down w/out the info. from price movements. As a result, many early markets have a reasonable spread but negligible liquidity. The pure £2 guesser is as well off playing at 10am as 30 secs b/f race time. the notion of "true prices" isn't really mystical, it's just the idea that an event will have a probability of happening and that there's a price that reflects that probability. the question is how markets arrive at that price. and the mechanism's fairly well understood. the more separate agents you have expressing an opinion through activity (here, betting), and the more access to accurate relevant information they have, the more prices will tend towards their true value. Pricing anomalies in horse racing largely result from information asymmetries, which even out as the price moves over the course of the day. It's too high-minded to imagine a situation where the collective action of a group of minds are tending to enlightenment. No--people are following Pricewise or getting wind of the hcap good thing or trying to recover their losses on the lucky last. As for there being a price that reflects the probability of something happening, this is again too abstract. Of course every pricer-up thinks that chances can be assigned in this way. But is there any way of knowing whether people's judgments were correct? Aggregately 2-1 shots win 33.3% of time, but perhaps 50% are even money shots and the other 50% 5-1 shots. Can you say this is not the case? feck wants to take actors and information out of the process Imv this takes too exalted a view of actors, esp. if you are including traders amongst them. A lot of directional price movements are only cascades not backed up by any information. |
|
By:
The Investor: it's better for Betfair if people bet on events that are going to occur soon, as that means they will churn their funds quicker than if they put bets up for events that are occuring the day after tomorrow.
And also better that people trade at accurate prices, w/ the net effect being that money is gradually swept back and forth between players and (of course) ending up as comm. for the house. But against this, I think there are potential participants who might play when the market is illiquid that don't play in late-stage markets. The only way round [good players playing early to get queue position] would be to either create markets at a later stage, allow customers leverage (not a good idea anyway) or some kind of auction system where the odds increment was 'shared', which would probably be too cumbersome. I guess the value of the auction would have to be less than the value of being one tick out? If I've understood you, the time and information costs of participating wd prob. be less than that of tying up money early by squatting on a price-point. W/ there being people like you who understand feck's arguments but play in an entirely diff. way, I really wonder why he doesn't try a more emollient approach. |
|
By:
In many cases, the only people that can create tight spreads are traders/market makers and losing gamblers.
If the spread is 2.00-2.02 the winning gambler can't take action, unless the price is wrong. Even if the fair price is 1.5 or 2.5, he can only take one side. If the fair price is somewhere between 2 and 2.02 only traders/market makers can profit in these efficiently priced markets. So if gamblers come together to close the spread, that cuts out the opportunities for profitable gamblers in the same way traders do. |
|
By:
Back
Dinamo Kiev 12.44 £2,450.82 Bet matched: Lay Dinamo Kiev 12.2 £2,500.00 Bet matched: Only a trader can profit from a spread like that. Bearing in mind that most leasure punters only take prices rather than offer, if it was left to profitable gamblers, there would either be wide spread, or a small spread made by losing gamblers where everyone loses in the long run due to commission. |
|
By:
The variations in between the tissues of diff. winning punters in racing are huge.
What one winning opinion player makes the 7-4 jolly another makes a 4-1 squeak. They are weighting different info. and exploiting diff. gaps in others' knowledge. Saying 'the price is wrong' is too abstract: when these two players meet at a saddle price, it turns out that one seems to have been clearly wrong; but is this necessarily so? We only have the result of one trial. The point about 'gamblers coming together to close the spread' and reducing the opportunity for other gamblers is uncontroversial, but the point at issue is much more the liquidity of the market during the process during which a final price was found. A 'fair price' and a 'final price' are two different things. The participation of traders in this process means less is available than will accommodate successful big gamblers. I agree that arbers and traders give up value; I do so m/s quite consciously. |
|
By:
Not directly related to the above posts but I would say that 80% of punters on here are 'price takers' and 80% of traders on here are 'price makers'
If that's an accurate assumption you can get an idea why the traders money is so important. |
|
By:
If someone who doens't know anything about betting wanted to place some bets on Betfair, my advice would be to select only markets with a low overround.
