General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
14 Jul 11
20:21
Joined:
Date Joined:
14 Dec 10
Betfair said that Cross-matching is a more efficient method of matching customer bets. However, someone said that the cross matching affect them much more than paying Betfair the 60% premium charge on their profit every week. I do not understand. Could you please give me some examples?
Show More
Probably someone who was botting the markets and picking up pennies when the book went overround/overbroke, Betfair's x matching has made them redundant
The cross matching doesnt offer best execution so nearly everyone will be worse off. Not everyone is going to face the PC
The cross matching rips people off, the premium charge rips people off, the cashout feature rips people off, anyone beginning to spot a pattern here 
Could you please give me some examples?
As above, cross matching means you get matched at the price you ask for, and the matcher of your bet gets the price he asked for.
So he could be offering to back unders at 1.5, and you come home drunk and put in an offer to back overs at 2.0 (rather than lay his unders) and you both instantly get matched at your requested prices, resulting in you getting 2.0 when 3.0 was available, and him getting 1.5 when your 2.0 appeared and became available. Betfair pocket the profit from giving you 2.0 instead of the available 3.0, and him 1.5 instead of the available 2.0.
I've actually cross matched myself for a guaranteed loss several times because I place so many bets and mistakes happen, and sometimes the cross matching goes on between markets that are related but not on the same page, so are not so obvious.
As above, cross matching means you get matched at the price you ask for, and the matcher of your bet gets the price he asked for.
So he could be offering to back unders at 1.5, and you come home drunk and put in an offer to back overs at 2.0 (rather than lay his unders) and you both instantly get matched at your requested prices, resulting in you getting 2.0 when 3.0 was available, and him getting 1.5 when your 2.0 appeared and became available. Betfair pocket the profit from giving you 2.0 instead of the available 3.0, and him 1.5 instead of the available 2.0.
I've actually cross matched myself for a guaranteed loss several times because I place so many bets and mistakes happen, and sometimes the cross matching goes on between markets that are related but not on the same page, so are not so obvious.
Trevh,
I believe that's incorrect. If cross matching is switched on, in a market in which one outcome is available to lay at 1.5, anybody who submits a bet attempting to back another outcome in the same market at the price of 2, will get at least part of their stake matched at the price of 3. This assumes that their bet reaches the market whilst the first outcome is still available to lay at 1.5. They would get their entire stake matched at 3 if their stake is equal or lower than half the amount available to lay at 1.5 on the other outcome when their bet reaches the market.
I believe that claims of failure to provide best execution partly refer to the situation where cross matching doesn't generate the best corresponding price. For example, if one outcome is available to lay at 1.49, the corresponding price that should be generated by the cross matching bot at which the other outcomes can be backed would be approximately 3.04. On most markets this price increment isn't available and the actual price generated by the cross matching bot is 3. In that situation, if someone attempted to submit a back bet at the price of 2 on the second outcome they would be matched at 3, subject to the provisions above.
By the term corresponding price, I do not mean correct price. If 1.49 is the correct price on selection 1 to win, in a market with more than 2 possible outcomes, 3.04 would only be the correct price on any of the other outcomes if all but one of those other outcomes were now impossible. This is another way in which cross matching can generate a gain for the operator.
Despite this, I believe that the use of cross matching is to the advantage of the majority of customers.
I believe that's incorrect. If cross matching is switched on, in a market in which one outcome is available to lay at 1.5, anybody who submits a bet attempting to back another outcome in the same market at the price of 2, will get at least part of their stake matched at the price of 3. This assumes that their bet reaches the market whilst the first outcome is still available to lay at 1.5. They would get their entire stake matched at 3 if their stake is equal or lower than half the amount available to lay at 1.5 on the other outcome when their bet reaches the market.
I believe that claims of failure to provide best execution partly refer to the situation where cross matching doesn't generate the best corresponding price. For example, if one outcome is available to lay at 1.49, the corresponding price that should be generated by the cross matching bot at which the other outcomes can be backed would be approximately 3.04. On most markets this price increment isn't available and the actual price generated by the cross matching bot is 3. In that situation, if someone attempted to submit a back bet at the price of 2 on the second outcome they would be matched at 3, subject to the provisions above.
By the term corresponding price, I do not mean correct price. If 1.49 is the correct price on selection 1 to win, in a market with more than 2 possible outcomes, 3.04 would only be the correct price on any of the other outcomes if all but one of those other outcomes were now impossible. This is another way in which cross matching can generate a gain for the operator.
Despite this, I believe that the use of cross matching is to the advantage of the majority of customers.
I can't see how it's bad for the customer at all. They get a bet matched that they asked for that otherwise wouldn't have got matched.
If they actually wanted a more efficient system of matching bets they would use the same system as the 1% site.
