On the likes of football the odds would quickly find their position and most punters would have little difficulty having their bets matched. No need for smaller punters to queue behind 50K bets or leapfrog them and take less. If the prices on betfair and the auction site were keeping pace the auction site would always offer the best odds as last auction price would be the mid-point of betfair's spread. The commission would also be less because the auction site wouldn't have to cater for traders (that's not to say closing out bets wasn't possible).

Cross matching on auctions would remove the need for market makers. They're only there in quiet markets anyway. No quiet markets on feckfair as matching is so spaced out.

If it's not quiet markets then you're talking about scalpers who were made redundant by cross matching or tissue sensitive traders (small minority who could operate on auctions anyway). The auction idea works equally well on any pre-event market.

Your system may work on horse racing, but I still think it would give less turnover for Betfair, but do you really think it would work on more illiquid markets with multiple runners ?
  Cross matching don't work very well on those markets.

Eddie, even if it didn't increase liquidity why would taking all the bets matched over an hour in such markets and processing them all at once lead to less getting matched?

Lori, I don't doubt a lot of massive bets are matched but I wouldn't imagine many of them are matched as a result of sticking the wedge up in a oner early on.

PS - askari, sorry not to reply to your earlier post; even though we disagree, I respect your viewpoint and ability to have a civilised debate in good faith. I'll try and go back and address your points when today's filthy arbing is done, but flicking through this thread, i think Investor's made most of the points I'd want to make.

btw, if the PC was your idea as you seem to claim (presumably something you knocked up in a spare few minutes when you weren't working on Windows 7), you should really have been a bit more careful and not come up with something designed to suit arbers and bot players. since my induction into the ferengi ranks, I'm actually paying 20% less than before it was introduced. d'oh!

I merely suggested it was only a matter of time before they introduced a minimum charge based on percentage of winnings because they couldn't keep giving traders a free lunch (I was told by traders I was a lunatic). Since everybody (including arbers and bot players) now pays exactly what they would under the old commission system PLUS pc if the latter falls below 20% of winnings, it's impossible for it to have made anyone better off. I'll kid on I'm secretly seething though just for you viv.

PS Keep an eye out for

The all new liquidity generating Premium Charge = (GrossProfit - 5 * CommissionGenerated) / 2.

Coming to an exchange near you soon.

interesting read and feck's auction system even though controversial has merit on horse racing...... and i have a feeling feckfair will become a reality on horse racing atleast as betfair is no longers best odds on racing and is losing punters...

askari1
Date Joined: 29 Nov 01
Add contact | Send message
When: 18 Mar 11 20:41
Joined:
Date Joined: 29 Nov 01
| Topic/replies: 579 | Blogger: askari1's blog
The investor, the last para. was the bit I said I understood, but yr scenario doesn't really address the issue of how markets come to form. (Although perhaps it does in implicitly conceding that market makers and traders take their cue from people who have an idea of what the price shd be).

Yr closed-room scenario is nothing like any situation in the real world. Horse bettors have a morning oddsline and there is a wealth of information, indluding explicitly on pricing and chances, for football. The RP has started showng which of the teams are fancied by its columnists on the paper's odds box.

Traders can do well from range-bound or directional movements in more or less stable markets, but they haven't been the people who determined where the market shd be.

Sure, I just don't think many punters actually utilise this wealth of information. Ladbrokes has removed itself from oddschecker. If anything more than an 'insignifcant portion' of punters actually compared odds across bookies, this would hurt their business. If you went to your local bookie every day for a couple of weeks, you'd probably see the same faces again and again, betting there (almost) exclusively, in the same way they go to their local for a pint, rather than doing a regular scan of beer prices for all pubs in the area.


Feck N. Eejit

Askari's already taken care of this for me Investor but, to sum up, the first mistake you're making is assuming that these brain deads would bother opening an account with a firm who insist on having such a complicated interface and a commission system that people with maths degrees have problems with. The second is assuming that all traders have a clue about what the odds should be like yourself (an assumption that is particularly hilarious with respect to horse racing). If only it was that easy, stick up a lay at true price, a back a chasm away and traders will fill in the gaps giving you a back at the mid point of the chasm.

Of course, according to you, I'd have to share that back with all other tissue makers who will inevitably agree with me.


