Cross Matching Questions.

1. Person backing option B at 1.9 gets 1.9.

2. Yes, Betfair get risk-free profit.

They have been skimming markets like this for a couple of years now.

No & Yes.

Not sure about 1) , but 2) wont happen as the other bet disappear when one is taken. It's just you or your counterpart that gets very bad value.

Sorry, forget my post. I misunderstood.

Thanks! Looks like Betfair must be making a fortune out of these then.

It's another case of Betfair shifting from a pure 'exchange' into a standard bookmaker role. (Although technically BF has always been a bookmaker, this isn't how it was originally conceived by its creators).

Except for the fact that bookmakers take a risk.

Careful fellas - in my experience it is possible to lose your forum access for questioning the cross matching!

On what basis?

Could someone please inform me which forum rule has been broken on this thread, because I can't find one!

I don't think I broke one either - hence reinstated (after some debate).

My question was along these lines.....

BF have reassured us that cross matching is best execution (for the customer), I was wondering how they made any money from it if it was "best execution"? The two do not seem compatible imo.

Yes, Betfair can legitimately claim 'best execution', as it is not possible to back or lay at odds increments that don't exist.

If an over/under markets looks like this:

under 6.5 - 1.01 1.02
over  6.5 - 60   65

And someone backs under 6.5 at 1.01, it was never possible for them to back this outcome at 1.0156 instead.

If you see backing under 6.5 and laying over 6.5 as two distinct bets (which they are), Betfair offer best execution.

Of course, for all practical purposes they are identical, and only the price differs.

It's not just losers that are giving up value by cross matching. If the market is

1.11 1.12
9.8  10

I may well back at 1.11 instead of taking the 10 under certain circumstances.

They give the skimmed money back on Australian markets

As part of the cross-matching process, Betfair uses an internal account which acts as a counterparty to the bets being cross-matched. The cross-matching process may result in a small amount of residual funds remaining in the internal account in some instances. This residual may occur because Betfair only matches customer bets at discrete odds intervals.

Any residual funds that accumulate in this internal counterparty account as a result of the operation of cross-matching on Australian markets will be provided back to customers through future events involving cross-matching markets, in a manner that is approved by the Tasmanian Gaming Commission.

They need to explicitly state in Australian markets thats its on in the market aswell.

Wonder why uk is so laissez faire

Not ripping Brits off isn't the done thing.

So the British punter gets ripped off but the Austrialian one can't, that sounds fair.

Anyone from Betfair like to comment

Well spotted blank, I completely missed that. I wonder how the money is "provided back", or  will be "provided back".

Cross matching has been active on Aussie wallet markets for a while now and there must be a lot in the skimmed money pot.  Form an orderly in the queue for the dash for cash when Tasmanians decide please.

This cross matching malarkey, is it akin to Betfair seeding the markets? (Imay be well off the mark btw)

I would say you were off the mark stewarty. In fact I'd say cross matching was the only good thing that's come out of betfair towers in the last 10 years.

with regard to australia, why don't they just give the price taker the converted price?

That's what they should be doing all round.

blank, I didn't know they were under an obligation to return the breakage from Australian markets to punters.

This very shady practice of skimming shows why bf whd be regulated by the FSA in Britain. Bf has a lot of professional customers whose level of expertise is at least the equal of at-home spread bettors or people investing their personal wealth--but customers get fobbed off w/ the Gambling Commission, who do not appear to be staffed by bettors or people who think like winning bettors (esp. on the bookmaking side).


There may be times when cross-matching speeds market clearing but imv that isn't sufficient compensation for being skimmed.

Has anyone ever seen betfair & the GC in the same room?

The Investor, they will come up w/ some rubbish about their ladder being their ladder. No matter than bf SP does not round up (or more likely round down) to ladder odds.

Just to stress, my prob. is not w/ the legality of their skimming or w/ some idea that they shd operate as an exchange. I wd be very happy for them to book-make to provide liquidity.