Say we have Federer vs Nadal and want to bet Nadal at +102 (2.02 in English odds), we ask to bet Nadal at +102, we ask to bet Federer at +108 (2.08). We've undercut the current prices.
site would read
Federer -102 -103 -104
Nadal -108 -109 -110
(or in European odds)
Federer 1.98 1.97 1.96
Nadal 1.925 1.917 1.909
It's as simple as always backing, which eliminates a lot of the rubbish.
On multi runner events you just bet something to win or something to lose.
The key being if your price is available, then you take it, if not it goes to the front of the queue. There's no need for two individual lines, even though it can be displayed as such.
Always found it a far better system (as is their commission system. Sadly WSEX ran it into the ground by trying to seed it themselves and had to sell it to a European firm... which for a US facing site is pretty messy)
site would read
Federer -102 -103 -104
Nadal -108 -109 -110
(or in European odds)
Federer 1.98 1.97 1.96
Nadal 1.925 1.917 1.909
It's as simple as always backing, which eliminates a lot of the rubbish.
On multi runner events you just bet something to win or something to lose.
The key being if your price is available, then you take it, if not it goes to the front of the queue. There's no need for two individual lines, even though it can be displayed as such.
Always found it a far better system (as is their commission system. Sadly WSEX ran it into the ground by trying to seed it themselves and had to sell it to a European firm... which for a US facing site is pretty messy)
I've never really seen the cashout facility discussed. Does that benefit the company or its customers?
The answer seems to be neither silverback!
It doesn't work particularly well, so the customer doesn't get the best deal, it also reduces commission paid, so doesn't benefit Betfair!
It doesn't work particularly well, so the customer doesn't get the best deal, it also reduces commission paid, so doesn't benefit Betfair!
Ah, I see Lori. I remember wondering why bf didn't do this when I first stared on here!
The cross matcher is a much bigger deal than the PC for me. The key point about it is not the effect it has on the market at any given instant but the overall effect on the way the market moves. The XM acts against large price swings and over-reactions, particularly in running, thus reducing the points at which value is available. This effects everyone whether or not they're using bots.
Put simply, value is always available at the peaks and troughs on the price graph for a given runner, with the XM switched on the peaks aren't as high and the troughs aren't as low for any individual runner. This is because every time the mugs get carried away over-backing something (for example) all their dumb a$s clicks get matched against other runners rather than pushing the price of the selection they're trying to back right down to good lay value - where anyone shrewd is waiting to take their money. This is the purpose of the XM, to keep the market closer to "true" value (where half of all bets at 2 win etc). That's good if you're a mug, but if you win (or if you ever hope to win) then it reduces your opportunities dramatically.
That's why it's bad for me, but I can see why BF like it, it regulates the market and generates them far more comm than would otherwise be the case.
Put simply, value is always available at the peaks and troughs on the price graph for a given runner, with the XM switched on the peaks aren't as high and the troughs aren't as low for any individual runner. This is because every time the mugs get carried away over-backing something (for example) all their dumb a$s clicks get matched against other runners rather than pushing the price of the selection they're trying to back right down to good lay value - where anyone shrewd is waiting to take their money. This is the purpose of the XM, to keep the market closer to "true" value (where half of all bets at 2 win etc). That's good if you're a mug, but if you win (or if you ever hope to win) then it reduces your opportunities dramatically.
That's why it's bad for me, but I can see why BF like it, it regulates the market and generates them far more comm than would otherwise be the case.
I believe that's incorrect. If cross matching is switched on, in a market in which one outcome is available to lay at 1.5, anybody who submits a bet attempting to back another outcome in the same market at the price of 2, will get at least part of their stake matched at the price of 3.
When I have stupidly cross matched myself (funny how BF let you do that, which registers on the price graphs, but not back your own lay), I always get exactly the prices I have asked for on both matched bets, leaving me with quite a substantial guaranteed loss, and BF a substantial guaranteed profit.
When I have stupidly cross matched myself (funny how BF let you do that, which registers on the price graphs, but not back your own lay), I always get exactly the prices I have asked for on both matched bets, leaving me with quite a substantial guaranteed loss, and BF a substantial guaranteed profit.
Put simply, value is always available at the peaks and troughs on the price graph for a given runner, with the XM switched on the peaks aren't as high and the troughs aren't as low for any individual runner. This is because every time the mugs get carried away over-backing something (for example) all their dumb a$s clicks get matched against other runners rather than pushing the price of the selection they're trying to back right down to good lay value - where anyone shrewd is waiting to take their money. This is the purpose of the XM, to keep the market closer to "true" value (where half of all bets at 2 win etc). That's good if you're a mug, but if you win (or if you ever hope to win) then it reduces your opportunities dramatically.
