Why don't Betdakk advertise?

Yes I completely agree. Ive wondered this for a while though, perhaps like a lot of other bettors, and it just never seems to happen.

I am also surprised that a new competitor hasnt burst onto the scene in the last few years. There's a huge market out there to expolit - just look at bf's turnover on a tennis match at Wimbledon. And you would think that all it takes is enough backing to get the name out there and the rest is easy. Just sit back and watch the cash roll in. Someone like Branson should be getting stuck in I reckon.

I/r only works well if the money is all in the same place and purple is currently pathetic for that

until the major layers and importantly the big i/r players move nothing will happen

my guess is the major pre-match market makers are not affected by the new charge as they work off such small margins and BF have been very careful to ensure these people are unlikely to feel a need to move elsewhere

my guess is the major pre-match market makers are not affected by the new charge as they work off such small margins and BF have been very careful to ensure these people are unlikely to feel a need to move elsewhere

You are wrong there.

Pre-match MM will be hit.

Sometimes the best advertising you can get is when the competition shoot themselves in the foot. BF are doing a wonderful job of promoting the purple people at the moment without the purple needing to spend anything.

Personally i used to love BF back in the day, 3 years ago i think 90% of my turnover was on here, now it is 90% elsewhere.

My commission rate elsewhere is now better than my rate on Betfair.

How times are changing.

Well done Mr Memory.

pxb why do you reckon the major pre-match MMs will be hit?  I would have thought putting up money across thousands of markets per week sets them up for very low margin returns and a big chunk of commission paid to BF?

There was a full page advert in the Racing Post either yesterday or the day before I think.

I have no idea how much weetabix spent on advertising and sponsoring before they were up and running, but it must have been at least well over £1,000,000. How in God's name they came up with that iterface I've no idea. They had a major chance to compete. Sadly, a damp squib.

imo, the only scenario BF need to worry about with sh!tdaq is a group of very top level PC payers getting together, buying into it, rebranding it and relaunching it as a credible p2p competitor.

the current ownership proved 3 years ago they just don't have the basic entrepreneurial competence to compete effectively, and nothing that's happened since has done anything to change that evaluation.

I'll agree with stewarty, the BD interface is inferior. On the other hand you can get FREE betangeland daqbot for it.

(I've not used either, keep meaning to download and try one rainy quiet evening, but their BF versions are both considered good?)

I've always thought the BD interface was fundamentally better.

For me, the ability to suspend bets (rather than cancel and re-enter them) is massive when forming a market with multiple runners. I've also never had the trouble finding soccer matches on the menu that I have here.

Of course, it looks like someone puked on my screen, but that doesn't bother me too much.

Agree with all the other comments about it though.

The suspend feature is a very good idea but that's more a feature of their underlying system (that their API apps can also use) than the web interface.

I wd be interested in the view of someone who traded heavily w/ them on the question of whether their technology is good enough.

It's probably not good enough to support a large influx of customers, it's certainly good enough to trade on

Isn't the web interface basically identical to betfairs, albeit in worse colours?

There are some tiny plusses and minuses (plus: can click arrows up and down on both price/amount, plus: can take all of the money at a price in one click, minus: no "my markets" minus: refresh is a pain when market re-ordered) but I don't think the untrained eye would even notice the difference.

(FWIW I know I'm in the minority here, I've just never been told what it is people actually find different enough to go much beyond a small personal preference)

They charge the Ferengi next to nothing.
The Ferengi can't operate without the gamblers.
They charge the gamblers the same as betfair (in fact more at first) but if they mysteriously managed to attract them the site wouldn't be able to cope with the free lunch Ferengi.
Pure genius.

the essence of what's wrong with the daq is that by definition an exchange needs to attract an ongoing flow of new money, ie recreational punters, ie losers.

how well the interface suits pros is a valid but different question. the real reason it is and will remain moribund is they've put precisely zero thought into how to attract losers.

and that starts with the name. it falls at the first hurdle. you overhear someone in the pub say "10 to 1? i got 15s on b€tdaq". that's interesting, you think. I'll check that out.

so you get home and type "betdack" into your computer.

if you get over that hurdle and eventually find it... "what's a daq? i don't know. sounds a bit complicated. that q makes it sound a bit foreign. there was that thing nasdaq. i don't know what that is either. actually, you know what - i'm gonna skip this and stick with what feels familiar."

sounds like the thought process of an idiot? well, that's exactly who you're trying to attract you numbnuts.