It's more w/ the way they said nothing about the change, aren't following the implicit principle of 'best execution' and can give themselves eye-wateringly generous 'the field against two' bets on underpopulated markets (conceivably the latter stages of IR horses). I only go IR if I've made a mistake, but I'm sure an IR player will be able to say how often this happens.

On occasions betfair must be guilty of trapping.

feck, wasn't there some discussion something like 4 yrs ago of bf being regulated by the FSA (i.e. not the Gambling Commission)? Do you know the ins and outs of how they escaped this?

It is not plausible that a body that oversees whether the balls in the National Lottery are all the same size will also have the skill-set to police bf's thousands of events and derivative markets per day.

On occasions betfair must be guilty of trapping.

Or something that has the same effect, merely through the operations of an automatic and not mindful overround-eliminating bot.

I can see that part of their motivation is to remove parasitical overround-skimmers from their markets, but imv they shd have taken 'best execution' at the letter in doing so.

I don't recall such a discussion askari but the Salvation Army would be more savvy than the GC.

Thanks for that Feck. I'll have to remain ignorant as to cross matching. However, I did tell you the story a while back about me not getting matched backing 3 horses within the space of a minute and the prices disapeared, in the same race....

*disappeared

I remember that stewarty. That probably was to do with the cross matcher.

Probably Feck, however, I've very seldom had problems getting a bet matched if I'm laying a beast. Maybe a touch of paranoia.

Just as a matter of interest Feck, are you back punting on the flat or do you still refuse to pay the PC charge? Peronally, I haven't had a bet since the 18th of March. (the suicidal run was becoming a joke)

Do you think the cross matcher has led to more money being matched on fallers at 1000?  The figure often goes up quite significantly during the race after one is down, especially if a fancied horse falls early.  I wonder if BF are profiting from that somehow via their skimming/ability to have skinners against the field?

would be so easy for betfair to give the skimmed money back and brand it as a "betfair bonus". unless they want to quietly hang on to it (which blank's link suggests they don't), they're missing a trick not doing so.

would be so easy for betfair to give the skimmed money back and brand it as a "betfair bonus". unless they want to quietly hang on to it (which blank's link suggests they don't), they're missing a trick not doing so.

oops - double tap.

stewarty, I'll probably be back this June, more out of boredom than anything else. I've kinda fell out of love with horse racing and the path betfair have chosen to go down. The pc was never likely to affect me once they changed to basing it on lifetime profit.

The Investor     24 Apr 11 13:23 
Yes, Betfair can legitimately claim 'best execution', as it is not possible to back or lay at odds increments that don't exist.

This is perfectly possible, they do it every day with the Betfair Starting Price on about 80% of all runners in most horse races.

Similarly with the example you gave above (1.0156) - this price exists - it's just the same as getting about half your stake matched at 1.01 and the other half at 1.02. Every price exists and could be utilised if the reassurance bout "best execution" were true.

Of course I understand that The Management.
What I mean is that before you could only bet at discrete intervals:
[...]
1.02
1.03
1.04
[...]

With cross matching you will still only get matched at the discrete odds intervals available for the selection.

Like I mentioned, I think the price taker should get the 'real' price.

For the example above, the odds intervals that you can get matched at are:

1.02
1.020408163
1.022727273
1.025641026
1.029411765
1.03
1.034482759
1.04

If you are backing at any of these odds, you will get respectively:

1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.03
1.03
1.04

Added intervals based on the inverse of :
50
45
40
35
30

The Investor     25 Apr 11 16:43 
Like I mentioned, I think the price taker should get the 'real' price.

Investor, Sorry - I didn't see your post that stated this - seen it now - all is forgiven!

I suppose it all boils down to your definition of "best".

I did my "best" at school! - It wasn't any good but it was my "best".

It seems businesses can say anything they want (no matter how misleading) without being held to account these days.

Carlsberg don't do cross matching but if they did it would probably be the best executed cross matching in the world!

turtleshead

When: 24 Apr 11 16:08

So the British punter gets ripped off but the Austrialian one can't, that sounds fair.