.........................
No it's not good for the "mug"
Firstly, the XM doesnt offer "best execution" so he get's the price he asked for instead of the price his bet is matched against. Best case scenario is he's level.
Secondly, if it was a typing mistake, he hasnt got the chance to cancel that part of the bet that would have been unmatched.
Thirdly, if it wasn't a typing mistake, but the punter realised he'd took too short a price when he sees the percentages go overbroke, assuming it was in running, he'd have time to cancel it and resubmit the bet at a better price.
.........................
No it's not good for the "mug"
Firstly, the XM doesnt offer "best execution" so he get's the price he asked for instead of the price his bet is matched against. Best case scenario is he's level.
Secondly, if it was a typing mistake, he hasnt got the chance to cancel that part of the bet that would have been unmatched.
Thirdly, if it wasn't a typing mistake, but the punter realised he'd took too short a price when he sees the percentages go overbroke, assuming it was in running, he'd have time to cancel it and resubmit the bet at a better price.
Firstly, the XM doesnt offer "best execution" so he get's the price he asked for instead of the price his bet is matched against.
Don't think that's the case CB. Wasn't that what everyone was complaining about when it was first introduced and they backed down on it such that the only skim they get is due to matching at the nearest odds (in bf's favour) on the increment ladder. As you point out, they additionally benefit from trapping.
Don't think that's the case CB. Wasn't that what everyone was complaining about when it was first introduced and they backed down on it such that the only skim they get is due to matching at the nearest odds (in bf's favour) on the increment ladder. As you point out, they additionally benefit from trapping.
Another point I'd like to make is that suppose there is a 2 runner race where I can lay £200 on option A at 1.86 and £800 is available to back at 2.14 on option B. Laying option A is marginally the better deal but since I want to bet more than £200 I bet both so I simultaneouly lay A and back B.
In practice, every time I have done the bets simultaneously with the intention of taking note of whether I've got matched at the best price I have found I have always got matched at the slightly worse price, so the XM is matching me ahead of the actual submitted bet by the counter party when bets are placed simultaneously
In practice, every time I have done the bets simultaneously with the intention of taking note of whether I've got matched at the best price I have found I have always got matched at the slightly worse price, so the XM is matching me ahead of the actual submitted bet by the counter party when bets are placed simultaneously
Don't think that's the case CB. Wasn't that what everyone was complaining about when it was first introduced and they backed down on it such that the only skim they get is due to matching at the nearest odds (in bf's favour) on the increment ladder. As you point out, they additionally benefit from trapping.
I wish people would stop calling it cross matching, it's the bf "skimbot" [>o]
Feck is it not the case that if I bet horse A in a 3 runner race at 2 and at that point in time you can lay horse B at 3 and horse C at 4 so that my bet at 2 can be fully matched, my bet will be matched at 2? That has always been my understanding.
The nearest odds on that represent this on the increment ladder is 2.38
The nearest odds on that represent this on the increment ladder is 2.38
CB, my understanding is that given the 2 lays showing the cross matcher would display around 2.4 for A before you had even submitted your bet. The way you described it was the way they originally intended doing it but backed down (you wonder why given subsequent events) after everyone made a fuss.
Any change of luck since we last spoke Feck? No point in asking me, evertime I pull ahead I seem to be hit with some desperate rides at the moment. Down a good few quid and sometimes I feel like I'm playing roulette with the zero expanded by an inch.
Ah yes you are right Feck. It's all coming back to me now
Trevh,
I believe that what you described above can now only occur if cross matching is switched off in the relevant market or another party takes your first bet prior to the your second bet reaching the market.
I have tested this by backing outcome A at 2 and outcome B at 1.5 simultaneously in a two outcome market in which cross matching is currently switched on (the current available back prices on both outcomes being lower). The result was that both bets were matched at 2 and my net position in the market is £0.
I believe that what you described above can now only occur if cross matching is switched off in the relevant market or another party takes your first bet prior to the your second bet reaching the market.
I have tested this by backing outcome A at 2 and outcome B at 1.5 simultaneously in a two outcome market in which cross matching is currently switched on (the current available back prices on both outcomes being lower). The result was that both bets were matched at 2 and my net position in the market is £0.
What happens & who gets the money when in Lori's example match Federer - Nadal (in-play) Federer is trading around 1.7 and matching bot is offering on Nadal around 2.4. Suddenly matching bot goes off like it has been doing for some time now and suddenly there are two different people
other wanting to back Fed with 10K at 1.7 and the other punter wanting to back Nadal with 10K at 1.7.
You can lay both of those bets if you are fast enough and bot usually goes off in few minutes periods, but when it comes back in who's deep pockets does the money go?
other wanting to back Fed with 10K at 1.7 and the other punter wanting to back Nadal with 10K at 1.7.