Just Checking
03 Jul 11 13:27
Joined:
25 Jun 06
| Topic/replies: 6,978 | Blogger: Just Checking's blog
I'll agree with stewarty, the BD interface is inferior.


Just Checking, I was talking about WBX.

Unfortunatly, with purple you are dealing with a small time company without the wit, ingenuity or drive to compete with betfair. Just have a look at how few markets there are, and it's no wonder that people have no choice but to stick around here. They haven't even got markets on the divisions one and two in the football yet - wtf?!?

How would increasing the number of markets and spreading any money in the banks of BetDuck users around already illiquid markets possibly help the site?

Just Checking, it's not rocket science to work out that a site which has hardly any markets is not going to attract many customers, especially when you have no idea when the few that do exist are going to be put up.

Come on, you are a lot more intelligent than that last question.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree there. If you've a cinema for a small town it won't have 5 different screens with 10 customers in each showing. Until BD expand imho they should have a smaller amount of well chosen markets.

There may be diehards who will want to bet on the 2nd division title this early on, but for a lot of people it'll be "I fancy a bet on that or maybe that, what's available". I've heard an awful lot of complaints about liqudity on BD, very few about a lack of markets.

I agree about that JC, more markets was something Betfair were very loathe to add in the early days for fear of thinning out liquidity

"If you've a cinema for a small town it won't have 5 different screens with 10 customers in each showing"

To continue this analogy, how many customers would this small town cinema expect to attract from its major competitor if it only showed the same two films all year round?

"There may be diehards who will want to bet on the 2nd division title this early on"

Well even if there were only two people who wished to bet on the 2nd division title at this moment, why on earth would you not have the market up now? They will have to put it up eventually, what possible justification is there for not doing so right this minute?

"I've heard an awful lot of complaints about liqudity on BD, very few about a lack of markets"

Try going on their forum, you will see loads. And even worse, there is seemingly no pattern. For a football match you could get the match odds going up 3/4 days prior to the game, the Asian Handicap 2 days before, and maybe the correct score market on the morning of the game. It is a complete and utter shambles, tbh.

You don't get liquidity without more customers, you don't get more customers without more markets, and a reliable timescale for them being put up. Simple as that, really.

even on BF a lot of minor markets are too dead to play, especially in running.

anything that can't be automatically priced up as a direct derivative of a more major market can only really be priced up on the fly by a human being with eyes and a brain on it.

essentially, a lot of what some of the people they've gone after with the PC do is mechanical turk live pricing. it's work, it involves them risking their capital and BF benefit from it through increased choice to the recreational player and tighter overrounds.

that's why it seems iniquitous to me that they treat all winners the same. two people on exactly the same percentages can be having completely opposed impacts on the "health" of the site.

Well Lori agrees with me, so there :P
Seriously though, I don't think it's in their interests to have too many markets. To ME anyway BDs primary problem is liquidity. If they've say 10000 customers with loaded banks wanting a bet that day, you are far better having 50 markets than 500. Even "bigger" games can have tumbleweed markets there never mind the small ones.

Field of dreams was a film, not a business strategy [:p] if you build the markets, it does not mean "they will come"

I've thought for a while that maybe duck could target specific sports e.g if it becomes the one stop shop for say Tennis, Golf or Rugby it may be enough to get them rolling.

However the point about attracting losers is very valid. Do good a lot of market makers and PC payers going over there and fighting it out amongst themselves.

But i/r liquidity is a must have for me. The other day I looked at a race where a horse was beaten on here at around 1.51 with thousands matched at various intervals under evens. On the duck there was one bet matched at 1.67 for about £100.