I think a tight spread is a proxy for fair value where ordinary leisure punters are concerned. |
|
By:
Back
Dinamo Kiev 12.44 £2,450.82 Bet matched: Lay Dinamo Kiev 12.2 £2,500.00 Bet matched: Only a trader can profit from a spread like that. Bearing in mind that most leasure punters only take prices rather than offer, if it was left to profitable gamblers, there would either be wide spread, or a small spread made by losing gamblers where everyone loses in the long run due to commission. What is it you're claiming here Investor? I get the impression from your "Only a trader can profit from a spread like that" line that you think the people on the other side of your trades wouldn't have been matched in your absence. I could maybe see your point if you'd backed at 12.2 and laid at 12.44 but why wouldn't those you were matched with just be matched with each other at better odds (unless you're claiming it's losing traders on the other end of your bets)? |
|
By:
No, if all the punters put up their money that's an indication of what way the market's likely to move which is what the traders are looking for and why they're absent until last5minutes.com is in full flow nearer the off. Based on those indicators they'll take down an offer and put it back up at slightly worse odds. No liquidity added there. Your argument is that in their absence nothing would happen so why does the trader reducing the odds on an existing offer make this any less likely.
As far as the mythical filling in of gaps goes, in the unlikely event of there being a chasm between best back and lay odds and neither backers or layers are willing to leap frog offers an increment or 2 in front of them why would traders filling in the gaps make those backers and layers suddenly want to leap frog 10 increments? Is it a case of the traders don't like that post so they'll just ignore it and continue to live in denial? |
|
By:
Not directly related to the above posts but I would say that 80% of punters on here are 'price takers' and 80% of traders on here are 'price makers'
If that's an accurate assumption you can get an idea why the traders money is so important. So where do these 'price makers' get their odds from? Why don't they 'price make' on the early markets? If you ignore the flies-round-sh1te ir markets and quiet markets where there's no liquidity a lot of trader's opening trades will be price taking (followed by putting up the offer they just took down at worse odds). |
|
By:
I think the problem arises in that you think anyone gives a crap about a horse race 3 hours before it runs.
|
|
By:
Have a look at any proper sport and the markets are often busy 24 hours in advance.
|
|
By:
I don't know what you mean by that Lori. Are you saying bookmakers don't take any money early so why would betfair or are you saying my arguments only apply to horse racing?
|
|
By:
I'm saying your arguments , at most, only apply to horse racing.
They don't apply to any sport I bet on, and horse racing is about the only one that I don't. |
|
By:
No doubt you'll be unable to tell me why they don't apply.
|
|
By:
I think that the problem with horses is that the leakage of information is so much more common and more important.
Sure, in a tennis match, someone sometimes gets wind, of (for sake of argument) an injury to a player and wipes the market out, but for the most part If I price up a match at 3.0/1.48 I'll probably get matched on both parts and make a profit if my pricing is accurate. I don't know enough about horses, but the impression I get is that if you priced up a market at 3.0/3.0/2.82 in a three horse race, you'd get completely wiped out when one of the horses (for sake of argument) was known to be feeling a little poorly that day and you'd always lay the winner. I certainly wouldn't be putting up that kind of book in that kind of environment where it seems commonplace for prices to regularly move massively on apparently small new information. |
|
By:
Have a look at any proper sport and the markets are often busy 24 hours in advance.
There's no shortage of sources from which to copy odds for the likes of football but busy, I doubt it. |
|
By:
Why would a winning gambler copy odds?
|
|
By:
Besides, the busier markets are the less need there is for market makers. There's no need for your other kind of traders period because they're generally only ever there if the market's busy.
|
|
By:
.
http://sports.betfair.com/Index.do?mi=102407380&ex=1&origin=MRL Chelsea/Man City two days from now. 100.3% . http://sports.betfair.com/Index.do?mi=102271147&ex=1&origin=MRL Australia Pakistan, tomorrow. 100.9% . http://sports.betfair.com/Index.do?mi=101387151&ex=1&origin=MRL Snooker world championship outright mid April start. 104.8% |
|
By:
It's not that there's no need for market makers, it's that in normal sports they mark up to under 101%
Horse racing gamblers seem to feel there's a right to lay 193% or something, which I've never understood. Why would you not price up a race to sub 101% if you were a market maker? It would freeze out the one tick traders and make you a healthy living. I thought I'd addressed the reason above, maybe I haven't |
|
By:
Why would a winning gambler copy odds?