You can lay both of those bets if you are fast enough and bot usually goes off in few minutes periods, but when it comes back in who's deep pockets does the money go?
CLYDEBANK29 Joined: 10 Jan 02
Replies: 1745 14 Jul 11 20:42
The cross matching doesnt offer best execution so nearly everyone will be worse off.
---------
disagree. one positive thing it does is protect people from some trap bets and fat-finger fvckups in illiquid markets. I'm pretty sure that just that's saved me much more than it's cost me, so I'm in favour. though I'd be more in favour with best ex.
sorry to say the unsayable.
Replies: 1745 14 Jul 11 20:42
The cross matching doesnt offer best execution so nearly everyone will be worse off.
---------
disagree. one positive thing it does is protect people from some trap bets and fat-finger fvckups in illiquid markets. I'm pretty sure that just that's saved me much more than it's cost me, so I'm in favour. though I'd be more in favour with best ex.
sorry to say the unsayable.
thank you for the input, from what Trevh said "So he could be offering to back unders at 1.5, and you come home drunk and put in an offer to back overs at 2.0 (rather than lay his unders) and you both instantly get matched at your requested prices, resulting in you getting 2.0 when 3.0 was available, and him getting 1.5 when your 2.0 appeared and became available. Betfair pocket the profit from giving you 2.0 instead of the available 3.0, and him 1.5 instead of the available 2.0."
In this way, it appears to me that Betfair takes advantage of the Cross Matching and generate money with no risk. Am I right?
In this way, it appears to me that Betfair takes advantage of the Cross Matching and generate money with no risk. Am I right?
As I and others have indicated, Trevh's comments are incorrect.
Feel free to confirm this, at your own risk, in any market in which cross matching is operational. I tested it on the QPR v Wigan Season Match Bet market.
Feel free to confirm this, at your own risk, in any market in which cross matching is operational. I tested it on the QPR v Wigan Season Match Bet market.
It is certainly correct that betfair can make huge profits from it at zero risk.
I put up a request to back C at 3.0 in a 3 outcome event.
Then I see instantly that A can now be backed at 1.5. Obviously if someone does so, Betfair have a fantastic risk free position on B.
Who benefits from this except Betfair please?
I put up a request to back C at 3.0 in a 3 outcome event.
Then I see instantly that A can now be backed at 1.5. Obviously if someone does so, Betfair have a fantastic risk free position on B.
Who benefits from this except Betfair please?
you do, if you get matched at a value price and wouldn't have done otherwise.
That's correct Turtleshead but it's entirely different to Trevh's assertions. I commented on that in paragraph three of my first post on this thread.
If roadto2010wc read the entire thread as opposed to skim reading selected posts he may gain a better understanding of how cross matching actually works.
If roadto2010wc read the entire thread as opposed to skim reading selected posts he may gain a better understanding of how cross matching actually works.
Not really viva, it's pretty likely that someone would have done so anyway. And there is an asumption there that I have requested a value price, which many or may not be correct. But in any case, the major loser from the above is the person who tried to back at 1.5, they may well be inexperienced / drunk / careless etc. They will lose their money in very rapid time and may not return.
The point I am making is that betfair make huge risk free margins on these bets at the expense of their customers. Whatever happened to person v person
The point I am making is that betfair make huge risk free margins on these bets at the expense of their customers. Whatever happened to person v person
stewarty, I continue to be plagued by seconds. Sue Me being the latest 5 figure one. I'm still up but this is a killer run.
if you put the price up, we can take it for the purposes of the discussion that it's value.
you can't assume that it would have got matched anyway. the 1.5 backer didn't match it when they could have, and in many markets a layer may well not come along. even if they do, you will have to wait longer - and time itself has a value in this equation.
as for the drunk, careless and clueless - the alternative may well have been them backing a speculative lay at 1.02, in which case they lose their money much more quickly.
none of which is to say that BF don't also benefit. but it's wrong to say that only they benefit.
you can't assume that it would have got matched anyway. the 1.5 backer didn't match it when they could have, and in many markets a layer may well not come along. even if they do, you will have to wait longer - and time itself has a value in this equation.
as for the drunk, careless and clueless - the alternative may well have been them backing a speculative lay at 1.02, in which case they lose their money much more quickly.
none of which is to say that BF don't also benefit. but it's wrong to say that only they benefit.
Feck, I can't imagine how much you're giving this lot in commission, even at 2%. As for providing liquidity........
And if you hit the 40% charge, the parasites on here will look like goldfish compared to these sharks.
And if you hit the 40% charge, the parasites on here will look like goldfish compared to these sharks.