In running just cannot be contemplated over there as it stands and that is a major barrier to change.

I agree with that, TheVis, but I go back to my previous point about liquidity. You will get that only by attracting more customers, and if there are only a small number of markets to bet on, many of which you have no idea when they going to appear, what reason would anyone have for continually going to the site on the off chance that it might exist?

The decent liquidity in the main markets clearly shows that there is a demand, so why on earth would you not push the boat out and try to offer more? If it doesn't work, well, you've lost nothing by trying.

sideshowbob     01 Jul 11 22:07 
I placed bets that were up on their site, the prices were overly generous and i presumed it was someones automatic software bot thing gone wrong.

Now they have locked my account, virtually accused me of fraud and wont release any of my funds or void the bets. They say they are conducting an investigation. Overall i have about 6k in bets and funds that i can only presume they are trying to steal.

I can't see why they would care if a customer has put silly prices up, so i presume the site themselves are laying bets to cover up empty markets.

Anybody who bets with this joke firm are taking a huge risk imo.


from chit chat, there's a thread over there.

Who the h*ll is flatliner responding to??

I think he's just generally amplifying on the point that they're a hopeless two-bit firm JC.

Ahh it's not that clear (or wasn't when I first read his post) but yes there's a thread in chimp chat

turtleshead
03 Jul 11 14:54
Joined:
01 Jan 05
| Topic/replies: 10,992 | Blogger: turtleshead's blog
Unfortunatly, with purple you are dealing with a small time company without the wit, ingenuity or drive to compete with betfair.




Things can change turtleshead......

They can, and anyone who cares about proper competition will be hoping they do, stewarty.

Sadly that does not look like happening any time soon

Last UK/Ire race of the day - Bellewstown.  The only odds on money traded over at the duck was £26 @ 1.01 on the winner

things can change, sb - but in this case it's guaranteed they won't until they address the issue of how to attract losing punters and traders to the site.

and what sign is there that they're doing that?

viva el presidente!
Do you really think someone hearing the name might try to find www.betdack.com

well, I certainly don't think that 100% of ordinary people hearing the name would spell it right first time. do you?

remember, we're not talking about clued up traders and the financially literate here. we're talking about recreational gamblers, people who are price sensitive enough to be interested if they hear about a higher price, but not price-sensitive enough to make a rational judgment as to whether a price represents value.

the kind of people betfair's advertising has consistently targeted.

It is true. 'Betfair' does sound like a firm idiots would understand straight out - Betd@q is too foreign or financial sounding for the joe in the street to remember, let alone type in.   

And the ducksfolk haven't been clever enough to sign up any web addresses that relate to possible spelling mistakes.      In contrast, if you type in 'Betfare' or 'Betsfair', you get redirected to here. Nice to see Betfair take the time to cater for the intellectually challenged!

Bobbin
If they didn't take time to " cater for the intellectually challenged" , then you wouldn't have anyone to make your net winnings off would you ?

pxb why do you reckon the major pre-match MMs will be hit?

MMs trade both sides of a market with the objective of an all green book.

Thats how I do it.

I understand that Frog. I was agreeing with Viva's point that Betduck's name is a slightly harder thing to grasp for the dullards. Betfair tries to make it easy for idiots to find their way here, and has ensured that URLs with obvious spelling mistakes will still direct the users to the right place. The duck, in contrast, haven't even covered betdack.com.

Things like these give Betfair a small but subtle advantage when it comes to hooking the kind of fish who'll keep money flowing into the coffers.

Ah OK PXB but other MMs may just leave up lays they consider value and just let them run regardless of what gets matched in the expectation that in the long run they will profit.

Such operations are unlikely to be moving elsewhere as I doubt they would be affected by the new charge and probably aren't even paying the existing PC either.

So how many of you have put your money where your mouth is and setup an account at purpleland??

Prices on markets are very similar to here, most events have decen money in them.

I haven't, but I know a good number of the big US Horse Racing forumites are now putting a decent portion of their bets on at the Duck. So far they seem reasonably content with the liquidity, and they're assuming it'll be rather busier there once the July deadline has passed.