I'm not saying these people are braindead, more likely they're just not bothered. If they see betting as a bit of fun (which probably isn't a bad thing) they may not want to go through a laborious 'boring' process of analysis. In the same way people that play roulette aren't stupid, even though they are playing a losing game. Someone that is not a problem gambler, but is still losing money gambling, is likely not betting for long term profit, but for fun/excitement or perhaps a small chance of a huge gain at a small cost (lottery), or braggin rights etc.

I certainly don't assume all traders have an idea of what the price should be (especially the ones who trade price movement, WOM etc.). What I'm saying is that I think in many circumstances it makes sense for someone who knows price to trade rather than bet. Especially if you can price up very accurately. If you can put a price up at 1.06 laying and 1.07 backing when you think the correct price is somewhere in between the two, it would be plain foolish not to, as each in isolation is a value bet, and together they create returns greater than the sum of their parts (due to commission savings and reduction in volatility of returns, allowing the trader to use larger stakes).

This whole giving away info by placing a bet thing that you face in horse racing, is much less of an issue in football I think.


Feck N. Eejit
When: 19 Mar 11 11:17
Joined:
Date Joined: 10 Jan 02
| Topic/replies: 3,178 | Blogger: Feck N. Eejit's blog
Most punters don't even bother comparing odds across bookies, let alone go through the procedure you describe above. Rather than 'looking for a price' their though process is more likely going to be, "I think this team will win" and then they back them at whatever the odds are.

I'm sure even online bookmakers would tell you that is so wrong. Their gross profit percentages are way below the average shop wrt horse racing.



I think that's due to the fact that the people placing fun bets, might bet £2, £5, £10 or something similar, while the people who know what they are doing will bet as large as they can get away with. Of course there are the 'whales' who bet large for fun. However I'm pretty confident that if for instance you had data on Betfair customers, you would find that a much larger percentage of customers on 2% commission are in profit on their gambling activity that the percentage of customers on 5% commission.

If UK books didn't limit, I'd be betting thousands with them on football every single day, wiping out the profit they make on a small army of leisure punters.

Although I should add as a caveat that if UK books really didn't limit, they probably wouldn't be as crap with their pricing as they are [;)]

Rocket TTF

It's losing punters because nobody born after the late 80's gives a toss about it



Were you out of the country whilst Cheltenham was on, then?

Hello there Feck. I hope you don't mind me asking you a quick question.

Obviously you think that your way of running betfair, or Feckfair as it was aptly put, would be better. As such i am assuming when i use the term better that it would be more profitable, certainly long-term, for Betfair. You also mentioned earlier something about educating people.

It appears at the moment that BF don't currently agree that your changes would be in their best interest, unless you are privy to information about future plans that i am not, so assuming that is the case, BF must be the people that you really need to educate rather than the forumites.

My question i suppose really is how do you intend to educate BF that your way is better for them than theirs?

By the way I am not offering any opinion on who is right or wrong, apologies if there is any insinuation that i am.

What is his name and address Investor? Seriously though, it matters not. In all probability they'd all still have been matched on the auction.

Feck, are you implying you don't believe a small number of players take a disproportionally large chunk of the action (profitably)?

The reason I believe this is that occassionally, I am on one side of more than 50% of volume matched for certain markets pre off in football.

It would really not surprise me if a single person/company or syndicate was matching more than 10% of bets in Match Odds or Correct Score markets.

FWIW Feck your whole argument is falling on deaf ears.  Betfair are fully aware the issues and problems long term with the exchange and seem unwilling to make long term decisions.  Simply put, in terms of the exchange, Betfair are making short term decisions to long term problems.

The most recent of which I am unwilling to discuss on here but will do privately if you're interested.

Put it this way rocket. A rival exchange wouldn't require a mass walkout to take over.

ihatewb, I think most of them have made their dough and are in compuserve mode now.

It wouldnt?

So why will people spend money on your exchange rather than a bookmaker or Betfair?

Rocket, lower and easier to understand commission, better odds, fairer RF's, able to put in an offer of any size in a oner without spooking the market, more stable prices, no middlemen, no front running, much harder for insiders to monopolise the market etc.

Apart from the rf's and the insiders, yes rocket.

Investor, my point is that if the market maker made a profit then, if all the bets he matched were submitted to an auction, those matched by the MM would be (at the very least) matched by the cross matcher at the MM's odds or greater.

If I lost the power of my legs and made a few suggestions that could further stem cell research would you be on here telling me to get a stair lift fitted?