Well thanks for the compliment, but I have been known to put up bets which weren't value (whisper it quietly 
)
Okay, I take your points on board, and will amend my statement to say that the overwhelming beneficiary will be betfair. And the overwhelming loser will be the 1.5 backer, maybe on occasions it will help me also.
I think that is fair.
)Okay, I take your points on board, and will amend my statement to say that the overwhelming beneficiary will be betfair. And the overwhelming loser will be the 1.5 backer, maybe on occasions it will help me also.
I think that is fair.
I think aye robot has expressed the correct interpretation of the good and bad of cross matching.
And he would appear to be one of those most materially affected by it.
And you know what he has done ? Accepted the change of circumstances, reprogrammed his bot, and adapted and got on with making money as in the past.
Maybe not as much ( who knows exactly).
Maybe in looking at it all and in having to reprogram his bot, he saw some other angle he never noticed before to make monies from a new source ?.
That's often how it works folks.
And he would appear to be one of those most materially affected by it.
And you know what he has done ? Accepted the change of circumstances, reprogrammed his bot, and adapted and got on with making money as in the past.
Maybe not as much ( who knows exactly).
Maybe in looking at it all and in having to reprogram his bot, he saw some other angle he never noticed before to make monies from a new source ?.
That's often how it works folks.
JT : As I and others have indicated, Trevh's comments are incorrect.
I can assure you and others my comments are not incorrect JT, cross matching in the football markets I play in works exactly as I have described in my first post on this thread. I suffer the consequences of it usually once a week so am absolutely 100% certain that I'm correct.
I can assure you and others my comments are not incorrect JT, cross matching in the football markets I play in works exactly as I have described in my first post on this thread. I suffer the consequences of it usually once a week so am absolutely 100% certain that I'm correct.
Trevh,
Perhaps you can provide a market, ideally a two outcome market, in which cross matching is currently operational and works as you stated in your original post on this thread?
Earlier in the thread I provided a link to a market (Barclays Premier League 2011/12; Season Match Bets; QPR v Wigan) in which cross matching clearly does not work as you claimed.
Perhaps you can provide a market, ideally a two outcome market, in which cross matching is currently operational and works as you stated in your original post on this thread?
Earlier in the thread I provided a link to a market (Barclays Premier League 2011/12; Season Match Bets; QPR v Wigan) in which cross matching clearly does not work as you claimed.
breaking news, fafh. no one's interested in your moral lectures.
It's getting extremely tiring sifting through his posts. Every thread, dozens at a time, all very drab and prim & proper and always lacking in genuine opinion. Like reading through a set of Terms & Conditions or something
And I imagine he'll be getting drunk and spending all night doing it again tonight.
And I imagine he'll be getting drunk and spending all night doing it again tonight.
Jeez you've sussed me at last.
Took you long enough though.
Now I've only got to work out all your posting motivations.
There is one common thread to help me though.
Knee jerk BF bashing.
Bet I'm a better drinker than most of you on here though.
Took you long enough though.
Now I've only got to work out all your posting motivations.
There is one common thread to help me though.
Knee jerk BF bashing.
Bet I'm a better drinker than most of you on here though.
Btw lighten up lads.
It's not life and death.
And if you really do get your knickers in a twist over my posts, then you can always wimp out and block me.
No problema at all.
It's not life and death.
And if you really do get your knickers in a twist over my posts, then you can always wimp out and block me.
No problema at all.
Trevh,
I would refer you to the link provided in this post on the horse racing forum:
longbridge
05 Jul 11 10:48 Joined: 25 Nov 10 | Topic/replies: 59 | Blogger: longbridge's blog
@Alain
Cross Matching is...
read through the worked examples at
https://bdp.betfair.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=237&Itemid=62
and you should get your head around it
If for security reasons you're reluctant to follow links posted on the forum, you can reach the same information by going to the Betfair Home Page; Developers Program; Sports; Technical FAQs; Search for What is the algorithm for displaying prices inline with the website?
I would refer you to the link provided in this post on the horse racing forum:
longbridge
05 Jul 11 10:48 Joined: 25 Nov 10 | Topic/replies: 59 | Blogger: longbridge's blog
@Alain
Cross Matching is...
read through the worked examples at
https://bdp.betfair.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=237&Itemid=62
and you should get your head around it
If for security reasons you're reluctant to follow links posted on the forum, you can reach the same information by going to the Betfair Home Page; Developers Program; Sports; Technical FAQs; Search for What is the algorithm for displaying prices inline with the website?
Incidentally I do accept that I am seemingly always swimming against the tide of popular opinion on this forum.
But I also think that the anti-BF posters on here only represent a very noisy minority in the bigger BF picture.