I certainly haven't.  I need to stay where the in-running money is and for the forseeable future that is either here or at the bookies.  The duck can't even really be called a poor third as it has virtually zero being matched.

You could say perhaps that When you try to get matched over there, you get a duck ?

Goldcoastinvester,I did yesterday after looking at their site for the last week and agree prices are similar,agree also in running horses are poor(may improve while seems to be weakening here in any case).
Joined daq for a few reasons,
Sympathetic towards some pc payers,market makers in particular.
Loss of trust in bf,pc in last questions and answers not supposed to rise big backtrack,could happen with commission?.Personally think its all about appeasing shareholders at the expense of the customer.
Worry I could end up paying pc, my account is in profit.
Daq charging flat comm rate of 2.5% for at least the next few months a nice touch.

This thing about the Betdak interface seems like recycled plagiarism to me.

Open two windows, one with Betfair and another with Betdakk and list the differences. Few and far between.

lapsy pa
04 Jul 11 10:38
Joined:  29 Jan 09 | Topic/replies: 1,469 | Blogger: lapsy pa's blog

Daq charging flat comm rate of 2.5% for at least the next few months a nice touch.



Gauranteed to introduce a charge of their own if they are still operating this time next year. Unless they continue to plod along with new custom.

No new custom*

Without doubt bf,s interface easier on the eye,(possibly due to staring at it for long periods of time and being so used to it)Not a lot of difference tbh suppose its whats in the little boxes that counts.
Think you have to take daq on trust that they won,t introduce charges,you may well know more than me rocket,but surely until they do the benefit of doubt has to be given.

I should say it's purely speculation on my half. But I just can't think of any reason now why they won't introduce a charge. They could introduce a charge of just 10 or 15% and still come out looking like the good guys. And if they are going to do it they'd rather do it now rather than a year or two down the line as it p*sses off a smaller percentage of customers.

Ive had an account with them for some time.If you are punting the horses pre race there is a fair bit of money about,so see no reason why anyone can't operate over there.In running will need to improve dramatically,don't think Gruss works there either.

**** constantly get the rough end of the stick in these parts.The truth is they can't compete with betfair in terms of advertising yet they still sponsor races and advertising is and does take place and I think most exchange users are aware that it exists so the problem is once again liquidity and betfairs ultimate monopoly position and all the advertising in the world isn't going to change that because gamblers by their very nature are a selfish breed so if johhny isn't paying 60%,he doesn't really care who is.I have to say that it is still an incredibly useful place if you are backing a horse at the head of the market or in a big sporting event.An outlet like that is not to be underestimated in this day and age when bookies are mostly a joke and betfair are fast becoming one.
   I think the question people really should be asking is how much will punters take before they  do something about it and that appears to be quite a lot.Exchange punters and even punters in general clearly need some kind of representation in this day and age where they are by and large treated as the 'criminals' despite they being the life blood of everything.Until its worth somebody's while either financially or emotionally to get some kind of a recognized representative body in place than we are doomed to be treated like we are.I'm not saying the above would work as it often surprises me what a small amount of users contribute to some controversial premium charge threads but if you  could get a significant membership in place than you could actually do something.Until then we will have to live with what we have and how we're treated.

* b e t d a q

I agree Rocket with the essence of your thinking, that this could just snowball through the gambling industry and eventually betting as we know it is doomed to the extent that it will just be another version of one big gaming machine (thats clearly Betfair's ideal, they are making no bones about it).

I never touch gaming machines and I aint about to change but there are alot of folk who do enjoy them without any serious notion of winning in the long term and these are the people BF seem to want to cater for.

Should the whole gambling industry eventually follow suit, there would be nowhere to turn so its a sad day that the first nail has been hammered into the coffin.

Nobody sets up and runs a business for the benefit of others.

You are foolish to believe otherwise.

What ever happened to the original ethos of Betfair, that it would invent a system for buying and selling bets as traders and investors do with shares and futures on the LSE and LIFFE?