I thought your point was that the "busyness" was down to traders? |
|
By:
What's your point re the percentages? It's only 10:32 but many of the horse markets are low percentages. Doesn't mean you can get a bet on.
|
|
By:
I thought your point was that market makers don't bother. It seems to only be in horse racing where this is actually the position.
Because you seem to apply your argument to all sports I felt the need to suggest it's only in horse racing, which is a sport in terminal decline where people aren't betting early and so setting up any other method of gambling would be short sighted as it would impact nearly all the other gamblers for the benefit of something that isn't really important. If it's because of information flow, then Feckfair would only serve to protect those, who, (for sake of argument) have better inside information as to the current health of the beasts involved. |
|
By:
I certainly wouldn't be putting up that kind of book in that kind of environment where it seems commonplace for prices to regularly move massively on apparently small new information.
On horse racing this happens in the last 5 minutes as well so what's your point? |
|
By:
If you look at the amounts traded on those events it's many times more than the non cheltenham horse races.
could it be the issue is simply that people don't really care about the 1535 at Fakenham? |
|
By:
My point is that nobody wants to bet on a boring event that is happening in a few hours time when they can put their gambling dollar on something else.
Why don't YOU put up 10k in the markets at a 101% book and cut out the traders? |
|
By:
In fact, on horse racing, stay at home punters are probably at even more of a disadvantage late on as they're deprived of paddock and going down information. It's a more level playing field 3 hours before the off.
|
|
By:
So again, it looks like the market makers in the horse racing are playing to pennies.
If you're good at this game, and you claim to be, why not put up a grand or so at 101% and make a healthy profit? It's how the big boys do it in other sports, maybe you could explain why you don't do it. |
|
By:
Apologies Lori, I now see posts you've made between mine that I only just seen just now. I'll address them shortly.
|
|
By:
I thought your point was that market makers don't bother. It seems to only be in horse racing where this is actually the position.
How do you work that out? There's no way of knowing who put what up. As far as I'm concerned the market makers generally operate in quiet markets and the fewer the outcomes in the market the better. Because you seem to apply your argument to all sports I felt the need to suggest it's only in horse racing, which is a sport in terminal decline where people aren't betting early and so setting up any other method of gambling would be short sighted as it would impact nearly all the other gamblers for the benefit of something that isn't really important. My point is it wouldn't impact any gamblers. Indeed, they'd be better off. If it's because of information flow, then Feckfair would only serve to protect those, who, (for sake of argument) have better inside information as to the current health of the beasts involved. On the contrary. At the moment they can virtually monopolise the market, continually jumping to the front of the queue. Under the private price auction scheme they'd get no more than their fair share of the market unless that was oversubscribed on the side that suited them. If there was a market on a coin toss and they knew heads was a certainty they could go 2.1 on betfair and take all the cash. On the private price auction if there was 99 1K bets on heads @ 2.0, 100 1K bets on tails @ 2.0 and they requested 1 million @ 1.9 on heads, they'd get a grand matched at 2.0. |
|
By:
I still don't understand why these market makers don't just put up 101% or smaller like in other sports. The traders are then taking their life in their hands if they undercut it.
Actually I think I do understand it and have hinted at it above, but it seems fair that the person who prices it up SHOULD have a monopoly. On feckfair, once someone's identified where the tissue is, they can just copy the prices and put big lumps there, even if the market maker is small time. |
|
By:
On the private price auction if there was 99 1K bets on heads @ 2.0, 100 1K bets on tails @ 2.0 and they requested 1 million @ 1.9 on heads, they'd get a grand matched at 2.0.
I guess I don't quite understand the auction system then. |
|
By:
If you look at the amounts traded on those events it's many times more than the non cheltenham horse races.
could it be the issue is simply that people don't really care about the 1535 at Fakenham? Why do bookmakers bother pricing these races up if no one cares? Why do they suddenly care on betfair at 1530? |