Bf has made many of you quite rich, others relatively comfortable off, but is there any apparent goodwill or even any qualified thanks for this ?.
It would not seem so to me at least.
Fairly ungracious many ( though not all) of you in fact seem to be.
In the real non-gambling world you would have zero sympathisers for any of your sometimes quite pathetic whinges.
If you could tone up your posts perhaps to be more constructive in your thoughts and opinions, then you might just get a better response, not only from the likes of me, but also from BF itself.
Always calling them a lazy, greedy, no good bunch of dumb incompetents hardly makes good sense to me.
Totally counter-productive and, quite frankly, astoundingly stupid for such a bunch of smart, apparently supremely gifted gamblers.
Apologies of course to those being unfailry caught up in this rant of mine.
Don't want to make a "PC implementation " type of mistake, just like BF has done, do I?.
And no I don't know what all the answers are.
I just know that they will not be found out by the ostrich type attitudes most of you are taking on here.
But I also think that the anti-BF posters on here only represent a very noisy minority in the bigger BF picture.
Bf has made many of you quite rich, others relatively comfortable off, but is there any apparent goodwill or even any qualified thanks for this ?.
It would not seem so to me at least.
Fairly ungracious many ( though not all) of you in fact seem to be.
In the real non-gambling world you would have zero sympathisers for any of your sometimes quite pathetic whinges.
If you could tone up your posts perhaps to be more constructive in your thoughts and opinions, then you might just get a better response, not only from the likes of me, but also from BF itself.
Always calling them a lazy, greedy, no good bunch of dumb incompetents hardly makes good sense to me.
Totally counter-productive and, quite frankly, astoundingly stupid for such a bunch of smart, apparently supremely gifted gamblers.
Apologies of course to those being unfailry caught up in this rant of mine.
Don't want to make a "PC implementation " type of mistake, just like BF has done, do I?.
And no I don't know what all the answers are.
I just know that they will not be found out by the ostrich type attitudes most of you are taking on here.
Just tossed another bottle out of the window.
Almost hit the dog.
Almost hit the dog.
FAFH you are speaking from neither one side or the other but from a totally impartial and unaffected viewpoint which is why nobody takes you seriously. You pretend to have experienced it all.
You talk the talk but who can't.
You talk the talk but who can't.
Trevh,
That is certainly not how cross matching is supposed to operate - when it was originally introduced, BF described it in just the way that jt45 has said. Nor is it my (daily) experience of it on the football markets. I can only suggest that if you have had a back request of, say, 2 matched with a lay request of 1.5, the BF cross matching bot must have been switched off, and someone else's bot has been providing the matching.
That is certainly not how cross matching is supposed to operate - when it was originally introduced, BF described it in just the way that jt45 has said. Nor is it my (daily) experience of it on the football markets. I can only suggest that if you have had a back request of, say, 2 matched with a lay request of 1.5, the BF cross matching bot must have been switched off, and someone else's bot has been providing the matching.
Yeah don't want him p!ssed off with me as well.
That would really upset me tbh.
I certainly value his opinion of me more than all others.
That would really upset me tbh.
I certainly value his opinion of me more than all others.
Rocket
I'm just as affected by all these things as you are.
But I thank BF for even giving me the chance to make money gambling.
The HS bookies won't even do that.
I place many on here up with the greedy investment type bankers, taking short term bonuses and to hell with the rest of the general populace, minnows, mug gamblers whatever.
All take and no give.
Damn the long term consequences of their short term greed.
If the whole exchange type edifice collapses under the weight of their one way greedy grab for winnings without true fair costs to them, then so what ?
They won't have to give it back. They've made it and can sail away into the sunset.
Who cares about the up and cpmmers with no exchange left to play on, and the HS bookies not letting them on ?.
I'm not an altruist. But I am a realist.
I'm just as affected by all these things as you are.
But I thank BF for even giving me the chance to make money gambling.
The HS bookies won't even do that.
I place many on here up with the greedy investment type bankers, taking short term bonuses and to hell with the rest of the general populace, minnows, mug gamblers whatever.
All take and no give.
Damn the long term consequences of their short term greed.
If the whole exchange type edifice collapses under the weight of their one way greedy grab for winnings without true fair costs to them, then so what ?
They won't have to give it back. They've made it and can sail away into the sunset.
Who cares about the up and cpmmers with no exchange left to play on, and the HS bookies not letting them on ?.
I'm not an altruist. But I am a realist.
You also seem to use the same 4 inch monitor as Kenilworth.
Unfortunately that's not the only 4 inches I'm playing with.
C'est la vie.
C'est la vie.
Truth be told Rocket I don't drink, I don't gamble, I don't fornicate and I live in a litle alcove off to the side of the pulpit at my local church.
Me and my dog that is.