That was the original idea which separated Betfair from the evil bookmakers, and turned Betfair into what it is today.  Why has someone at Betfair killed this idea?

Cos they are different people now at the helm, and are not brought up from gambling backgrounds I would imagine or else I think they would have kept the pure exchange model.
I know as a person who understands gambling I would certainly do that and would definitely think many others would do so too.
Certainly room for a pure exchange out there now.
The worry is that this stance could ruin the whole concept of betting for profit in the future, OK its just one step but it could snowball.

Rocket to the FACE Joined: 28 Oct 08
Replies: 12550 04 Jul 11 13:18 
I should say it's purely speculation on my half. But I just can't think of any reason now why they won't introduce a charge.

--------------

because they're the little guy trying to make up ground.

if they were more evenly matched, I agree, they probably would. because just as BF is now acting like a de facto monopoly, the two firms would then logically behave like a complex monopoly.

but they're not going to get to that point in 12 months. or, um, ever imo.

BetDuck need to get Steve Jobs on board. Remarket themselves as "iBet", put branding over substance, get a bunch of evangelical followers to throw their money at everything they do, complete with hysterical launch parties with queues round the door.

Apple are now a bigger company ($$$) than Microsoft, who seen THAT coming a few years ago?

Basically - BetDuck management need to buy some black polo neck jumpers and talk s***e

Lovely stuff JC.
You in the ad world perhaps ?

It's not such a daft idea.  The market is crying out for a serious competitor to Betfair, who whether it's with spiralling charges, outages or poor customer service, seem to be pissing off customers left, right and centre.  BDQ have horrible branding and very little presence, but with a tart-up and some serious image / advertising work , maybe a few new gimmicks / innovations they have a product that people would flock to from here.  They have a billionaire owner but don't appear ready to spend the cash required to seize the opportunity and become a big player.

I'd love BF to have a serious competitor, which would benefit everyone on here, it's frustrating to see BDQ floundering when they offer the same basic product.  I've felt for a long while that the real problem for Betfair is going to come when they are blindsided by a new, attractive and innovative exchange product, at which point they might find out that all the customers they've pissed off down the years are more than willing to jump ship.  The market's crying out for something new.  Like iBet.

You can bet iBet has been copyrighted by some shrewdie already.

To be fair to them they have done some advertising over the last seix months or sso on tv and in the racing post nad having them cheap google ads on the internet.

you have to see this as the Dack's golden oppurtunity to become a serious competitor in the market to the fair.

Their 2.5 commish offer should attract some new customers and i'd say if the fair are going down the Sportsbook route you can be sure the Dack will have to offer the same thing either before or very soon after them if they want to keep their already small share of the market.

In fairness it is a very good idea to open a sportsbook because it attracts the casual punter that the exchanges love and means they can then be enticed into using the exchange.

What a chatname that is .

Dack need to change that stupid name and come up with better graphics and interface , they seem too stubborn to want to succeed

Just Checking
Date Joined: 25 Jun 06
Add contact | Send message
When: 05 Jul 11 23:36
Joined:
Date Joined: 25 Jun 06
| Topic/replies: 7,046 | Blogger: Just Checking's blog
BetDuck need to get Steve Jobs on board. Remarket themselves as "iBet", put branding over substance, get a bunch of evangelical followers to throw their money at everything they do, complete with hysterical launch parties with queues round the door.

Apple are now a bigger company ($$$) than Microsoft, who seen THAT coming a few years ago?

Basically - BetDuck management need to buy some black polo neck jumpers and talk s***e Devil

___

This is again a case of good marketing... the truth is

Microsoft still enjoys higher profits than Apple. Its most recent annual net profit was $14.6bn (£10bn), compared with $5.7bn for Apple.

Microsoft also reported bigger full-year revenues of $58.4bn, with Apple on $36.5bn.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10168684

@ Frogs Hair

Nothing to do with the other site I can assure you, its a username i use for lots of diff sites.

I know or I realize that.
Just a zing dinger at the moment at least.