Anyone from Betfair like to comment.


The difference is on Australian Markets (i.e. sporting events that happen in Australia), it has nothing to do with where you are located.

Yes I understand the difference, thanks, it's due to Australia having proper regulators rather than the spineless pathetic mob we have here.

Yes I understand the difference, thanks, it's due to Australia having proper regulators rather than the spineless pathetic mob we have here.

Have you asked Gib for their view on this? Now that BF aren't regulated in UK you may get a different response.

Oh, I never knew the GC were no longer in charge, how long as that been the case?

Oh, I never knew the GC were no longer in charge, how long as that been the case?


BF moved to Gib a month or 2 back to join all the other big firms. Don't think many big firms are left here. Bet365 and Coral. Can't think of too many others.

^ More tax dodgers* than the cabinet!

* Obviously, I mean avoiders rather than evaders - which makes it fine.

Glad you added that caveat, or else you could have been on very sticky ground

Amazing that Bet365 can be considered a big firm.

Well I remember when I asked for 500 pounds on a horse and they offered me 3 pence. Why have they not closed the accnt? Is it to trap people who open accnts w/ the same ISP or address?

I've asked that question too askari. Most bookies limit me to peanuts rather than actually closing the account (only coral has gone as far as actually closing it).

My guess is that it looks bad if they close winners accounts. 'stake factor recommendations (risk analysis/liability management)', 'client profiling', 'behavioral analysis' etc. sounds more respectable.

I'd go with askari.  If they close you down so you're no longer a customer they'd have (at the very least) questions to answer about hanging on to your personal data (which they'd want to do to stop you opening a new account).

Whereas if you're an existing 'customer', albeit one limited to penny bets, they have all your data on file in a perfectly legitimate way.

Can you not ask them to close your account or can they still keep your personal data if you do?

Viktor, **** & P*wer have actually sent me letters or emails--the others limit me to derisory sums like 10 pounds takeout per market. Laddies actually let me bet to what I assume are standard takeouts, tho' here it helps that I have a lifetime losing account.

Ironically it seems to me that the main sport on which the bf model (of better odds and matching extreme opinions) has ceased to work is horses, the one for which it was designed. Bookies only want to lay at an equilibrium, apparently fair-market price; the opinion of their tissue-makers counts for nothing for them as against that of the market. Likewise with casual bettors and bf full-bookers--bf is tumbleweed in the am.

Of course nothing is going to force firms to take a winner's money, tho' I wd love some mechanism (like betting through a consolidator w/ commercial relationships with the books, like the RP) that cd give me the same prices as offered to uncontrolled losers. It's a hassle to go round six firms' shops and I'd love a stab at the online firms' prices.

aljohnson, yes you can. And you can also ask them to confirm that they have deleted all data on you (say you dont want to be called again or something.

Then a bit later, when they have forgotten about you contacting them again, ask what info they have on your old account...using the data protection act

Cheers Turtles. It wasn't for me though just general information for the forum.

Im pretty sure that when there's something with impossible outcomes (for instance snooker correct scores going into the final session) that betfair lay the 1000s required to allow your money to appear on the back side.

I'll lay all available active options, but not the 1000s quite often, and my equivalent bets appear on the "back" side... despite the fact I'm not laying all actual outcomes in the market.

That's not to say they're taking the bets, just that they can tell the market when an outcome is impossible.

Why do think that Lori? I'm pretty sure Betfair don't get involved with that.

You think it's Betfair in the long term markets too? Like EPL winner?

I don't think they're putting up the 1000s you can see but my bets get crossed matched as if I've put up 1000s (only on impossible outcomes) as long as I lay all the possible outcomes.

Tennis set betting is another where I've seen this. I'll test it a bit more thoroughly and give you an exact rundown in the French in a couple of weeks.

I don't understand what you're saying. Surely if you are getting matched as if you've put up 1000, betfair could simply cut you out completely and take the 'liability' themselves when someone tries to back an impossible outcome.