Me and my dog that is.
Contrarian : I can only suggest that if you have had a back request of, say, 2 matched with a lay request of 1.5, the BF cross matching bot must have been switched off, and someone else's bot has been providing the matching.
Yes that's a fair point Contrarian, I'd rather not say which markets it occurs in, but why would BF want a Bot operator taking the profits when they could run the Xmatcher themselves?
Yes that's a fair point Contrarian, I'd rather not say which markets it occurs in, but why would BF want a Bot operator taking the profits when they could run the Xmatcher themselves?
Trevh
Maybe AyeRobot's bot is quietly stalking you ?
Maybe AyeRobot's bot is quietly stalking you ?
Are some people in here really suggesting that you don't get best odds?
I mean if I back something at 2.00 for 1k and 1k is available at 2.1, are you suggesting you only get 2.00 for it? Kidding yourself.
This is what cross matching is, this and only this. If you put a bet on at 2.00, the algorithm will check if you can lay under 2.00 on the opposite, or back higher on your selection, and take whatever is there on the way to placing your bet. If your bet is higher than what is available, the rest of your bet sits there waiting to be gobbled up by anybody that is watching waiting for some idiot to **** up.
I mean if I back something at 2.00 for 1k and 1k is available at 2.1, are you suggesting you only get 2.00 for it? Kidding yourself.
This is what cross matching is, this and only this. If you put a bet on at 2.00, the algorithm will check if you can lay under 2.00 on the opposite, or back higher on your selection, and take whatever is there on the way to placing your bet. If your bet is higher than what is available, the rest of your bet sits there waiting to be gobbled up by anybody that is watching waiting for some idiot to **** up.
Trevh,
I have noticed that the cross matching bot is sometimes not working on markets where it it supposed to. I traded the French Open tennis a few weeks ago, and there were a number of occasions when the market went underround in-play.
I have noticed that the cross matching bot is sometimes not working on markets where it it supposed to. I traded the French Open tennis a few weeks ago, and there were a number of occasions when the market went underround in-play.
yes, that seems to have happened fairly frequently during the last few months, particularly during busy periods. it seems unfair that when one submits a bet one cannot therefore be certain whether or not cross matching will apply. otoh for me (for most sports) having it turned off very occasionally is better than not at all.
By coincidence - yes! And you obviously knew just the right thread to attract my attention - bit of a pet subject of mine.....
Generally I'm not really bothering with the forum anymore, the appeal kind of wears off after a while, same questions - new muppets. Still very active in the markets though. I just happened to look in just now after the Voller La Vadette (or whatever) business.
Generally I'm not really bothering with the forum anymore, the appeal kind of wears off after a while, same questions - new muppets. Still very active in the markets though. I just happened to look in just now after the Voller La Vadette (or whatever) business.
I just wondered how you/your bot was affected by the 'technical glitch', you mention above, the other day?
Not at all. The market was clearly messed so my bots didn't play. Can't imagine why anyone would have done frankly - it was obviously some sort of c0ck up that was never going to stand. If a market looks very wrong you should always stay out.
For what it's worth I think the conspiracy theories around it are nonsense. There was no realistic way to make money from it so if it was done deliberately it was probably just a stunt that someone did for the h3ll of it - some people get off on that kind of thing. More likely it was a mistake by an inept developer or even possibly just an unlucky fluke. You've got to remember that BF matches a colossal volume of bets every day, even a one in a zillion chance combination of factors will come up eventually.
All software has bugs. If you're expecting it to be perfect then you're expecting too much. Every once in a while one of these bugs will show itself. It's no big deal.
Some people who were expecting to close in-running will have lost money because of it - an equal number will have gained. None of them have much right to complain because they all placed bets on horses and whenever you do that there's a chance that you're going to lose all your money. IP markets are sometimes voided for various reasons - it can happen. In any case those same people might have lost because of a power cut or an internet outage, because their computers crashed or their child fell over and distracted them. It can always happen and if you're not prepared for that chance you shouldn't be playing.
People who are complaining because they didn't get the 29 just need to get real. Any idiot could see that that wasn't going to stand. An obvious palpable error will never be paid.
For what it's worth I think the conspiracy theories around it are nonsense. There was no realistic way to make money from it so if it was done deliberately it was probably just a stunt that someone did for the h3ll of it - some people get off on that kind of thing. More likely it was a mistake by an inept developer or even possibly just an unlucky fluke. You've got to remember that BF matches a colossal volume of bets every day, even a one in a zillion chance combination of factors will come up eventually.
All software has bugs. If you're expecting it to be perfect then you're expecting too much. Every once in a while one of these bugs will show itself. It's no big deal.
Some people who were expecting to close in-running will have lost money because of it - an equal number will have gained. None of them have much right to complain because they all placed bets on horses and whenever you do that there's a chance that you're going to lose all your money. IP markets are sometimes voided for various reasons - it can happen. In any case those same people might have lost because of a power cut or an internet outage, because their computers crashed or their child fell over and distracted them. It can always happen and if you're not prepared for that chance you shouldn't be playing.
People who are complaining because they didn't get the 29 just need to get real. Any idiot could see that that wasn't going to stand. An obvious palpable error will never be paid.
Ok mate
that post makes it sound as though you were the layer
that post makes it sound as though you were the layer
How large does the amount of money available to back have to be before punters can be certain that it is a technical error and not just fat fingers??
Maybe someone could confirm what I'm about to say, or else, please correct me.
Before the Cross matched bot thing, I was able to trade over 2.5 pre game with success, mostly using WOM and some other criteria, I could normally scalp between 1 and 5 ticks.
After the Cross matched bot thing, I'm unable to perform the same trades. Prices move all over the place, sometimes jumping up to 4 ticks in 1 split second. Prices move in a weird fashion and WOM is no longer a good indicator. Totally unpredictable if you want to scalp couple of ticks.
Say under 2.5 is at 2.02 to back and 2.04 to lay. Say you put a 148 units (random ammount) back bet at 2.06 (unmatched), immediatelly a lay bet of over 2.5 will show up at the equivalent price.
NOT GOOD.
Before the Cross matched bot thing, I was able to trade over 2.5 pre game with success, mostly using WOM and some other criteria, I could normally scalp between 1 and 5 ticks.
After the Cross matched bot thing, I'm unable to perform the same trades. Prices move all over the place, sometimes jumping up to 4 ticks in 1 split second. Prices move in a weird fashion and WOM is no longer a good indicator. Totally unpredictable if you want to scalp couple of ticks.
Say under 2.5 is at 2.02 to back and 2.04 to lay. Say you put a 148 units (random ammount) back bet at 2.06 (unmatched), immediatelly a lay bet of over 2.5 will show up at the equivalent price.
NOT GOOD.
Maybe it's no good for you, but it's good for plenty of others and the exchange.
An obvious palpable error will never be paid.
It will be if I make it from my account with sufficient funds to cover it but would it be if it were made by a technical error in Betfair's cross matching process which has eroded my profits?
It will be if I make it from my account with sufficient funds to cover it but would it be if it were made by a technical error in Betfair's cross matching process which has eroded my profits?
An obvious palpable error will never be paid.
Aye robot, are you saying that if I acidentally lay at 101 when intending to lay at 1.01, I can get Betfair to void the bet?
Aye robot, are you saying that if I acidentally lay at 101 when intending to lay at 1.01, I can get Betfair to void the bet?
If your liability is £800,000,000 and you only have 1k in your bank then yes
aye robot,
There was a very realistic way to make money from it.
There was a very realistic way to make money from it.
Investor,
One of the issues this highlights is the status of Betfair versus that of the customer. One of the founding legal principals that allows the exchange to operate is that Betfair is the counter party to all bets - not the customer who's betting against you. I'm not a legal expert by any means, but to me it seems that the error was made by Betfair (allowing the bet) and therefore palpable in the normal way. Your status as a customer is different, as when betting with a normal bookie your errors can't be palped. You might not think that's fair but them's the rules.
For anyone who's not clear on this:
Although it appears that when you bet on Betfair you're betting against other customers this in not really the case. Betfair is a "normal" bookie in that it accepts your bet and pays it out if it wins, it just has a different risk management model in that it only ever accepts pairs of bets that eliminate the risks from each-other. This is what makes Betfair legal. This does raise other legal questions that I'm not qualified to know the answers to - and nor I would venture is anyone posting here as it's pretty damn complex, but it can clear up issues like the one at question.
One of the issues this highlights is the status of Betfair versus that of the customer. One of the founding legal principals that allows the exchange to operate is that Betfair is the counter party to all bets - not the customer who's betting against you. I'm not a legal expert by any means, but to me it seems that the error was made by Betfair (allowing the bet) and therefore palpable in the normal way. Your status as a customer is different, as when betting with a normal bookie your errors can't be palped. You might not think that's fair but them's the rules.
For anyone who's not clear on this:
Although it appears that when you bet on Betfair you're betting against other customers this in not really the case. Betfair is a "normal" bookie in that it accepts your bet and pays it out if it wins, it just has a different risk management model in that it only ever accepts pairs of bets that eliminate the risks from each-other. This is what makes Betfair legal. This does raise other legal questions that I'm not qualified to know the answers to - and nor I would venture is anyone posting here as it's pretty damn complex, but it can clear up issues like the one at question.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539